C2PA attaches a signed record of who did what to a file. It is useful and it is easy to misread. A valid signature means the file has not changed since it was signed — not that the signer is who they say they are.
The tool that made it, the actions performed, the ingredients used, and a field declaring whether the content is AI-generated. More and more generators write that declaration into their output, so when it is present it is the quickest and most certain answer available.
Minting a self-signed certificate and genuinely signing a manifest that claims a particular camera took the photograph costs one command. Files made that way verify as valid. So whether the certificate appears in a known trust list has to be checked separately, and reported separately from validity.
Without a trust list installed there is no way to compare the certificate. Calling it an unknown certificate in that state is an accusation against the file. The right thing is to record that no comparison was made, and to say that installing a list will make the next analysis compare it.
No signature at all is ordinary and not a bad sign — most photographs never had one. A signature that does not match the content is different: it means the file changed after signing, and that is worth pursuing.
This is general guidance, not legal advice. A scan result is a probabilistic assessment, not proof.