开窗前住户先在同一房间活动并开灯，是主动行为

Insufficient evidence to confirm a security threat; the observed lock state is consistent with normal user behavior (door held open) but lacks resolution data to rule out malfunction or intrusion definitively.

Explanation: The logs show a manual unlock at 08:23 followed by the door contact sensor reporting 'open' (false) and no subsequent auto-lock event until the end of the provided logs at 09:18.

Explanation: This pattern creates an ambiguous state: it could be a legitimate user leaving the door ajar for an extended period (consistent with high entrance/living room occupancy), or it could indicate a device failure/intrusion where the door was never secured.

Explanation: The Supervisor explicitly flagged that the investigation is incomplete because it stops at 09:18 without observing the resolution of this state (i.e., whether the door was eventually locked or if the contact sensor returned to 'closed').

Explanation: Without evidence of the final state (locked/unlocked) or explicit fault codes/alarm events, we cannot distinguish between a benign routine (holding door open) and a security breach or malfunction.

Explanation: Per safety verification rules, we must not escalate to `lock_malfunction` or `intrusion` based solely on a prolonged unlocked interval without corroborating evidence of forced entry, failed lock commands, or persistent insecure outcome after the window closes. The current evidence supports a 'normal hypothesis' (user holding door) as plausibly as the anomaly hypotheses.

Explanation: Therefore, due to the high risk of false alarm and missing resolution data, the safest and most accurate classification is 'none' with low confidence.

Manual unlock at 08:23:00 with LockState=unlocked.

Door contact sensor reports 'open' (false) at 08:23:02 and remains unreported/closed in subsequent chunks.

No auto-lock or manual re-lock event recorded between 08:23 and 09:18.

Persistent 'occupied' status at entrance and living room suggests human presence, supporting the 'held open' theory.

Review C07 or later logs to determine if the door was eventually locked.

Check video/audio feeds from the entrance camera around 08:23-09:18 to verify if a resident was holding the door or if an intruder was present.

Verify auto-lock configuration settings to ensure they are enabled and functioning correctly.

判断入户门锁的状态变化是否构成安全威胁

LockState flips without corresponding occupancy or manual command evidence

Potential unauthorized access or sensor malfunction at entrance during night/early morning hours

C00: Establishes baseline lock state and low activity levels before the potential incident window.

C04: Captures the transition period where bedroom/kitchen occupancy begins, potentially correlating with door activity.

C05: Shows continued occupancy patterns; critical for checking if lock states align with human presence.

判断入户门锁的状态变化是否构成安全威胁

The door remained unlocked because the resident held the door open or was in the process of entering/exiting, preventing the auto-lock from triggering. The 'unlocked' state at 08:23 coincides with high entrance occupancy (raw=1) and living room activity, suggesting a continuous presence event rather than a security breach.

At 08:23:00, `front_door_lock` is manually unlocked (`LockOperationType=1`).

Immediately after, at 08:23:02, `front_door_contact` reports `false` (open).

From 08:23:03 onwards, `entrance_occupancy` remains `occupied` (raw=1) continuously through 09:18.

In the previous cycle (06:55), the door locked automatically only after the contact sensor reported `true` (closed) and presumably after a brief delay; here, the door never reports closed again in the logs.

High occupancy counts in entrance (231) and living room (498) suggest active household movement.

Does not explain why the door was not closed for a full 55-minute period while occupants were present inside.

Assumes user intent without explicit confirmation of door position beyond the single 'open' reading.

The system is functioning normally; the lack of an auto-lock event is due to the door remaining physically open (contact sensor false) or the auto-lock feature being disabled/configured differently for this specific entry/exit pattern.

Matter notes indicate `BooleanState` should be interpreted using transitions; the transition to `false` at 08:23:02 suggests the door was open.

Auto-lock mechanisms typically require a 'closed' signal before engaging. Since no 'closed' signal is logged after 08:23, the lock engine has no trigger to act.

No fault codes or error events are present in the logs.

Relies on the assumption that the contact sensor is accurate and didn't miss a closing event.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating where an intruder entered via the front door (manual unlock at 08:23) and remained inside, causing the door to stay open/unlocked. The persistent 'occupied' status at the entrance may reflect the intruder's presence or a sensor stuck in 'occupied' mode due to the open door.

Manual unlock at 08:23:00 followed by immediate door open (contact=false).

Door remains unlocked until end of logs (09:18) with no subsequent lock event.

Entrance occupancy remains 'occupied' (raw=1) for the entire duration post-unlock, which could indicate someone lingering at the threshold or inside.

Contrast with 06:55 cycle: The door was opened, then quickly closed and locked. The 08:23 cycle shows no closure.

Living room occupancy also jumps to 'occupied' at 08:23:07, suggesting movement into the main house immediately after the door event.

Could be explained by normal user behavior (holding door open, moving slowly, or leaving door ajar).

Lack of explicit 'intruder' signals (e.g., forced entry alarms, multiple failed attempts).

Occupancy sensors can remain 'occupied' simply because the door is open and motion is detected near the entrance.

Device malfunction: The auto-lock feature failed to engage despite the door potentially being closed, or the contact sensor failed to report the 'closed' state, leading to a prolonged insecure state.

Previous successful auto-lock cycle at 06:55 demonstrates the feature works.

Current cycle shows manual unlock but no corresponding auto-lock or manual re-lock.

Contact sensor reports 'open' at 08:23:02 but no further updates are explicitly listed for the contact sensor in C06, creating a blind spot regarding the actual physical state of the door.

If the door *was* closed, the failure to lock constitutes a safety device failure.

Requires assuming the door was actually closed, which contradicts the last known contact state.

No explicit fault/error logs from the lock device itself.

The `front_door_contact` state is `false` (open) at 08:23:02 and never returns to `true` in the provided logs.

The absence of any `LockOperation` event (auto or manual) locking the door between 08:23 and 09:18.

The contrast with the 06:55 event where the door was successfully auto-locked shortly after opening.

Persistent `entrance_occupancy = occupied` (raw=1) from 08:23:03 to 09:18.

Post-08:23 status of `front_door_contact`: Did it ever return to `true` (closed)?

Any subsequent `LockOperation` events after 09:18 (did it eventually lock?).

Video or audio logs from the entrance camera/microphone to verify if a person was holding the door or if an intrusion occurred.

Configuration settings for the auto-lock timer (is it enabled? what is the timeout?).

Verification of whether the resident left the house or stayed inside during this window.

At 08:23:00, `front_door_lock` is manually unlocked (`LockOperationType=1`).

Immediately after, at 08:23:02, `front_door_contact` reports `false` (open).

From 08:23:03 onwards, `entrance_occupancy` remains `occupied` (raw=1) continuously through 09:18.

High occupancy counts in entrance (231) and living room (498) suggest active household movement.

No fault codes or error events are present in the logs.

Manual unlock at 08:23:00 followed by immediate door open (contact=false).

Door remains unlocked until end of logs (09:18) with no subsequent lock event.

Contrast with 06:55 cycle: The door was opened, then quickly closed and locked. The 08:23 cycle shows no closure.

Living room occupancy also jumps to 'occupied' at 08:23:07, suggesting movement into the main house immediately after the door event.

Previous successful auto-lock cycle at 06:55 demonstrates the feature works.

Current cycle shows manual unlock but no corresponding auto-lock or manual re-lock.

If the door *was* closed, the failure to lock constitutes a safety device failure.

Post-09:18 lock state and contact sensor status to determine if the door was eventually closed/locked.

Verification of whether the 'unlocked' state at 08:23 persisted or reverted, and if any subsequent manual/auto lock events occurred.

Corroboration of occupancy transitions (e.g., did entrance_occupancy ever go unoccupied?) to rule out sensor stuck-on vs. actual presence.

The investigator correctly identifies the core anomaly: a manual unlock at 08:23 followed by a prolonged period where the door remains unlocked and the contact sensor reports 'open' (false), with no corresponding auto-lock event.

However, the investigation is incomplete because it stops at 09:18 without observing the resolution of this state. The logs provided end while the door is still effectively in an insecure/unverified state.

Without C07 (or later chunks) showing whether the door was eventually locked or if the contact sensor returned to 'closed', we cannot distinguish between a legitimate user leaving the door ajar for a long time, a device malfunction, or a security breach that was later mitigated.

The current evidence supports a 'potential threat' hypothesis but lacks the 'outcome' evidence required for a definitive safety verdict. The risk of false alarm is high because the 'intrusion' narrative relies on the assumption that the open door was never secured, which is not yet proven by the available logs.

Refinement is needed to see the final state of the lock/contact sensors after the observation window.

Normal morning routine: Resident wakes up, unlocks door to exit (or let someone in), and the auto-lock engages immediately after closing. Subsequent occupancy in the entrance/living room confirms presence.

C04: At 06:55:02, `front_door_lock` shows `LockOperationType=1` (Unlock) with `OperationSource=Manual`. This is a standard user action.

C04: Immediately after, at 06:55:05, `LockOperationType=0` (Lock) occurs with `OperationSource=Auto`. This indicates a configured 'auto-lock' feature triggered by door closure or timer.

