Lies shatter. REAL matters.
Prove mine is REAL See if theirs is
Fake photos, cloned voices, impersonated accounts — gone from rare to routine. You can’t stop people from faking things. But you can prove what’s actually real. AARA analyzes your photo, voice, video, or document and hands you proof of authenticity you can hold, share, and point to. When it matters that it’s really you — really your work, really your moment — you’ve got the receipt.
Same review either way — one ends in a badge you publish, the other in a record you keep. The difference
Models suggest. Rules decide. Humans govern.
Four steps. No account required.
Choose a package and upload the file you want reviewed. Tell us what specifically made you question it.
Your file runs through a multi-detector forensic arsenal — AI-generation signals, manipulation artifacts, metadata, and provenance.
Fixed rules in code compute the result. The AI writes the explanation; it never decides the outcome.
You receive a PDF with the finding, the reasoning in plain English, and a verification badge you can share.
Protecting your own name, or checking something in front of you. The analysis is identical. What you do with the result is not.
You own the content and your name is on it. The review gives you a dated, independent record, and a REAL Check you can publish — on a listing, a portfolio, a profile, a submission — that anyone can verify against the registry without taking your word for it. This is the badge. It is meant to be shown.
Someone else’s photo, message, recording, or document, and you need to know before you act. The review gives you the same record and the same evidence, but you are usually not publishing anything. It stays private to you, for your own decision. Nothing is posted, and the person whose content you submitted is not notified.
We never certify anything as “authentic.” No screening tool honestly can. Here is every result you can receive, and exactly what each one means.
You can. People do it every day. Here is exactly what you get when you do, and what you do not.
An AI can tell you what it thinks.
It cannot hand you proof.
A chat model is a single generalist answering from one perspective. This is the other approach.
Metadata analysis. Signal complexity. Vocal stress. Frequency artifacts. Source consistency. Structural irregularity. File integrity. Text provenance. Each is a narrow specialist doing one job properly, rather than one model doing everything approximately.
Independent detectors reach independent conclusions. When they conflict, that conflict is reported rather than averaged into a tidy number. A confident answer built on a split panel is a lie of omission.
A chat model changes underneath you without notice; the same question can return a different answer next month. Every component here is pinned to a specific version, so a review can be run again and reach the same result. That is what makes it evidence rather than a chat.
You cannot ask your way to this.
It had to be built.
This is the part most services will not say out loud, so we will say it first.
Every generation of synthetic media is trained against the detectors that caught the last one. That is not a flaw in anyone’s tool — it is how the technology advances. Detection is a treadmill, and everyone on it is running.
A record is not on that treadmill.
A dated, independent record of what your file was — the exact bytes, fingerprinted, examined, and logged by someone other than you — does not weaken when the fakes improve. It is a statement about a moment that already happened, and no future model can reach back and change it.
As synthetic media improves, an old record becomes more valuable and a new one becomes harder to establish. The two curves move in opposite directions, and they cross.
The moment to establish a record is while establishing one still means something. Not when it is contested — by then the material has been forwarded, compressed, and re-saved, and the signal is gone.
Anyone can dispute an opinion.
Nobody can un-record a record.
Anywhere a decision, a reputation, or a relationship rests on whether content is what it claims to be.
Talent acquisition, corporate communications, brand protection and IP, educational facilities.
Dating and social profiles. Family protection against cloned-voice “distress call” scams.
The Shield for the creator proving their work is their own. The Scale for the evaluator who needs a neutral read.
Every option below opens its own page with exactly what is included. REAL QUICK is a single item, priced à la carte. REAL PROFESSIONAL bundles multiple pieces of evidence into one cumulative review — which is where the savings are.
Text or PDF
What is included →One image
What is included →Voice or music
What is included →One clip
What is included →Text plus 2 images. Full report and deep explanation.
What is included →More text, 3 images, and audio.
What is included →The full arsenal — text, images, audio, video, and external evidence links.
What is included →| Package | Piece by piece | Bundled | You save | Member price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PROBE | $100 | $50 | 50% | $25 |
| CASE | $200 | $100 | 50% | $50 |
| DOSSIER | $560 | $250 | 55% | $125 |
The agency that puts proof of REAL in your hand.
A one-time $50 membership with a physical, programmed verification marker mailed to you — and 50% off every review, for as long as you hold it.
50% off all REAL QUICK and REAL PROFESSIONAL reviews. No points, no tiers, no expiring offers.
A programmed marker you can hold. Cards, on-metal markers, printed and optical forms — checked against our registry.
Your marker is not a sticker that says “authentic.” It is tied to an actual forensic review of actual content.
Available on CASE and DOSSIER. Each requires two files — the item in question and a known reference.
Compares a recording in question against a known reference recording of the same person, and reports a relative similarity — never a hard match or no-match.
Consent required. Voice comparison runs only when you explicitly consent to biometric analysis of your submitted recordings for that order.
Compares two code or text files and reports how much material they share — for answering “was my work copied?”
Save or paste your code as a .txt file. Raw source files such as .py or .js are declined by intake; accepted document types are .pdf, .txt, .doc, .docx, and .rtf.
A separate intake lane for law enforcement, legal professionals, and licensed or certified behavioral therapists.
Media and behavioral observation for professional review — investigative work, legal matters, testimony review, and clinical or educational observation contexts.
AARA does not render legal determinations, clinical diagnoses, or verdicts on truthfulness. Analysis is provided for professional review; your professional judgment governs.
After our founder’s company was manipulated by false accusations in this new digital world, it was decided to put up something REAL.
Proprietary intelligence for unverified content. Structured authenticity review before consequences. The story and the process.
Patent pending. An advanced verification layer for sensitive evidence, confidential reports, and chain-of-custody confidence. Technical details are intentionally withheld. Read the teaser.
A complimentary text-only sweep. One document, one run per day, nothing stored. REAL Forensic Lab.
Pick the lane that fits. Members use the REAL Seal Team forms to apply the discount.
A full case, multiple pieces of evidence, one cumulative verdict.
Get your REAL Seal™ Team Key to join, or order a replacement key.
The four we are asked most. The rest are answered in full.
Your submission is routed through a purpose-built stack of 38 distinct forensic tools drawn from 473 pinned software components, with separate detectors for text, images, audio, and video. They reach independent conclusions, and where they disagree the report says so. More.
Yes. Hidden text, invisible characters, and wording embedded in an image can be planted to steer an automated reader’s answer. Paste such a file into a chat model and the reply may be the one the planter intended. Every AARA submission is screened for this before analysis begins. More on this.
Because the signal degrades. By the time something is contested it has usually been forwarded, compressed, and re-saved, and the evidence we measure has been stripped out. A record established while the original file is intact is worth far more than one attempted afterward. The full reasoning.
You can, and it will answer — but it is reasoning about the picture, not measuring it, and it will give you a different answer if you ask again. It also leaves you with a chat log rather than a record anyone else can check. Here is the full comparison.
AI images carry structural artifacts, statistical patterns, and metadata inconsistencies invisible to the eye. We screen a submitted image with multiple independent detectors and report what was found — high-confidence AI generation, suspicious indicators, no reliable evidence of manipulation, or insufficient signal to evaluate.
No service can certify a video as authentic. We analyse sampled frames for deepfake artifacts and report the finding. “No reliable evidence of manipulation” is meaningful, but it is not proof. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Submit the original file. If screening finds no reliable evidence of AI generation, the report documents that finding and issues a shareable verification mark you can point to when your work is challenged.
Most reviews complete in 3 hours or less. You get an email when your case opens and another when the report is ready.