docs: correct SynthID spectral-carrier understanding

Deeper re-examination (2026-05-25) of github.com/aloshdenny/reverse-SynthID
on our own data corrects the earlier over-stated dead-end:

- The carrier IS real on solid fills -- measured via per-bin PHASE
  COHERENCE (the prior probe used spatial/FFT-magnitude NCC, which can't
  see a fixed-phase carrier). White gemini-2.5-flash fills: coherence 0.86
  at carriers (0,+/-7..12,20..23) vs 0.31 random; single-image phase-match
  +0.83 vs -0.24 for real photos.
- But it does not generalize: carriers are model-version/resolution/color
  specific (v4 codebook for 3.1-flash/nb-pro scores ~0.5 on 2.5-flash),
  and collapse on real content (coherence ~random; v4 content 0.518 vs
  neg 0.504, no separation).

Net: a controlled-fill characterizer, not a real-content detector.
Metadata proxy + visible sparkle + online oracles remain the ceiling.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

CLAUDE.md

@@ -47,6 +47,6 @@ Who embeds what, and whether it is locally detectable (so we know which gaps are
 - Pyright first run is slow (2-3 min) due to ML deps (torch/diffusers/transformers stubs); full-project `uv run pyright` can stall for many minutes — scope it to changed files.
 - `ultralytics` monkey-patches `PIL.Image.open` and tries to autoload `pi_heif`. When `pi_heif` is missing, opening files raises `ModuleNotFoundError`, not `UnidentifiedImageError`. Code that opens user-supplied or unknown-format files should `except Exception`, not just `OSError`/`UnidentifiedImageError`.
 - Metadata detection for AVIF/HEIF/JPEG-XL relies on a binary scan for `C2PA_UUID` + `IPTC_AI_MARKERS`, plus EXIF `Software` / XMP `CreatorTool` generator tags via `metadata.exif_generator` (validated with synthesized AVIF/JPEG fixtures + an XMP raw-scan fixture). C2PA removal in those containers is implemented via `noai/isobmff.py` (top-level ``uuid`` / ``jumb`` box stripper, no re-encoding). EXIF/XMP boxes inside those containers are read for detection but not yet **scrubbed** on removal.
-- **SynthID detection is metadata-only.** There is no reliable *local* detector of the SynthID *pixel* watermark — Google's decoder is proprietary, no public spec or API (only a waitlisted portal). We detect SynthID by its C2PA companion (`synthid_source` / `SYNTHID_C2PA_ISSUERS`), which is reliable while the manifest is intact but says nothing once C2PA is stripped. **Surface-dependent blind spot (verified 2026-05-24):** the same Google model emits different metadata per surface -- the Gemini *app* wraps outputs in Google C2PA, but the *API/playground* (AI Studio, Nano Banana / gemini-2.5-flash-image) emits the SynthID *pixel* watermark (confirmed via the Gemini-app oracle) + the visible sparkle but **no C2PA/IPTC at all**, so `synthid_source` returns None despite SynthID being present. Only the pixel oracle or the visible-sparkle detector catches those. (Meta AI is another surface mismatch: it writes the IPTC `digitalSourceType=trainedAlgorithmicMedia` marker, not C2PA and not SynthID.) Google→SynthID is long-standing; OpenAI→SynthID is confirmed by OpenAI's Help Center (ChatGPT/Codex/API "include both C2PA metadata and SynthID watermarks", updated 2026-05-21) but time-gated (pre-rollout OpenAI images carry C2PA without SynthID), so the OpenAI verdict is hedged "likely". Oracles: Gemini app "Verify with SynthID" (Google), openai.com/verify (OpenAI). The spectral phase-coherence approach from `github.com/aloshdenny/reverse-SynthID` was evaluated (May 2026) and **does not work for real-content detection**: on its own shipped codebook + validation set, watermarked and cleaned images were indistinguishable (conf within noise, cleaned often higher); it only fires on pure-black 1024x1024 reference images at exact resolution (the controlled case it was calibrated on). The README's "90% / conf=0.91" reproduces only in that lab condition. Do not build a production detector