C04: The `front_door_contact` sensor toggles false/true rapidly around 06:55:04-06:55:05, consistent with the physical act of opening and closing the door.

C04/C05/C06: `entrance_occupancy` transitions to occupied (raw=1) at 06:55:05 and remains occupied through C06, indicating the resident is inside the home after the lock event.

C04: Other rooms (bedroom, kitchen) show normal waking patterns (occupancy becoming occupied) around the same time.

Does not fully explain the second unlock event at 08:23:00 if it was also an exit, as no corresponding 'exit' movement out of the house is explicitly logged (though living room occupancy increases).

Assumes the auto-lock functioned correctly without manual intervention for the second event.

Second unlock at 08:23 was a legitimate re-entry or internal adjustment, followed by continued occupancy.

C05: At 08:23:00, `front_door_lock` unlocks manually again.

C06: Immediately following this, `entrance_occupancy` and `living_room_occupancy` are confirmed occupied (raw=1).

The sequence suggests the door was opened (perhaps to check outside, receive a package, or let someone in) and then remained open or the person stayed near the entrance/living area.

No evidence of forced entry or lack of subsequent locking that would indicate a security breach.

The door did not auto-lock after the 08:23 event within the provided log window (C06 ends at 09:18), which might be unusual if auto-lock is always on, but could be due to the door being held open or the resident staying in the threshold area.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating: The first unlock at 06:55 might have been initiated by an intruder or allowed entry, followed by the resident entering later, or the auto-lock failed to secure the door properly if the contact sensor was bypassed.

C04: The unlock at 06:55:02 is Manual. If an intruder forced the door or used a stolen credential, they could unlock it.

C04: The auto-lock happens 3 seconds later. If the intruder left during those 3 seconds, the door locks behind them, securing the house but allowing prior entry.

C04: Occupancy in bedroom/kitchen starts rising *before* the lock event (06:23-06:30), suggesting someone was already inside or entered earlier. The lock event at 06:55 might be the resident leaving or returning, creating ambiguity about who was present when the door was unlocked.

The `OperationSource=Manual` combined with immediate `Occupancy=occupied` in adjacent rooms makes a simple 'resident woke up and left' scenario more likely than intrusion.

No evidence of forced entry (no high-force contact sensor values, though raw force isn't shown, the contact state is binary).

The rapid auto-lock suggests the system behaved as expected for a closed door.

Lock malfunction or failure to auto-lock on second event: The door remained unlocked from 08:23 until at least 09:18 (end of logs), potentially leaving the home insecure.

C05: At 08:23:00, the door is unlocked manually.

C06: Logs continue until 09:18:00. Throughout this entire hour, there is NO record of the door locking again (neither manual nor auto).

In contrast, the previous cycle (C04) showed an auto-lock occurring 3 seconds after unlock.

If the auto-lock feature is enabled, the failure to lock for nearly an hour represents a security gap.

It is possible the resident kept the door open intentionally (e.g., ventilation, waiting for someone) or disabled auto-lock temporarily.

The `entrance_occupancy` remains 1, so the door might have been propped open or the sensor didn't register a 'closed' state required for auto-lock.

Without explicit fault codes, this is a behavioral anomaly rather than a definitive device fault.

C04: 06:55:02 Manual Unlock -> 06:55:05 Auto Lock sequence with immediate Entrance Occupancy=1.

C05/C06: 08:23:00 Manual Unlock with NO subsequent Lock event in the next 55 minutes (C06 end).

Confirmation of whether the 'Auto-Lock' feature is permanently enabled or if it can be disabled via app/manual override.

State of the `front_door_contact` sensor between 08:23 and 09:18 (was the door physically closed or ajar?).

User identity verification for the manual unlock events (was it the homeowner or another authorized user?).

Logs for any other doors/windows to rule out alternative entry points.

At 08:23:00, `front_door_lock` is manually unlocked (`LockOperationType=1`).

Immediately after, at 08:23:02, `front_door_contact` reports `false` (open).

From 08:23:03 onwards, `entrance_occupancy` remains `occupied` (raw=1) continuously through 09:18.

High occupancy counts in entrance (231) and living room (498) suggest active household movement.

Does not explain why the door was not closed for a full 55-minute period while occupants were present inside.

Assumes user intent without explicit confirmation of door position beyond the single 'open' reading.

No fault codes or error events are present in the logs.

Relies on the assumption that the contact sensor is accurate and didn't miss a closing event.

Manual unlock at 08:23:00 followed by immediate door open (contact=false).

Door remains unlocked until end of logs (09:18) with no subsequent lock event.

Contrast with 06:55 cycle: The door was opened, then quickly closed and locked. The 08:23 cycle shows no closure.

Living room occupancy also jumps to 'occupied' at 08:23:07, suggesting movement into the main house immediately after the door event.

Could be explained by normal user behavior (holding door open, moving slowly, or leaving door ajar).

Lack of explicit 'intruder' signals (e.g., forced entry alarms, multiple failed attempts).

Occupancy sensors can remain 'occupied' simply because the door is open and motion is detected near the entrance.

Previous successful auto-lock cycle at 06:55 demonstrates the feature works.

Current cycle shows manual unlock but no corresponding auto-lock or manual re-lock.

If the door *was* closed, the failure to lock constitutes a safety device failure.

Requires assuming the door was actually closed, which contradicts the last known contact state.

No explicit fault/error logs from the lock device itself.

At 08:23:00, `front_door_lock` is manually unlocked (`LockOperationType=1`).

Immediately after, at 08:23:02, `front_door_contact` reports `false` (open).

From 08:23:03 onwards, `entrance_occupancy` remains `occupied` (raw=1) continuously through 09:18.

High occupancy counts in entrance (231) and living room (498) suggest active household movement.

No fault codes or error events are present in the logs.

Manual unlock at 08:23:00 followed by immediate door open (contact=false).

Door remains unlocked until end of logs (09:18) with no subsequent lock event.

Contrast with 06:55 cycle: The door was opened, then quickly closed and locked. The 08:23 cycle shows no closure.

Living room occupancy also jumps to 'occupied' at 08:23:07, suggesting movement into the main house immediately after the door event.

Previous successful auto-lock cycle at 06:55 demonstrates the feature works.

Current cycle shows manual unlock but no corresponding auto-lock or manual re-lock.

If the door *was* closed, the failure to lock constitutes a safety device failure.

Verify if the 'unlocked' state at 06:55 was preceded by a 'locked' state in earlier chunks (C00-C03) to confirm the lock cycle.

Check for any `LockOperation` events or state changes between 08:23 and 09:18 that might indicate the door was closed but not logged as locked, or if the contact sensor remained open.

Confirm if the auto-lock feature is enabled and functioning normally by comparing with other successful cycles (like the one at 06:55).

Investigate the cause of the missing temperature data for the kitchen sensor at 06:35 to rule out broader device communication issues.

The investigator correctly identified the key anomaly: the lack of an auto-lock event after the manual unlock at 08:23, unlike the previous cycle. However, the conclusion that this constitutes a security threat or malfunction is currently based on incomplete evidence.

Crucially, the logs provided start at C00 (midnight), but the relevant activity begins in C04 (06:23). We do not have the pre-incident state of the door lock before 06:23. Did it start locked? Was it already unlocked?

More importantly, we lack the immediate context *before* the first unlock at 06:55. While C04 shows occupancy rising, we don't know if the door was locked immediately prior. If the door was already unlocked (e.g., resident left it ajar overnight), the 'auto-lock' behavior might be different or non-existent.

Regarding the 08:23 event: The door remains unlocked until the end of the logs (09:18). This is a significant gap. However, without knowing if the door was physically closed (contact sensor status is only shown briefly at 08:23:02 as false/open, then no further updates are explicitly listed for the contact sensor in C06, though entrance occupancy remains 1), we cannot definitively say the auto-lock failed vs. the door being held open.

The investigator's hypothesis A2 (lock malfunction) is plausible but relies on the assumption that auto-lock *should* have triggered. We need to verify if the door contact sensor reported 'closed' during this period. If the door was open, auto-lock wouldn't trigger.

Also, check C01-C03 to see if there were any other anomalies or if the system was stable before the morning routine began.

The risk of false alarm is medium because the 'anomaly' (no auto-lock) could be explained by normal user behavior (holding door open) or configuration, rather than a fault or intrusion.

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## Matter Notes
- These logs follow Matter-style smart-home event semantics.
- TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue is represented in centi-degrees Celsius in this benchmark: 2466 means 24.66 C, not 2466 C.
- BooleanState and other protocol booleans should be interpreted using transitions and surrounding events, not naive natural-language assumptions from a single isolated value.
- OccupancySensing.Occupancy uses 0=unoccupied and 1=occupied.
- DoorLock.LockState is an enumerated state; formatted logs may show both the label and the raw code.
- A device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence such as stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarm/fault events, or impossible state transitions. Scaled temperature values alone are not enough.

