Example: Photo from a phone
A real photograph with its camera EXIF intact — make, model, aperture and shutter speed.
This is a real result from the same pipeline a visitor uses — not a mock-up. Upload the same file and you get the same verdict.
The evidence is genuinely mixed (21–50%). This file cannot be called either way with the information available, which is a common and honest outcome for compressed or edited images.
Supporting signals
Individually weak. They shift the estimate but never decide it.
- Camera EXIF presentpoints to human · Statistical hint
Recorded as shot on Apple iPhone 15 Pro at f/1.8. Metadata can be faked, but generators rarely add it.
Detection models
The file's own metadata was conclusive, so no model was needed.
Analysed in 0.1s. Detection models are unreliable on content they weren't trained on, and text detectors are documented to misjudge writing by non-native English speakers. Never use this as sole evidence of wrongdoing.
Why this matters. Notice this does not say 'human'. One weak signal is not proof, so the honest answer is that we cannot tell. Most detectors would invent a confident number here.