on it; if revisited, it is experimental/diagnostic only and needs a per-resolution, per-model reference corpus. A from-scratch gpt-image pilot (2026-05-24) confirmed this independently: 5 independent solid-black gpt-image outputs share a near-identical fixed signature (pairwise residual correlation **0.92**, avg-template retains 97% energy), so the watermark/carrier IS strongly present and consistent on flat content — but the carrier frequencies extracted from it do NOT discriminate real content (carrier-to-random ratio: cleaned 1.86 > watermarked 1.53; a non-gpt-image image scored highest at 3.67). The signature drowns in content texture. Net: a perfectly consistent solid-color signature still yields no real-content pixel detector with magnitude/carrier methods. A corpus discrimination test (2026-05-24, `scripts/synthid_pixel_probe.py`, raw zero-mean residual NCC) independently re-confirms this: at matched resolution, SynthID positives do NOT cluster apart from negatives (within-Gemini 0.07; at 1024 px pos-vs-neg >= pos-vs-pos). The only high correlations were near-duplicate *content* (5 ChatGPT renders of one prompt at ~0.92, while a distinct ChatGPT image scored ~0 against them) — content, not a carrier. The probe is solid-fills-only and EXPERIMENTAL/DIAGNOSTIC; do not use it on real content.
+- **SynthID detection is metadata-only.** There is no reliable *local* detector of the SynthID *pixel* watermark — Google's decoder is proprietary, no public spec or API (only a waitlisted portal). We detect SynthID by its C2PA companion (`synthid_source` / `SYNTHID_C2PA_ISSUERS`), which is reliable while the manifest is intact but says nothing once C2PA is stripped. **Surface-dependent blind spot (verified 2026-05-24):** the same Google model emits different metadata per surface -- the Gemini *app* wraps outputs in Google C2PA, but the *API/playground* (AI Studio, Nano Banana / gemini-2.5-flash-image) emits the SynthID *pixel* watermark (confirmed via the Gemini-app oracle) + the visible sparkle but **no C2PA/IPTC at all**, so `synthid_source` returns None despite SynthID being present. Only the pixel oracle or the visible-sparkle detector catches those. (Meta AI is another surface mismatch: it writes the IPTC `digitalSourceType=trainedAlgorithmicMedia` marker, not C2PA and not SynthID.) Google→SynthID is long-standing; OpenAI→SynthID is confirmed by OpenAI's Help Center (ChatGPT/Codex/API "include both C2PA metadata and SynthID watermarks", updated 2026-05-21) but time-gated (pre-rollout OpenAI images carry C2PA without SynthID), so the OpenAI verdict is hedged "likely". Oracles: Gemini app "Verify with SynthID" (Google), openai.com/verify (OpenAI). The spectral phase-coherence approach from `github.com/aloshdenny/reverse-SynthID` was evaluated (May 2026) and **does not work for real-content detection**: on its own shipped codebook + validation set, watermarked and cleaned images were indistinguishable (conf within noise, cleaned often higher); it only fires on pure-black 1024x1024 reference images at exact resolution (the controlled case it was calibrated on). The README's "90% / conf=0.91" reproduces only in that lab condition. Do not build a production detector on it; if revisited, it is experimental/diagnostic only and needs a per-resolution, per-model reference corpus. A from-scratch gpt-image pilot (2026-05-24) confirmed this independently: 5 independent solid-black gpt-image outputs share a near-identical fixed signature (pairwise residual correlation **0.92**, avg-template retains 97% energy), so the watermark/carrier IS strongly present and consistent on flat content — but the carrier frequencies extracted from it do NOT discriminate real content (carrier-to-random ratio: cleaned 1.86 > watermarked 1.53; a non-gpt-image image scored highest at 3.67). The signature drowns in content texture. Net: a perfectly consistent solid-color signature still yields no real-content