## Layout
Layout: 独居老人 (Elderly Living Alone)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>, 床头灯<onoff_light>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- living_room: 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 498,
    "bedroom": 533,
    "kitchen": 533,
    "bathroom": 61,
    "entrance": 231
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 945,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 23,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 945,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-23T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-23T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "entrance": 4

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## Matter Notes
- These logs follow Matter-style smart-home event semantics.
- TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue is represented in centi-degrees Celsius in this benchmark: 2466 means 24.66 C, not 2466 C.
- BooleanState and other protocol booleans should be interpreted using transitions and surrounding events, not naive natural-language assumptions from a single isolated value.
- OccupancySensing.Occupancy uses 0=unoccupied and 1=occupied.
- DoorLock.LockState is an enumerated state; formatted logs may show both the label and the raw code.
- A device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence such as stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarm/fault events, or impossible state transitions. Scaled temperature values alone are not enough.

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "door_lock"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断入户门锁的状态变化是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "door_lock",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C04",
    "C05",
    "C06"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "LockState flips without corresponding occupancy or manual command evidence",
    "Potential unauthorized access or sensor malfunction at entrance during night/early morning hours"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Establishes baseline lock state and low activity levels before the potential incident window.",
    "C04: Captures the transition period where bedroom/kitchen occupancy begins, potentially correlating with door activity.",
    "C05: Shows continued occupancy patterns; critical for checking if lock states align with human presence.",
    "C06: Shows full household occupancy (entrance/living room) which helps determine if the lock events were legitimate user entries/exits."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The door remained unlocked because the resident held the door open or was in the process of entering/exiting, preventing the auto-lock from triggering. The 'unlocked' state at 08:23 coincides with high entrance occupancy (r


FG-04-FP: 低电量报警但传感器仍正常工作

虽然电池低但传感器仍然能正常检测烟雾（SmokeState变1又恢复0），说明设备没失灵

The event sequence represents a normal resident exit and re-entry with automatic locking; the prolonged occupancy signal is consistent with lingering or sensor placement rather than an intrusion.

Explanation: The core security event in C06 shows a standard 'Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Auto Lock' sequence. The lock state explicitly transitions to 'locked' (raw=1) at 08:28:11, confirming the door was secured by the device.

Explanation: There is no evidence of forced entry, broken glass, or failed lock attempts. The contact sensor returns to 'closed' (true) immediately after the unlock, indicating the door was physically shut before the auto-lock engaged.

Explanation: The persistent 'entrance_occupancy = occupied' signal from 07:23 onwards is ambiguous but benign. It likely indicates a resident waiting inside the foyer/hallway or a PIR sensor detecting movement near the entrance, rather than an open door or intruder, especially given the stable 'locked' state of the front door lock.

Explanation: Hypothesis A1 (intrusion/tailgating) is weak because it relies on assuming the occupancy sensor implies an open door, which contradicts the explicit 'LockState=locked' and 'Contact=true' logs. Without camera footage or further unlock events, there is no proof of unauthorized access.

Explanation: Therefore, the most probable explanation is a normal routine (e.g., resident waiting for delivery or lingering), not a security threat.

C06: LockOperation(Auto) at 08:28:11 setting LockState=locked.

C06: front_door_contact BooleanState.StateValue = true (closed) at 08:28:10.

Absence of any manual unlock events after 08:28:11 through 12:00:00.

If concerned about the long occupancy duration, verify if the entrance sensor is a motion detector that may be triggered by hallway activity.

MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.

enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code

These logs follow Matter-style smart-home event semantics.

OccupancySensing.Occupancy uses 0=unoccupied and 1=occupied.

DoorLock.LockState is an enumerated state; formatted logs may show both the label and the raw code.

occupancy correlation during access event

C06: Manual unlock event at 08:28:00 followed by contact sensor 'false' (door open) and immediate 'true' (door closed) at 08:28:10.

C06: Auto-lock event at 08:28:11, resulting in LockState=locked. This confirms the device functioned correctly and secured the door within seconds of closing.

C05-C09: Entrance occupancy remains 'occupied' (raw=1) continuously from 07:23 onwards, suggesting a resident is present at the front door/entry area for an extended period (likely waiting, delivering, or lingering).

No further manual lock operations are recorded because the door remained locked and closed after 08:28:11.

The prolonged 'occupied' state at the entrance without subsequent exit logs might suggest the door was left open, but the lock state explicitly shows 'locked', implying the door was physically closed and secured despite the presence detected by the sensor (e.g., standing just inside or outside the threshold).

Door propped open or tailgating scenario where the lock engaged but the physical barrier was compromised or the user lingered in a way that suggests unauthorized access or security bypass. Alternatively, the 'auto-lock' triggered while the door was not fully latched, creating a false sense of security.

C06: At 08:28:00, the door is manually unlocked. The contact sensor goes false (open) then true (closed) very quickly (2 seconds).

C06: The lock engages automatically at 08:28:11. However, entrance_occupancy remains 'occupied' (raw=1) from 08:28:03 through the end of the logs (12:00:00).

If the door was truly locked and closed, why does the occupancy sensor at the entrance remain active for nearly 4 hours? This could indicate the door was propped open (sensor sees 'closed' due to proximity or misalignment, but lock engages on the frame?), or the user is standing right at the threshold preventing the sensor from clearing, potentially allowing unmonitored entry/exit.

Lack of subsequent 'unlocked' events despite long duration at entrance raises questions about whether the auto-lock actually secured the latch or if it's a 'deadbolt only' engagement while the main latch is disengaged (common in some smart locks if not configured properly).

Smart lock auto-locks often engage even if the door isn't perfectly aligned, or the occupancy sensor might be detecting movement in the foyer/hallway rather than strictly 'through' the door.

There is no explicit evidence of forced entry, broken glass, or alarm triggers.

The lock state explicitly reports 'locked' (raw=1), which contradicts a total failure to secure.

User forgot to lock the door initially, but the auto-lock feature corrected it. The initial concern was unfounded because the system recovered.

This sequence demonstrates a standard safety feature working as intended: manual override followed by automatic re-engagement.

The persistent occupancy is likely benign (user waiting for a ride, delivery, etc.).

Does not explain the 4-hour continuous occupancy signal, which is unusual for a simple 'wait'.

Assumes the auto-lock was successful; if the door was ajar, the lock might have engaged against the jamb without securing the door.

C06: LockOperation(Auto) at 08:28:11 setting LockState=locked immediately after contact sensor went true.

C06-C09: Continuous entrance_occupancy=1 from 07:23 to 12:00, contrasting with the locked state.

Absence of any 'unlocked' events after 08:28:11, confirming the lock did not revert to an insecure state via command.

Physical verification of the door latch position (is it fully engaged?).

Context for the 4-hour continuous occupancy at the entrance (who is there? why?).

Configuration details of the auto-lock timer (was it set to 10 seconds?).

Camera footage of the entrance during the 08:28 window to confirm if the door was physically closed and if anyone entered/exited.

Verify if the 'entrance_occupancy' sensor is a PIR/motion sensor or a door-contact-based occupancy indicator. If it's motion, continuous occupancy for 4+ hours while locked suggests lingering/stalking or sensor error, not necessarily intrusion.

Check for any 'LockOperation(Unlock)' events between 08:28:11 and 12:00:00 to confirm the lock remained secure without manual override.

Corroborate with camera footage (if available) or other sensors (e.g., living_room_occupancy transitions) to determine if the person at the entrance actually entered the home or was just waiting outside/inside the foyer.

The investigator correctly identified the core event sequence in C06 (Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Auto Lock).

However, the investigation relies heavily on the ambiguous 'entrance_occupancy' signal which remains 'occupied' for nearly 4 hours after the lock engaged. The investigator speculates this could be 'lingering', 'tailgating', or 'propped door'.

Crucially, there is no evidence of forced entry, broken glass, or repeated failed lock attempts. The lock state explicitly shows 'locked' and stable.

The 'anomaly' hypothesis (A1) is weak because it assumes a security breach based solely on prolonged occupancy detection next to a locked door, which is consistent with a resident waiting inside the foyer or a sensor glitch.

Without confirmation that the door was physically compromised (e.g., contact sensor showing open while lock is locked, or camera evidence), this is likely a benign scenario (resident waiting) or a sensor artifact, not a confirmed security threat.

The current evidence does not support a definitive 'security threat' verdict, nor does it fully rule out a subtle issue (like a door left ajar but latched). Further context on the nature of the occupancy sensor and surrounding behavior is needed before concluding.

Risk of false alarm is medium because the conclusion hinges on interpreting static occupancy data as dynamic behavioral anomaly without corroborating access logs.

Authorized resident manually unlocking the front door to enter or exit, with subsequent occupancy sensors confirming presence in the house.

At 08:28:00, `front_door_lock` reports a manual lock operation and state changes to 'unlocked'.

Immediately after (08:28:02), `front_door_contact` reports 'false' (door open).

At 08:28:03, `entrance_occupancy` transitions to 'occupied', consistent with someone entering or being present at the entrance.

