A signed image still needs a source check.

What the standard establishes

C2PA describes signed provenance records associated with media. Its explainer explicitly distinguishes those records from proof that depicted events are factual. A useful review therefore examines both the file’s record and the real-world claim.

Sources: C2PA: C2PA and Content Credentials Explainer, version 2.2

Keep three findings separate

Write one line about the file: which asset did you inspect, and did the tool validate a supported record? Write another about the assertion: who is identified, what creation or editing steps are described, and what is absent? Use a third line for the caption: what outside evidence supports the claimed person, place or date?

These lines can disagree without the inspection being broken. A valid production record may describe a generated illustration. A photograph may have a documented edit. An old signed photograph can be attached to a new, unsupported event claim.

1. Keep the original downloaded file and its source URL together.
2. Inspect supported credentials and retain the validation details.
3. Read the assertions instead of reporting only a badge or icon.
4. State the precise conclusion: signed record inspected, claim corroborated, or context unresolved.

A useful example to work through

Imagine a publisher releases a signed illustration of a future stadium. A repost calls it a photograph of a completed venue. The production record and the publisher’s original caption can resolve the dispute without a visual guessing contest.

For a real investigation, record the publisher’s wording and the file version you tested. If you inspect a screenshot instead, say so: your finding belongs to that screenshot, not automatically to the original asset.