Digital forensics asks, with evidence, when and how a file was made and whether it has been touched since. Now that AI-made photos and voices turn up as evidence too, what matters is not whether something looks real but which signals say so — checked one by one and written down.
First, whether there is a C2PA provenance signature, whether it is valid, and whether its issuer is on a trust list. Next, the metadata such as EXIF and XMP, the capture device and any marks a generator left behind. On the pixel side, JPEG quantization tables, recompression traces (ELA), noise and frequency patterns reveal re-saving and local edits. Finally the file hash is recorded so anyone can later confirm it is the same file.
Origma splits the work into three questions: how likely AI made the file, whether its origin can be proven, and whether it shows tampering or editing. The three are judged separately, never blended, and every signal behind a verdict goes into the evidence ledger with its direction (towards AI or human), strength, analysis level and raw location. Evidence that cuts against the verdict is kept too, so you can see exactly what could be disputed.
Keep the file exactly as you received it and avoid copies that came back through a messenger: those lose metadata and signatures and are recompressed, which removes most of the evidence. The report records the file hash, the analysis time and the engine and signature-database versions, so the same versions reproduce the same result. Exporting a signed PDF also shows whether the report was changed afterwards.
Origma's results are probabilistic assessments, not legal proof, and they do not replace a report from a certified forensic laboratory. When evidence is thin it returns "inconclusive" as a real result, and it states its weak spots openly, such as AI fills that remove part of a photo. For court cases, disciplinary decisions or anything with similar weight, treat the report as material for judgement and get expert and legal review.
This is general guidance, not legal advice. A scan result is a probabilistic assessment, not proof.