Subsequent logs show continuous occupancy in living room, kitchen, and bedroom, indicating the home is inhabited and active.

No alarm events, forced entry indicators, or repeated failed attempts are observed.

The lock state remains 'unlocked' for an extended period (over 50 minutes) without a corresponding 'locked' event in the provided chunks. While this could be a delay in logging or a user leaving the door ajar, it deviates from typical secure behavior where doors are re-locked promptly.

The lack of a 'locked' event makes it impossible to confirm if the door was secured later in the window.

Potential security breach due to prolonged unlocked state following manual operation, possibly indicating a forgotten lock or unauthorized access that was not followed by securing the entry point.

Door contact sensor confirms door is open at 08:28:02.

No 'LockOperation' event setting the lock to 'locked' is recorded in C06 or C07 (up to 10:15:00).

Entrance occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout the period, which could mask whether the person left the door open or if another individual entered while the first was still inside/absent from the door.

The gap between the unlock event and any potential re-lock event is significant (>1 hour), increasing the window of vulnerability.

There is no explicit evidence of an intruder; the 'occupied' status at the entrance suggests legitimate presence.

It is plausible the user simply forgot to lock the door or left it open intentionally (e.g., for ventilation or pet), which is a behavioral anomaly but not necessarily a malicious intrusion.

The logs do not show any other suspicious activity (e.g., multiple rapid unlocks, smoke alarms, etc.).

Device fault or logging omission where the lock state did not update correctly after the manual operation, or the auto-lock feature failed to engage.

The lock state is reported as 'unlocked' immediately after a manual operation.

If the system has an auto-lock feature (common in smart locks), the failure to transition back to 'locked' within a reasonable timeframe might indicate a malfunction or configuration issue.

However, there is no explicit error code or 'fault' flag in the logs.

Smart locks often require manual confirmation or have long auto-lock timers; absence of a log entry does not prove a mechanical failure.

Without evidence of a command failure or stuck actuator, this is speculative.

The sequence of Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Entrance Occupied at 08:28:00-08:28:03 establishes the initial event context.

The complete absence of a 'Locked' state transition or Lock Operation event in the subsequent ~1 hour 45 minutes of logs is the primary indicator of potential risk (prolonged insecure state).

Logs beyond 10:15:00 to determine if the door was eventually locked.

Configuration details regarding auto-lock settings for the front door lock.

Audio or video verification of the entrance area to confirm if the door was physically closed and locked despite the lack of sensor updates.

History of previous lock/unlock patterns to establish a baseline for 'normal' behavior.

No further manual lock operations are recorded because the door remained locked and closed after 08:28:11.

The persistent occupancy is likely benign (user waiting for a ride, delivery, etc.).

Verify if the door was physically closed and locked after the initial unlock event (check for 'locked' state or contact sensor 'true' in subsequent logs).

Check for auto-lock configuration settings or default behaviors that might explain the lack of manual re-locking.

Confirm if the prolonged 'unlocked' state is a logging artifact or actual physical state by checking for any other access events or occupancy changes at the entrance that would imply entry/exit.

The investigator correctly identified the sequence of events but over-interpreted the absence of a 'locked' event as a definitive security threat without sufficient corroboration.

According to protocol, a 'lock_malfunction' or security breach conclusion requires more than just a long interval without a log update; it needs evidence of failure (e.g., stuck actuator) or malicious intent (e.g., forced entry indicators).

The current evidence only shows a manual unlock followed by no further lock operations. This could easily be a user leaving the door open intentionally or forgetting to lock it, which is a behavioral issue, not necessarily a system fault or active intrusion.

Without logs showing the door eventually locking or remaining open indefinitely with no activity, the risk of false alarm is high because we cannot distinguish between 'forgotten lock' and 'malfunction' or 'intrusion'.

Need adjacent chunks (C05 before, C08 after) to establish baseline behavior and confirm the final state of the door.

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## Matter Notes
- These logs follow Matter-style smart-home event semantics.
- TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue is represented in centi-degrees Celsius in this benchmark: 2466 means 24.66 C, not 2466 C.
- BooleanState and other protocol booleans should be interpreted using transitions and surrounding events, not naive natural-language assumptions from a single isolated value.
- OccupancySensing.Occupancy uses 0=unoccupied and 1=occupied.
- DoorLock.LockState is an enumerated state; formatted logs may show both the label and the raw code.
- A device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence such as stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarm/fault events, or impossible state transitions. Scaled temperature values alone are not enough.

## Layout
Layout: 独居老人 (Elderly Living Alone)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>, 床头灯<onoff_light>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- living_room: 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "kitchen": 539,
    "living_room": 497,
    "bedroom": 530,
    "bathroom": 58,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 941,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 23,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "SmokeState": 2,
    "BatteryAlert": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 941,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-26T11:41:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-27T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "kitchen": 24,
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## Matter Notes
- These logs follow Matter-style smart-home event semantics.
- TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue is represented in centi-degrees Celsius in this benchmark: 2466 means 24.66 C, not 2466 C.
- BooleanState and other protocol booleans should be interpreted using transitions and surrounding events, not naive natural-language assumptions from a single isolated value.
- OccupancySensing.Occupancy uses 0=unoccupied and 1=occupied.
- DoorLock.LockState is an enumerated state; formatted logs may show both the label and the raw code.
- A device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence such as stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarm/fault events, or impossible state transitions. Scaled temperature values alone are not enough.

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "kitchen"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "manual lock operation with door open",
    "occupancy correlation during access event"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06 contains the specific event of manual lock operation and contact sensor state change at the entrance, which is the primary candidate for a security threat or anomaly.",
    "C07 provides the immediate context to verify if the lock state stabilized and if occupancy patterns support an authorized resident's routine (e.g., leaving/returning) rather than an intrusion."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal resident exit and re-entry with auto-lock behavior. The user manually unlocked the door to leave (or let someone in), the door was closed, and the lock automatically engaged shortly after. Subsequent occupancy at the entrance indicates the user returned or remained near the entryway.",
      "evidence": [
        "C06: Manual unlock event at 08:28:00 followed by contact sensor 'false' (door open) and immed


有人在卫生间正常使用中触发，且短时间内恢复为 false

The event sequence is consistent with a resident manually unlocking the door and leaving it open (or failing to re-lock), which is a user behavior/configuration issue rather than a confirmed security threat or device fault.

Explanation: The primary event is a manual unlock of the front door at 08:32:00 (C06).

Explanation: Following the unlock, there is no subsequent 'Lock' operation (manual or auto) recorded in the logs up to 11:05:31 (C08).

Explanation: Occupancy sensors in the Entrance, Kitchen, and Living Room remain 'occupied' throughout this period, indicating someone is present inside the house.

Explanation: The Supervisor correctly identified that without evidence of Auto-Lock being enabled and failing, or explicit intrusion indicators (e.g., forced entry, rapid contact toggling, unexplained absence), the most probable explanation is user error (forgetting to lock) or configuration (auto-lock disabled).

Explanation: There is no direct evidence of device malfunction (e.g., failed actuator commands, error codes) or unauthorized access (intrusion requires more than just an unlocked door; it requires proof of entry by an unknown party, which is not present here as occupancy suggests residents are home).

Explanation: Therefore, while the state is insecure, it does not constitute a confirmed safety threat or anomaly based on the available evidence.

Manual Unlock at 08:32:00 with no subsequent Lock event.

Continuous 'occupied' status in key rooms from 08:32 onwards.

No fault codes or error messages in the logs.

Verify if Auto-Lock is configured for this household profile.

Check user logs to confirm who performed the manual unlock.

Monitor for future occurrences of doors remaining unlocked after manual operation.

Unusual door lock operation during occupied hours

Potential unauthorized access or device malfunction

Correlation between entry and subsequent occupancy

Routine resident departure and return with standard lock behavior.

C05 shows the front door was locked (LockState=1) at 06:50:15 via Auto operation after a manual unlock.

C06 shows a manual unlock at 08:32:00, consistent with a resident leaving for the day.

Occupancy sensors in Kitchen, Bedroom, and Entrance remain 'occupied' throughout C06-C08, indicating someone is present in the house (likely a second resident or someone who stayed behind).

The lock state remains 'unlocked' from 08:32 onwards, which is common if the resident forgot to re-lock or if auto-lock is disabled/failed to trigger on exit.

Does not explain why the door remained unlocked for over an hour without any subsequent lock event, assuming auto-lock is expected.

Relies on the assumption that the persistent occupancy is legitimate residents, not intruders.

Device configuration issue (Auto-lock disabled) rather than security breach.

The lock did not re-lock automatically after the 08:32 manual unlock.

No fault codes or error messages are present in the logs.

Temperature and other sensor readings are stable and normal, suggesting no systemic device failure.

If auto-lock is enabled by default in this household profile, its absence here is anomalous.

Unauthorized entry (Intrusion) facilitated by an unlocked door.

The front door was manually unlocked at 08:32:00 and remained unlocked through at least 10:10 (end of C07/C08 data).

There is no corresponding 'LockOperation' event to re-lock the door after 08:32.

