ZONN.ai Forensic Report

Case · FA8831F3 · IMAGE

Analyzed byAnonymous
ZONN Analysis
0

Inconclusive

Signals are mixed or weak. We can't tell with confidence — context, source, and your own judgement matter here.

Signal ConfidenceLimited · 38/100

Analysed Specimen

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

Heads up — 5 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.

Heavy JPEG compression

Note

Bytes-per-pixel is 0.038 — the image is heavily compressed. ML accuracy drops on heavily re-encoded images; treat the verdict with extra caution.

Just below the AI threshold

Note

The score (58/100) is right at the boundary between inconclusive and AI (60). A single signal flip could swing the verdict — treat this as suggestive rather than definitive.

No metadata at all

AI evidence

The file has no EXIF, XMP, IPTC, or ICC metadata. This is common for social-media re-uploads and for many generator outputs — real camera files almost always carry an ICC profile.

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).

No ICC color profile

AI evidence

The image does not embed an ICC color profile. Real camera files almost always carry sRGB or Adobe RGB profiles — a missing profile is often a sign of generator output or re-encoded media.

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

  • SigLIP AI Detectorflagged AI · 100/100

    SigLIP visual-language model probing semantic vs perceptual coherence.

  • INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)flagged AI · 100/100

    BEiT-Large dual-head classifier trained on FLUX, Midjourney, and real photo corpora.

Model Agreement

42%

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 69
▸ expand
SigLIP AI Detector
100
INA v2 (FLUX/MJ)
100
Bombek1 SigLIP+DINOv2
83
xRayon ConvNeXtV2
19
CommFor (4803 Generators)
61
Manipulation Map (IML-ViT)
50
Pixel & Frequency Forensics7 detectors · mean 49
▸ expand
Noise Pattern
97
Color Distribution
11
Error Level Analysis
14
Frequency Analysis
76
Pixel Analysis
45
Edge Consistency
45
Compression Quality
53
Provenance & Metadata3 detectors · mean 54
▸ expand
ICC Profile
62
Metadata
50
C2PA Provenance
50

Image Quality

AI-typical dimensions
Dimensions
1024 × 1024 px
Aspect
1.000
File size
39.4 KB
Bytes / pixel
0.038

Frequency Analysis

Radial1.000
DCT0.783
Upsampling1.000
Cross-channel0.274
Power-law β
-4.02
Grid energy
0.325

Edge Consistency

CV 0.638
Cell 1: 1.0870Cell 2: 0.9844Cell 3: 1.0543Cell 4: 1.3400Cell 5: 1.6793Cell 6: 1.3486Cell 7: 2.1117Cell 8: 2.0710Cell 9: 1.1222Cell 10: 1.8793Cell 11: 1.7408Cell 12: 3.3915Cell 13: 1.0556Cell 14: 3.1597Cell 15: 5.7513Cell 16: 4.8525

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

Range: 0.98445.7513

Noise Fingerprint

Variance
1.31
Std deviation
1.15
Mean
0.0
Spatial corr.
0.575
Mean Δ
0.67
σ
0.87
CV
1.292
Uniformity
-0.292

Provenance

Source Dossier

PlatformDirect upload
Author
Content Typeimage
Analyzed OnMay 16, 2026, 10:19 PM
Analyzed byAnonymous