ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · EF231624 · IMAGE

Analyzed byAnonymous
ZONN Analysis
0

Probably real

More signals lean toward real than AI, but some give weaker readings. Worth a second look on close inspection.

Signal ConfidenceLimited · 53/100

Analysed Specimen

Original analysed image
Forensic suspicion heatmap
OriginalHeatmap
POS55/100
No flagged regions

Heads up — 2 things to know

Why this analysis might be off

We highlight every disagreement and unusual signal we found so you can judge for yourself. Stronger warnings come first; informational notes are at the bottom.

Upsampling artifacts in the frequency domain

AI evidence

FFT analysis found strong upsampling patterns — a fingerprint of diffusion-model VAE decoders (latent → pixel-space upscale).

ML detectors see this image differently

Note

ML scores span a wide range (0–99). Different architectures read different feature spaces; the majority vote strengthens the consensus, but no single model is fully reliable here.

Origin Check

Trace this image elsewhere

Cross-reference the source against major reverse-image services. Each link opens in a new tab with the image URL preloaded — ZONN.ai does not re-upload the image.

Why this verdict

  • CommFor (4803 Generators)read real · 0/100

    CommFor detector trained across 4,803 generator variants for broad coverage.

  • SigLIP AI Detectorflagged AI · 99/100

    SigLIP visual-language model probing semantic vs perceptual coherence.

Model Agreement

28%

Variance across 6 ML detectors. Higher agreement means the models converged on the same reading; lower agreement means treat the verdict with care.

Evidence — 16 detectors reviewed

What each detector saw

Each detector independently gave this imagea score from 0 (definitely real) to 100 (definitely AI). The score above is their weighted consensus — detectors with higher confidence count more. No single detector decides; you read the spread.

ML Models6 detectors · mean 28
▸ expand
CommFor (4803 Generators)
0
SigLIP AI Detector
99
xRayon ConvNeXtV2
3
Bombek1 SigLIP+DINOv2
7
INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)
10
Manipulation Map (IML-ViT)
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 38
▸ expand
Noise Pattern
19
Color Distribution
22
Error Level Analysis
35
Frequency Analysis
62
Compression Quality
43
Edge Consistency
43
Pixel Analysis
45
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 54
▸ expand
ICC Profile
62
Metadata
50
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

Dimensions
800 × 600 px
Aspect
1.333
File size
95.8 KB
Bytes / pixel
0.204

Frequency Analysis

Radial0.847
DCT0.693
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.011
Power-law β
-2.60
Grid energy
0.461

Edge Consistency

CV 0.709
Cell 1: 68.2471Cell 2: 59.9026Cell 3: 39.8962Cell 4: 36.0385Cell 5: 35.5767Cell 6: 62.4604Cell 7: 36.0637Cell 8: 48.5121Cell 9: 9.6793Cell 10: 5.1579Cell 11: 4.6757Cell 12: 26.7902Cell 13: 7.5564Cell 14: 12.1575Cell 15: 13.1848Cell 16: 10.4256

Per-region edge density (4 × 4 grid). Uneven distribution may indicate localized editing or splicing; uniform fields are typical of fully synthetic outputs.

Range: 4.675768.2471

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
273.12
Std deviation
16.53
Mean
-0.0
Spatial corr.
7.324
Mean Δ
2.23
σ
2.18
CV
0.979
Uniformity
0.021

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 14, 2026, 6:18 PM
Analyzed byAnonymous