Occupancy sensors in the Entrance and Kitchen show continuous 'occupied' status during this period, which could indicate an intruder moving through the house or lingering.

The lack of a re-lock event suggests either a successful break-in where the intruder did not care to secure the door, or a malfunction preventing it.

Persistent occupancy could simply be a resident staying home; occupancy alone does not prove intrusion.

No evidence of forced entry (contact sensor didn't flash open/closed rapidly before the unlock, though it wasn't logged pre-08:32 in C05).

Lock Actuator Failure / Malfunction.

The lock successfully locked at 06:50:15 but failed to lock again after the 08:32 manual unlock.

If the system is configured to auto-lock, the failure to execute this command indicates a potential actuator or firmware issue.

The door remained in an insecure state (unlocked) for an extended period (>1 hour).

Single instance of non-re-locking is insufficient to confirm hardware fault without prior history of similar failures.

Could be user error (forgot to lock) rather than device fault.

The sequence at 08:32:00 in C06: Manual Unlock followed by NO subsequent Lock Operation or Auto-Lock event, while the door contact sensor likely registered the door closing (implied by continued occupancy but lack of 'open' alerts), leaving the door physically unlocked.

Continuous 'occupied' status in Entrance/Kitchen from 08:32 to 10:10 without any 'unoccupied' transition, which contradicts typical 'leave and forget' patterns unless someone is actively inside.

Front Door Contact Sensor state immediately after 08:32: Did the door close? If the door was left wide open, it's a clear anomaly. If it closed, it supports the 'unlocked but closed' scenario.

User Identity Logs: Who performed the manual unlock at 08:32? Was it a known resident?

Auto-Lock Configuration: Is the lock set to auto-lock after X minutes? If so, the failure to lock is a stronger indicator of malfunction or bypass.

Pre-08:32 Lock State: Confirm definitively that the door was locked just before 08:32 (C05 ends at 08:25, last lock event was 06:50).

Lock Actuator Failure / Malfunction.

Verify if 'Auto-lock' is actually enabled and configured in the device profile; without this, the lack of re-locking is user behavior, not a fault.

Check for explicit 'LockOperation' events with failure codes or 'LockState' transitions to 'locked' that were missed in the log truncation.

Correlate the manual unlock at 08:32 with any other entry/exit events (e.g., garage door, back door) to determine if it was a legitimate departure.

Confirm if the 'entrance_occupancy' sensor remained active because someone stayed inside or if it's a persistent false-positive/stuck sensor.

The investigator correctly identified the core anomaly (door unlocked after 08:32) but failed to distinguish between 'device malfunction' and 'user configuration/behavior'.

The hypothesis of 'lock_malfunction' is weak because there is no evidence of a *failed* lock attempt, only a *missing* one. This is likely due to auto-lock being disabled or the user forgetting to lock it manually.

The hypothesis of 'intrusion' relies heavily on the assumption that the continuous occupancy is an intruder, ignoring the high probability of a resident staying home.

Crucially, the investigation lacks context from C03 (pre-06:50) to establish the baseline state of the lock and whether auto-lock was previously functioning as expected. Without knowing if auto-lock is even enabled, labeling this a security threat or device fault is speculative.

The current evidence supports a 'suspicious event requiring verification' rather than a confirmed safety threat or device fault.

Routine morning departure by a resident. The front door was manually unlocked and opened (contact sensor false) around 08:32, likely for the resident to leave or let someone in. Subsequent occupancy in the entrance and living room indicates either another resident remained inside, or the first resident returned shortly after, or the occupancy sensors have a delay/overlap typical of smart home devices.

LockOperation at 08:32:00 is Manual, indicating human interaction.

Door contact sensor went false at 08:32:02, confirming the door was physically opened.

Entrance and Living Room occupancy remain 'occupied' (raw=1) throughout the period, suggesting people are present in the house.

No signs of forced entry (lock state changed via manual operation, not brute force or error).

Temperature readings are stable and normal (~24-25 C), ruling out environmental emergencies.

The persistence of 'occupied' status in the entrance/living room immediately after a door opening event could imply tailgating or an intruder remaining inside if the initial occupant left.

Does not explain why the lock wasn't re-locked automatically if it's a smart lock with auto-lock features (though many require manual re-locking).

Potential unauthorized access or intrusion. An individual manually unlocked the front door and entered (or lingered near the entrance). The continued 'occupied' status in the entrance and living room areas suggests the person may still be inside the premises, posing a security risk. The lack of subsequent 'unoccupied' events in these key areas raises concern about an unmonitored presence.

Manual unlock at 08:32 followed by door open (contact=false).

Occupancy sensors in Entrance and Living Room show continuous 'occupied' (raw=1) from 08:32 through 10:10 without transitioning to 'unoccupied'.

If the resident who unlocked the door left, the persistent occupancy signal implies someone else is present.

No evidence of the door being re-locked in the provided logs, leaving the perimeter potentially compromised if the door was left ajar or unlocked.

Bathroom water leak alert at 09:14 adds noise but doesn't negate the security anomaly of unknown presence.

It is equally plausible that the resident stayed home and simply moved between rooms, keeping sensors active.

Smart occupancy sensors can sometimes have delays or false positives, though continuous occupation for nearly an hour is significant.

No explicit alarm or forced entry indicators were logged.

Device malfunction or configuration issue with the door lock or occupancy sensors. The lock might be stuck in an unlocked state, or the occupancy sensors might be falsely reporting presence due to a glitch, leading to a false sense of security or confusion about actual occupancy.

Lock state remains 'unlocked' (raw=2) from 08:32 onwards with no re-lock event recorded.

Continuous occupancy signals despite potential movement (if anyone left) could indicate sensor sticking.

Lack of any fault codes or explicit error messages makes this harder to confirm but remains a possibility given the static states.

Matter logs do not show explicit fault flags for the lock or sensors.

Manual unlock is a valid user action; assuming malfunction requires more evidence than just a long unlocked interval.

Temperature sensors are functioning correctly, suggesting general system health is okay.

The combination of Manual Lock Unlock + Door Open (Contact False) at 08:32:00-08:32:02.

The persistent 'Occupied' status (raw=1) in Entrance and Living Room from 08:32 to 10:10 without any 'Unoccupied' transition.

The absence of a 'Lock Operation' to re-lock the door or a 'Contact True' event closing the door in the subsequent hour.

Logs showing the state of the door lock *before* 08:32 (was it locked?).

Logs showing the state of the door lock *after* 10:10 (did it eventually re-lock?).

Video or audio confirmation of who was present in the entrance/living room.

User identity verification for the manual unlock event (who performed it?).

Context on whether the household typically has multiple occupants moving between rooms during this time.

C05 shows the front door was locked (LockState=1) at 06:50:15 via Auto operation after a manual unlock.

C06 shows a manual unlock at 08:32:00, consistent with a resident leaving for the day.

The lock did not re-lock automatically after the 08:32 manual unlock.

No fault codes or error messages are present in the logs.

Temperature and other sensor readings are stable and normal, suggesting no systemic device failure.

There is no corresponding 'LockOperation' event to re-lock the door after 08:32.

Lock Actuator Failure / Malfunction.

The lock successfully locked at 06:50:15 but failed to lock again after the 08:32 manual unlock.

The door remained in an insecure state (unlocked) for an extended period (>1 hour).

Lock Actuator Failure / Malfunction.

Verify the lock state *before* 08:32 to confirm if it was locked (preventing immediate 'unauthorized entry' assumption if it was already open/unlocked).

Check for any 'Lock Operation' events indicating re-locking after 10:10 or before 08:32.

Correlate with user identity logs if available to distinguish between resident departure/return and intruder presence.

Assess if the persistent occupancy is due to sensor delay or actual human presence by checking movement patterns in other rooms.

The investigator correctly identified the key event (manual unlock at 08:32) and relevant context (occupancy).

However, the conclusion of a potential security threat relies heavily on the assumption that the door was locked prior to 08:32 and that the occupant left. Without C05 (pre-08:32), we cannot verify the initial state of the lock or the household's routine.

The 'lock_malfunction' hypothesis is weak because there is no evidence of a failed attempt to lock; it's just an unlocked state which can be normal behavior.

The 'intrusion' hypothesis is plausible but not confirmed; the persistent occupancy could simply mean someone stayed home. The lack of 'unoccupied' transitions doesn't prove an intruder, just continuous presence.

We need the preceding chunk (C05) to establish the baseline state of the front door lock and any prior activity to determine if this was a routine departure or an anomaly.

False alarm risk is medium because the scenario (resident leaving, door stays unlocked) is common and indistinguishable from intrusion without pre-event context.

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## Matter Notes
- These logs follow Matter-style smart-home event semantics.
- TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue is represented in centi-degrees Celsius in this benchmark: 2466 means 24.66 C, not 2466 C.
- BooleanState and other protocol booleans should be interpreted using transitions and surrounding events, not naive natural-language assumptions from a single isolated value.
- OccupancySensing.Occupancy uses 0=unoccupied and 1=occupied.
- DoorLock.LockState is an enumerated state; formatted logs may show both the label and the raw code.
- A device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence such as stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarm/fault events, or impossible state transitions. Scaled temperature values alone are not enough.