pixel detector with magnitude/carrier methods. A corpus discrimination test (2026-05-24, `scripts/synthid_pixel_probe.py`, raw zero-mean residual NCC) independently re-confirms this: at matched resolution, SynthID positives do NOT cluster apart from negatives (within-Gemini 0.07; at 1024 px pos-vs-neg >= pos-vs-pos). The only high correlations were near-duplicate *content* (5 ChatGPT renders of one prompt at ~0.92, while a distinct ChatGPT image scored ~0 against them) — content, not a carrier. The probe is solid-fills-only and EXPERIMENTAL/DIAGNOSTIC; do not use it on real content. **Correction (deeper re-examination 2026-05-25):** the carrier IS real on solid fills — the earlier "no carrier" was a *method* artifact of using spatial / FFT-magnitude NCC, which can't see it. The carrier is a fixed *phase* at specific low frequencies, so the right metric is **per-bin phase coherence**. On 8 white `gemini-2.5-flash-image` fills (generated via the reverse-SynthID trick: identity-edit prompt "Recreate this image exactly as it is" on a synthetic pure-white PNG — this bypasses the recitation block that rejects text prompts for pure colors), phase coherence at the white carriers `(0,±7..±12,±20..±23)` = **0.86** vs **0.31** random; single-image leave-one-out phase-match **+0.83** vs real photos **-0.24**. (Black `2.5-flash` fills clip to std≈0 — SynthID can't push values below 0, so no carrier in black; the repo's dark carriers come from nano-banana-pro.) **But it does not generalize:** (a) carriers are model-version + resolution + color specific — the repo's v4 codebook (built for `gemini-3.1-flash-image-preview` + `nano-banana-pro-preview`) scores ~0.527 on my 2.5-flash white fills, indistinguishable from negatives (~0.50), i.e. carriers shift across model versions and need a per-model codebook; (b) on real content (30 `2.5-flash` images) the carrier collapses — set phase coherence at carriers 0.37 ≈ random 0.42, and the repo's v4 detector gives content 0.518 ≈ negatives 0.504 (no separation; a faint +0.24 single-image lean is likely a brightness confound). Net: the spectral/phase approach is a real *controlled-fill* characterizer, NOT an arbitrary-real-content detector, and is brittle to model version. Metadata proxy + visible sparkle + online oracles remain the ceiling for real content.
 - **External AI-vs-real classifier models are out of scope (decided 2026-05-24).** Generic HuggingFace detectors (`Organika/sdxl-detector` Swin Transformer, `umm-maybe/AI-image-detector`, and fine-tunes) exist and report ~0.98 on their *own* SDXL-vs-real validation sets, but they are per-generator and the model cards themselves note degraded accuracy off-distribution; they are untested on gpt-image / Gemini Nano Banana (the metadata-stripped surfaces we care about), and our own light SDXL pass would likely defeat them the same way it defeats SynthID. Detection here stays local + signal-based (metadata + visible sparkle); do not add a bundled classifier dependency.
 - **SynthID v2 vs default pipeline:** the SDXL-based default profile (since May 2026) defeats SynthID v2. **Verified end-to-end (May 2026):** local SDXL run on a Gemini 3 Pro output, checked via the Gemini app's "Verify with SynthID" feature, returned "no SynthID watermark detected". Also confirmed against **OpenAI's** SynthID (2026-05-23): a fresh ChatGPT/gpt-image output read "SynthID detected" on openai.com/verify before the local SDXL run and "SynthID not detected" after (corpus regression chain: pos `4ef377bd` -> cleaned `47188e88`). The same configuration is used in raiw-app production (`fal-ai/fast-sdxl` at native ~1024 px, strength 0.05, steps 50). SD-1.5 dreamshaper at 768 px was previously the default and does NOT defeat v2 — verified empirically against the same feature (strength 0.04, 0.10, and elastic warp α∈{5,8} all flagged positive). That SD-1.5 path was removed; only `default` (SDXL) and `ctrlregen` profiles remain.