## Layout
Layout: 独居老人 (Elderly Living Alone)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>, 床头灯<onoff_light>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- living_room: 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 498,
    "bedroom": 528,
    "kitchen": 532,
    "bathroom": 64,
    "entrance": 232
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 943,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 22,
    "StateValue": 6,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 943,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-04T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-04T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "entrance": 4

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## Matter Notes
- These logs follow Matter-style smart-home event semantics.
- TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue is represented in centi-degrees Celsius in this benchmark: 2466 means 24.66 C, not 2466 C.
- BooleanState and other protocol booleans should be interpreted using transitions and surrounding events, not naive natural-language assumptions from a single isolated value.
- OccupancySensing.Occupancy uses 0=unoccupied and 1=occupied.
- DoorLock.LockState is an enumerated state; formatted logs may show both the label and the raw code.
- A device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence such as stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarm/fault events, or impossible state transitions. Scaled temperature values alone are not enough.

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact",
      "entrance_occupancy"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "kitchen",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "kitchen_occupancy",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Unusual door lock operation during occupied hours",
    "Potential unauthorized access or device malfunction",
    "Correlation between entry and subsequent occupancy"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06 contains the specific event of the front door lock being manually unlocked at 08:32, which is the primary trigger for the security assessment.",
    "C07 provides the immediate context following the unlock, showing continued occupancy in key areas (kitchen, entrance) to determine if this was a routine departure/entry or an anomaly.",
    "These chunks allow verification of whether the lock state change correlates with normal human activity patterns."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Routine resident departure and return with standard lock behavior.",
      "evidence": [
        "C05 shows the front door was locked (LockState=1) at 06:50:15 via Auto operation after a manual u


FG-01-FP: 煲汤/慢炖（正常长时间开灶）

温度上升后稳定（不持续飙升），住户定期回来检查，烟雾传感器未触发

The observed lock state changes are consistent with normal resident departure routines and do not indicate a security threat or device malfunction.

Explanation: The primary anomaly signal ('4 lock_state_flips') is explained by the visible evidence in C04 and C06, which show two distinct manual unlock/auto-lock cycles (07:05 and 08:40) corresponding to residents leaving the house.

Explanation: The 'extra' flips likely correspond to standard telemetry artifacts such as sensor debouncing, auto-relock confirmations, or state updates that occurred in the missing C03 window but are part of benign morning transitions rather than suspicious activity.

Explanation: There is no evidence of forced entry, broken glass, alarms, or contradictory lock/contact states (e.g., locked while door open) that would suggest an intrusion or mechanical fault.

Explanation: Occupancy sensors confirm resident presence and movement patterns consistent with normal daily activity, ruling out unattended or unauthorized access scenarios.

C04 (07:05): Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Auto Lock sequence aligns with resident departure.

C06 (08:40): Manual Unlock event coincides with living room occupancy activation, suggesting internal movement or second departure.

No explicit fault codes, alarms, or impossible state transitions detected in the provided logs.

Monitor future lock events for rapid cycling without corresponding occupancy changes.

Verify if the 'lock_state_flips' metric includes auto-relock events to prevent false positives in future triage.

判断入户门锁的状态变化是否构成安全威胁

LockState flips without corresponding occupancy or entry events

Potential unauthorized access or lock malfunction

C00: Establishes baseline state (unoccupied, no lock activity) for the early morning period.

判断入户门锁的状态变化是否构成安全威胁

The '4 lock_state_flips' signal is a misinterpretation of standard daily usage patterns. The logs show two distinct, normal manual unlock/auto-lock cycles (07:05 and 08:40) corresponding to residents leaving the house. The other two 'flips' likely correspond to minor state updates, sensor debouncing, or benign status checks not explicitly logged as full operations in the provided chunks, or occurred in the missing C03 window but were part of normal morning routine transitions.

C04 (07:05): Clear sequence of Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Auto Lock. This is a standard departure pattern.

C06 (08:40): Clear sequence of Manual Unlock -> Door Open. This aligns with the living room occupancy becoming occupied shortly after, suggesting a resident moved from entrance to living room or another resident left.

No evidence of forced entry, broken glass, or alarm triggers.

Occupancy sensors in bedroom/kitchen activate normally before these events, indicating residents are present and active.

Does not fully account for the specific count of '4 flips' if the metric is precise, assuming the other 2 flips were not visible in the focused chunks.

Relies on the assumption that the missing C03 chunk did not contain suspicious rapid cycling.

Potential unauthorized access or lock malfunction characterized by rapid, unexplained state changes ('flips') that may indicate a compromised lock mechanism or an intruder testing the lock. While two clear departures are seen, the '4 flips' signal suggests additional activity. If the other flips involved rapid lock/unlock without corresponding occupancy entry/exit or door contact changes, it could indicate a mechanical fault or a sophisticated intrusion attempt bypassing detection.

Structured Signals report 'lock_state_flips': 4, which exceeds the 2 clearly visible manual operations in C04 and C06.

C03 (05:05-06:20) is missing, which covers the early morning period where the first few flips might have occurred or where a transition to the first visible event happened.

If the extra flips occurred without corresponding `BooleanState.StateValue` (door contact) changes or `OccupancySensing.Occupancy` changes, it would imply a lock acting independently of physical door movement, a strong indicator of malfunction or tampering.

The primary evidence for the anomaly (the extra 2 flips) is not directly visible in the provided text chunks; it relies on the aggregate signal.

No explicit fault codes or alarms were generated by the lock device itself.

The visible events (07:05, 08:40) are perfectly consistent with normal human behavior, making the 'malfunction/intrusion' hypothesis less likely than a data aggregation artifact unless C03 reveals otherwise.

The discrepancy between the '4 lock_state_flips' signal and the 2 clearly documented manual unlock/auto-lock cycles in C04 and C06.

The absence of C03, which contains the time window leading up to the first visible lock event (07:05), potentially hiding the origin of the other 2 flips.

The lack of any `LockOperation` events or `LockState` changes in C00-C02, suggesting the 'flips' are concentrated in the morning transition period.

Chunk C03 (05:05 - 06:20) to identify when the other lock state changes occurred.

Detailed log entries for `front_door_lock` and `front_door_contact` specifically around the times of the suspected 'extra' flips to see if they correlate with door contact changes or occupancy.

Clarification on how 'lock_state_flips' is calculated (e.g., does it count every state change including auto-relocks, or only user-initiated unlocks?).

Verify if 'lock_state_flips' count includes auto-lock events or only manual operations.

Check C03 (05:05-06:20) for any lock state changes or door contact events that would account for the discrepancy between the signal (4 flips) and visible logs (2 clear cycles).

Confirm if the 'flips' correspond to rapid open/close cycles or just state updates.

The investigator correctly identifies a discrepancy between the aggregate signal ('4 lock_state_flips') and the visible evidence in C04/C06 (2 clear manual/auto cycles).

However, the investigation relies heavily on the missing C03 chunk to explain the other 2 flips. Without C03, it is impossible to determine if these were benign auto-relocks, sensor debouncing, or suspicious activity.

The current hypothesis that they are 'benign status checks' is speculative without seeing the timestamps and context of those specific events.

There is no direct fault evidence (alarms, stuck values) yet, so a device-health conclusion cannot be made. The safety threat remains unverified due to the data gap.

Requesting C03 is critical to resolve whether the 'extra' flips represent a security event or a telemetry artifact.

Normal morning routine: Resident manually unlocks the door to exit, and the smart lock's auto-lock feature engages immediately after the door is closed.

At 07:05:04, `front_door_lock` receives a manual unlock command (`LockOperationType=1`, `Manual`).

At 07:05:06, `front_door_contact` reports `false` (door open).

At 07:05:13, `front_door_contact` reports `true` (door closed).

At 07:05:14, `front_door_lock` executes an auto-lock command (`LockOperationType=0`, `Auto`) and state becomes `locked`.

The sequence of Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Door Close -> Auto Lock is a standard operational pattern for smart locks with auto-relock features.

Does not explain the '4 lock_state_flips' mentioned in Structured Signals if they occurred outside this specific 10-second window or involved other states not fully detailed in the focused chunks.

Potential unauthorized access or lock malfunction: The '4 lock_state_flips' signal suggests more activity than just the single observed unlock/lock cycle. If these flips involve rapid locking/unlocking without corresponding occupancy changes or manual commands, it could indicate a mechanical fault, interference, or a forced entry attempt that was thwarted or partially successful.

Structured Signals explicitly notes `lock_state_flips: 4`.

Focused Chunk C04 only details one clear unlock/lock cycle (approx 10 seconds).

If the other 3 flips occurred rapidly before or after this event without manual intervention, it contradicts normal usage.

Entrance occupancy transitions from unoccupied (C00) to occupied (C04 at 07:05:07), which aligns with someone entering/exiting, but the high frequency of lock state changes warrants investigation into whether the lock was being jimmied or malfunctioning.

The focused chunks do not show the timestamps for all 4 flips; they might be spread out over time (e.g., checking status) rather than a rapid attack.

No explicit alarm or fault code is present in the logs.

The observed manual/auto cycle is perfectly consistent with legitimate use.

Sensor/Actuator Glitch: The lock state may have flipped erroneously due to a transient power issue or sensor error, causing unnecessary wear or confusion, though no safety threat exists.

High frequency of attribute updates for LockState (4 times) compared to other devices.

Rapid succession of events around 07:05:04-07:05:14.

No explicit fault logs, but repeated state changes can indicate instability.

The transition from Unlocked to Locked via Auto-Lock is a designed feature, not necessarily a glitch.

Lack of persistent stuck values or failed recovery attempts.

The discrepancy between the '4 lock_state_flips' count in Structured Signals and the single detailed unlock/lock cycle visible in C04.

The precise timing of the manual unlock followed by door contact opening/closing and subsequent auto-lock, which supports the normal hypothesis but leaves the origin of the other 3 flips ambiguous.

Full log data for the entrance area covering the entire period where the 4 flips occurred, not just the 07:05:04-07:05:14 window.

Details on what the other 3 lock state transitions were (e.g., did they revert? were they manual or auto?).

Context on whether the resident was known to be leaving at that exact time.

No evidence of forced entry, broken glass, or alarm triggers.

The Investigator Output references '4 lock_state_flips' from Structured Signals but only analyzes a single unlock/lock cycle in C04. The evidence for the other 3 flips is missing.

Chunk C03 (2026-06-18T05:21:00 -> 2026-06-18T06:21:00) is missing. This chunk likely contains the time window where the other lock state changes occurred or the transition leading up to the event in C04.

No explicit fault codes or alarm events were found in the provided logs; the 'anomaly' relies on an unverified count of state flips.

The investigation focuses on a specific security threat (unauthorized access/malfunction) based on a signal ('4 lock_state_flips') that is not fully substantiated by the visible log chunks.

C04 shows one clear, normal manual-unlock/auto-lock cycle. The Investigator speculates about 3 other flips but provides no evidence for them in the current output.

Without C03 or the full log data for the entrance door, we cannot verify if there were rapid, suspicious flips or if the '4 flips' metric includes benign status checks or is a misinterpretation.

The current conclusion is speculative. We need the adjacent chunk (C03) to see the context before C04 and potentially identify when the other state changes occurred.

Do not conclude 'Normal' or 'Threat' yet. Refine investigation to locate the missing evidence.

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## Matter Notes
- These logs follow Matter-style smart-home event semantics.
- TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue is represented in centi-degrees Celsius in this benchmark: 2466 means 24.66 C, not 2466 C.
- BooleanState and other protocol booleans should be interpreted using transitions and surrounding events, not naive natural-language assumptions from a single isolated value.
- OccupancySensing.Occupancy uses 0=unoccupied and 1=occupied.
- DoorLock.LockState is an enumerated state; formatted logs may show both the label and the raw code.
- A device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence such as stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarm/fault events, or impossible state transitions. Scaled temperature values alone are not enough.

## Layout
Layout: 独居老人 (Elderly Living Alone)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>, 床头灯<onoff_light>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- living_room: 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 496,
    "bedroom": 529,
    "kitchen": 536,
    "bathroom": 63,
    "entrance": 229
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 942,
    "MeasuredValue": 872,
    "OnOff": 22,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 942,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-18T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-18T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "entrance": 4

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## Matter Notes
- These logs follow Matter-style smart-home event semantics.
- TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue is represented in centi-degrees Celsius in this benchmark: 2466 means 24.66 C, not 2466 C.
- BooleanState and other protocol booleans should be interpreted using transitions and surrounding events, not naive natural-language assumptions from a single isolated value.
- OccupancySensing.Occupancy uses 0=unoccupied and 1=occupied.
- DoorLock.LockState is an enumerated state; formatted logs may show both the label and the raw code.
- A device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence such as stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarm/fault events, or impossible state transitions. Scaled temperature values alone are not enough.

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "door_lock"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断入户门锁的状态变化是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "door_lock",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C04",
    "C05"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "LockState flips without corresponding occupancy or entry events",
    "Potential unauthorized access or lock malfunction"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Establishes baseline state (unoccupied, no lock activity) for the early morning period.",
    "C04: Captures the first appearance of 'lock_state_flips' (4 flips) in the entrance area while other rooms are still largely unoccupied or just waking up. This is the critical window to inspect for unauthorized access attempts or mechanical faults.",
    "C05: Shows the subsequent state of occupancy and locks as the day progresses, helping to determine if the lock activity was a transient glitch, a routine check, or part of an ongoing security issue."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The '4 lock_state_flips' signal is a misinterpretation of standard daily usage patterns. The logs show two distinct, normal manual unlock/auto-lock cycles (07:05 and 08:40) corresponding to residents leaving the house. The other two 'flips' lik


FG-01-FP: 煲汤/慢炖（正常长时间开灶）

温度上升后稳定（不持续飙升），住户定期回来检查，烟雾传感器未触发

The front door was manually unlocked and remained open/unlocked for over 2 hours without re-locking, creating a persistent security vulnerability consistent with potential intrusion or severe negligence.

Explanation: At 08:24:00, the front door lock was manually operated to 'unlocked' (raw=2), and the contact sensor confirmed the door was physically open (false).

Explanation: Unlike the previous event at 06:50 where an auto-lock triggered 14 seconds later, no subsequent lock operation occurred between 08:24 and the end of logs at 11:05. The door remained in an insecure state for approximately 2 hours and 40 minutes.

Explanation: While occupancy sensors indicate people are inside, this does not rule out an intruder hiding within or entering during the window; it only confirms presence, not security status.

Explanation: The supervisor correctly noted that evidence is incomplete regarding post-11:05 recovery, but the observed sequence itself constitutes a significant security anomaly (unsecured entry point) rather than a simple transient glitch or normal routine.

Explanation: Per guidelines, we must not dismiss an anomaly just because telemetry is incomplete if the logged sequence reflects a real unsafe event. The prolonged unlocked state is a concrete safety/security risk.

C06: Manual unlock at 08:24:00 followed by contact sensor opening.

Absence of any LockOperation or LockState change to 'locked' in C06-C08 (08:24-11:05).

Contrast with C04 showing successful auto-lock behavior previously, highlighting the deviation.

Verify if the door was eventually locked after 11:05 to determine if this was a temporary lapse or persistent failure.

Check for any manual re-lock events or auto-lock triggers in subsequent logs (C09+).

Review access logs or video footage around 08:24 to confirm if an unauthorized person entered.

C06: Manual unlock event at 08:24:00 followed immediately by contact sensor opening (door open) and entrance occupancy becoming active.

C06-C08: Continuous 'occupied' status for entrance_occupancy, living_room_occupancy, kitchen_occupancy, and bedroom_occupancy from 08:24 through 11:05, indicating no one left the house permanently after the unlock.

C04: Previous instance of manual unlock at 06:50 followed by auto-lock at 06:50:14 shows the system supports auto-locking, implying the 08:24 event might be a deviation or oversight if auto-lock did not trigger.

No forced entry indicators (e.g., broken contact, alarm events) are present.

The lock state remains 'unlocked' (raw=2) for over 2 hours (08:24 to 11:05+), which is highly unusual for a secure home unless the door is propped open intentionally or the auto-lock feature is disabled/failing.

Does not explain why the auto-lock (seen in C04) did not engage at 08:24, unlike the previous event.

Security Threat: Unsecured Entry Point / Potential Intrusion. The front door was manually unlocked at 08:24 and never re-locked within the observation window. While occupancy sensors show people inside, they do not prove the door was secured. An intruder could have entered during this window, or the door was left open due to a malfunction/negligence that creates a high-risk security posture.

C06: LockState changed to 'unlocked' (raw=2) at 08:24:00 via Manual operation.

C06-C08: No subsequent 'LockOperation' or 'LockState' change to 'locked' (raw=1) is recorded in chunks C06, C07, or C08 (up to 11:05).

C04: Demonstrates that auto-locking *can* occur (06:50), making the absence of auto-lock at 08:24 suspicious.

Contact sensor showed 'false' (open) at 08:24:02, confirming the physical door was open.

Occupancy sensors remain 'occupied', which is consistent with either residents staying in or an intruder hiding/staying inside, so occupancy alone cannot rule out intrusion.

Lack of explicit 'forced entry' alarms or contact sensor breakage makes definitive intrusion proof difficult without video or further logs.

Could be explained by N1 (negligence) if the user simply forgot to lock it, but the duration (>2h) elevates the risk profile significantly compared to a brief momentary unlock.

Device Fault: Auto-Lock Failure. The smart lock failed to execute its automatic locking sequence after the manual unlock at 08:24, whereas it succeeded previously at 06:50. This represents a functional anomaly in the security device.

C04: Successful auto-lock event at 06:50:14 (10 seconds after manual unlock).

C06: Manual unlock at 08:24:00 with NO corresponding auto-lock event in the subsequent 2+ hours.

LockState remains 'unlocked' throughout C06-C08.

Cannot distinguish between a software fault and a configuration change (e.g., user turned off auto-lock) or simple human error without more context on settings.

Absence of any 'LockState = locked' or 'LockOperation(LockOperationType=0)' event between 08:24:00 and 11:05:00.

Contrast with C04 where auto-lock occurred 14 seconds after manual unlock, establishing a baseline expectation for the device behavior.

Continuous 'entrance_occupancy = occupied' confirms presence but does not verify door security status.

Logs after 11:05:00 to determine if/when the door was eventually locked.

Configuration settings for the front_door_lock (specifically auto-lock timer enable/disable status).

Video footage or additional access logs to confirm if anyone exited/entered between 08:24 and 11:05.

Explanation for why auto-lock triggered at 06:50 but not at 08:24.

Verify if the door was locked after 11:05 (end of C08) to determine if this is a transient negligence or a persistent fault.

Check for any 'LockOperation' events in C09-C10 to see if auto-lock eventually triggered or if manual re-lock occurred.

Confirm if the 'unlocked' state persisted beyond the observation window or if it recovered.

The investigator correctly identified the core anomaly: a manual unlock at 08:24 that did not result in an auto-lock, unlike the previous event at 06:50.

However, the conclusion of 'Security Threat' or 'Device Fault' is premature because the evidence ends at 11:05 with the door still unlocked. We do not know if the user returned and locked it later, or if the system failed permanently.

Per protocol, a 'device-fault' conclusion requires direct fault evidence (e.g., repeated non-recovery, explicit alarm). A single long interval without lock action could be user negligence (forgotten to lock) rather than a malfunction, especially since auto-lock behavior might be conditional or disabled.

Without logs showing the final state (locked/unlocked) after the observation window, we cannot distinguish between 'negligence' and 'malfunction'. The risk of false alarm is high because labeling this as a definitive security threat or device failure based on incomplete data is speculative.

Request chunks C09 and C10 to observe the post-11:05 behavior.

Normal morning routine: A resident manually unlocked the front door to enter or exit, followed by typical household occupancy patterns and temperature readings.

At 08:24:00, `front_door_lock` received a manual unlock command (`OperationSource=Manual`).

Immediately after unlocking (08:24:02), the `front_door_contact` sensor reported `false` (door open), which is consistent with the door being opened for entry/exit.

Subsequent logs show continuous occupancy in the entrance, living room, kitchen, and bedroom from 08:23 onwards, indicating residents are present and active.

Temperature readings across all sensors remain within normal residential ranges (24-27 C) with gradual fluctuations, showing no signs of fire or equipment failure.

The lock state transitioned to 'unlocked' and remained so, which could be part of a routine where the resident left the door unlocked briefly or forgot to re-lock it, but without evidence of unauthorized access.

Does not explain why the door was not re-locked if the resident stayed inside, though this is a behavioral nuance rather than a security breach per se.

Relies on the assumption that the person entering/exiting was authorized.

Potential intrusion or tailgating: The door was manually unlocked and left open/unsecured while occupants were present, potentially allowing unauthorized entry or failing to secure the home.

The `front_door_lock` was manually unlocked at 08:24:00.

The `front_door_contact` sensor showed the door was open (StateValue=false) immediately after.

There is no subsequent log entry in the provided chunks showing the door being locked again or the contact sensor returning to 'closed' (true) state, leaving the perimeter insecure during a period of high activity.

Occupancy sensors in the entrance and living room remained active, suggesting people were moving through the area, which could include an intruder mixing with residents.

Lacks explicit evidence of an unknown person; the presence of multiple occupied rooms suggests residents are home, making a stealthy intrusion less likely than a simple failure to re-lock.

No alarm events or forced entry indicators are present.

The 'manual' operation source implies intent, which could be accidental negligence rather than malicious intrusion.

Device fault or configuration issue: The smart lock failed to auto-lock or the contact sensor is stuck/misreported, creating a false sense of security or actual insecurity.

The lock state is 'unlocked' and remains so for over 45 minutes in the logs without any further interaction logged.

If the system is configured to auto-lock, the lack of a locking event might indicate a failure.

However, the contact sensor did report the door as open, which is consistent with the lock being unlocked, so there is no direct contradiction between lock and contact states.

No explicit fault codes or error messages are present in the logs.

The behavior is consistent with a user leaving the door unlocked intentionally or accidentally, rather than a device malfunction.

The contact sensor correctly reflected the door's physical state (open), ruling out a stuck-open contact sensor causing a false alarm.

The sequence of Manual Unlock -> Door Open Contact -> Continuous Occupancy without Re-locking.

Absence of any 'Lock' event or 'Door Closed' contact event after 08:24:00 in the provided timeframe.

Logs after 10:09:04 to see if the door was eventually locked.

History of lock operations before 08:23:03 to establish baseline behavior (e.g., does the user usually leave the door unlocked?).

Audio or video verification of who entered/exited.

Configuration settings for auto-lock timers.

No forced entry indicators (e.g., broken contact, alarm events) are present.

C06: LockState changed to 'unlocked' (raw=2) at 08:24:00 via Manual operation.

Contact sensor showed 'false' (open) at 08:24:02, confirming the physical door was open.

C04: Successful auto-lock event at 06:50:14 (10 seconds after manual unlock).

C06: Manual unlock at 08:24:00 with NO corresponding auto-lock event in the subsequent 2+ hours.

LockState remains 'unlocked' throughout C06-C08.

Verify if the door was locked after the initial unlock event (check for LockOperation or LockState change to 'locked' in subsequent logs).

Check for any forced entry indicators or alarm events associated with the front door.

Confirm if the 'Manual' unlock source implies a resident action or if it could be triggered by an external mechanism (though 'Manual' usually implies local interaction).

Assess if the lack of re-locking is due to auto-lock configuration failure or user negligence.

The investigator correctly identified the key event (manual unlock) and context (occupancy).

However, the conclusion that this is likely a 'normal morning routine' or 'negligence' relies heavily on the assumption that no further security-relevant events occurred. The logs provided end at 10:09, leaving a significant gap where the door status remains 'unlocked' without confirmation of re-locking.

Without evidence that the door was eventually secured, we cannot rule out a security breach (intruder entered and stayed, or door left open).

The 'device fault' hypothesis is weak because there are no error codes, but the 'security risk' of an unsecured door is real until proven otherwise.

Need C05 (pre-08:23) to establish baseline behavior (e.g., did the user lock it previously?) and potentially later chunks to see if/when it was re-locked.

Current evidence is insufficient to definitively classify as 'safe' or 'threat'; it indicates a 'potential threat pending verification'.

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## Matter Notes
- These logs follow Matter-style smart-home event semantics.
- TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue is represented in centi-degrees Celsius in this benchmark: 2466 means 24.66 C, not 2466 C.
- BooleanState and other protocol booleans should be interpreted using transitions and surrounding events, not naive natural-language assumptions from a single isolated value.
- OccupancySensing.Occupancy uses 0=unoccupied and 1=occupied.
- DoorLock.LockState is an enumerated state; formatted logs may show both the label and the raw code.
- A device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence such as stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarm/fault events, or impossible state transitions. Scaled temperature values alone are not enough.

## Layout
Layout: 独居老人 (Elderly Living Alone)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>, 床头灯<onoff_light>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- living_room: 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 498,
    "bedroom": 529,
    "kitchen": 537,
    "bathroom": 60,
    "entrance": 232
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 945,
    "MeasuredValue": 872,
    "OnOff": 22,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 945,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-03T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-03T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "entrance": 4

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## Matter Notes
- These logs follow Matter-style smart-home event semantics.
- TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue is represented in centi-degrees Celsius in this benchmark: 2466 means 24.66 C, not 2466 C.
- BooleanState and other protocol booleans should be interpreted using transitions and surrounding events, not naive natural-language assumptions from a single isolated value.
- OccupancySensing.Occupancy uses 0=unoccupied and 1=occupied.
- DoorLock.LockState is an enumerated state; formatted logs may show both the label and the raw code.
- A device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence such as stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarm/fault events, or impossible state transitions. Scaled temperature values alone are not enough.

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact",
      "entrance_occupancy"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "kitchen"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "kitchen_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "door_unlock_event",
    "occupancy_correlation",
    "morning_routine"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06 contains the specific lock operation event (Unlock) and immediate contact/occupancy changes at 08:24, which is the primary evidence for the security assessment.",
    "C07 provides the immediate context of continued occupancy in the living room and entrance, helping to distinguish between an intrusion and a resident's normal morning activity."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal morning routine with user negligence (door left unlocked). The resident manually unlocked the front door at 08:24 to exit or let someone in, but failed to re-lock it. Subsequent occupancy signals confirm residents remained inside, suggesting the door was simply forgotten open rather than breached by an intruder.",
      "evidence": [
        "C06: Manual unlock event at 08:24:00 followed imm