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

No confirmed safety anomaly; the observed events are consistent with a normal evening routine involving cooking and minor sensor telemetry glitches.

Explanation: The primary potential risk identified was 'unattended cooking' due to a brief temperature sensor dropout (None value) at 19:16 while the cook surface was active. However, the cook surface was turned off manually at 19:43, and no smoke/CO alarms or water leaks were triggered, indicating no hazardous event occurred.

Explanation: The sensor dropout is interpreted as a transient communication glitch rather than a device fault or critical safety failure, as it resolved immediately and did not correlate with any escalation in temperature or alarm states.

Explanation: Door lock activity (C04, C09, C12) shows standard manual unlock/auto-lock patterns associated with entry and exit, with no evidence of forced entry, repeated failures, or unauthorized access attempts.

Explanation: Occupancy data confirms presence in the home (living room occupied from 18:00 onwards), making total abandonment during cooking unlikely, even if direct kitchen supervision cannot be definitively proven by logs alone.

Explanation: The supervisor noted high risk of false alarms regarding the sensor dropout and lack of direct kitchen occupancy evidence; without corroborating evidence of hazard (fire/gas) or abnormal behavior, the normal hypothesis is preferred.

Cook surface ON at 19:15, OFF at 19:43; no alarms triggered.

Kitchen temp sensor reported 'None' at 19:16 but recovered to valid values at 19:20.

Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' throughout the evening, confirming presence in the home.

Lock operations were manual/unlock followed by auto-lock, consistent with normal usage.

Monitor for recurrence of temperature sensor dropouts to rule out intermittent connectivity issues.

Ensure smoke/CO detectors are functional and tested regularly.

Continue monitoring door lock logs for any unusual patterns such as failed retries or rapid state flips.

Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks.

Potential security breach or unauthorized access indicated by frequent lock state flips (4 total) in C04.

Possible cooking activity or appliance usage in kitchen during evening hours (C11, C12).

Occupancy patterns suggesting presence in living room/bedroom during evening, contrasting with daytime absence.

Need to verify if 'alarmish_count' spikes correlate with actual safety events (fire/gas/water) or are false positives/noise.

C11 shows specific device interactions in the kitchen (cook_surface off, window contact false) and a missing temperature value, which could indicate a sensor fault or a specific event sequence relevant to safety.

C12 has the highest alarmish count (27), requiring inspection to distinguish between genuine safety alarms (smoke/co) and system noise or occupancy transitions.

Normal evening routine with standard appliance usage and minor sensor telemetry glitch.

Cook surface was turned on at 19:15 and off at 19:43 (28 minutes), a typical duration for cooking.

Kitchen temperature rose from ~23°C to ~27°C during cooking, consistent with heat generation, then cooled down after the device was turned off.

The kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' at 19:16 and 19:44, but immediately recovered to valid values in subsequent logs (19:20, 19:45), indicating a transient communication dropout rather than permanent failure.

No smoke/CO alarms were triggered, and no water leak detectors activated.

Door lock operations were manual unlock followed by auto-lock, consistent with normal entry/exit behavior.

Does not fully explain the specific timing of the sensor dropout relative to the cook surface state change, though this is likely just noise.

Relies on the assumption that the occupant remained in the house (living room occupied) throughout the cooking period, which is plausible but unverified by direct presence in the kitchen.

Unattended cooking risk due to temporary loss of environmental monitoring (sensor dropout) during active heating.

At 19:15, the kitchen cook surface was turned ON.

At 19:16, the kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None', creating a blind spot in environmental monitoring for approximately 4 minutes until it recovered at 19:20.

Although the living room occupancy remained 'occupied' (raw=1) throughout this period, there is no explicit evidence that the person was present *in the kitchen* or supervising the stove during the sensor blackout window.

The cook surface remained on for nearly 30 minutes. If the user had left the kitchen or been distracted during the initial phase (when the sensor was down), the lack of immediate temperature feedback could delay detection of a hazardous situation.

Supervisor feedback explicitly noted the high false-alarm risk of assuming hazard from a single gap, but also highlighted the need to verify if the 'alarmish_count' spikes correlated with actual events. While no alarm fired, the combination of an active heat source and a monitoring gap constitutes a latent safety vulnerability.

No actual fire or dangerous temperature escalation occurred; the system recovered normally.

Living room occupancy suggests someone was home, reducing the likelihood of total abandonment.

The sensor dropout was very brief (4-5 minutes) and resolved quickly, making it more likely a network glitch than a critical safety failure.

Without smoke/CO alarm triggers, there is no confirmation of a hazardous event.

Potential security anomaly: Unusual door lock activity pattern.

Structured signals indicate 4 lock state flips. In C04 (morning), there was a manual unlock followed by an auto-lock within seconds (07:27:12 - 07:27:22).

In C09 (evening), another manual unlock occurred at 18:00:00, followed by lights turning on and AC activating, suggesting entry.

While these appear to be normal entries, the 'lock_state_flips' count of 4 is higher than typical for a quiet day, warranting attention to ensure no unauthorized access attempts occurred between chunks or via failed retries not logged here.

However, no forced entry indicators (broken contact sensors, repeated failed locks) are present.

All lock operations have clear corresponding context (lights on, occupancy changes), strongly supporting legitimate use.

No evidence of tailgating or credential theft.

The 'flips' are explained by morning departure and evening arrival routines.

Kitchen cook surface OnOff transition at 19:15 (ON) and 19:43 (OFF).

Kitchen temperature sensor 'None' value at 19:16 and 19:44, sandwiched between active cooking periods.

Living room OccupancySensing.Occupancy = 1 (occupied) continuously from 18:00 through 23:55, confirming presence in the home but not specifically in the kitchen.

Absence of any SmokeCOAlarm or WaterLeakDetector activation events across all chunks.

Direct motion/occupancy data for the kitchen itself to confirm if the user was physically present at the stove during the 19:15-19:43 window.

Audio or video logs from the kitchen camera (if available) to verify supervision during the sensor dropout.

Detailed logs of the 'alarmish_count' spikes mentioned in supervisor notes to rule out silent failures or suppressed alerts.

Verify kitchen occupancy status during the cooking window (19:15-19:43) to confirm supervision.

Check for smoke/CO alarm activation events in chunks C10-C12 to rule out undetected fire/gas.

Investigate the cause of the temperature sensor 'None' values (transient dropout vs. device fault).

Confirm if the cook surface was manually turned off or if an auto-shutoff feature triggered it.

The investigator correctly identified the potential risk of unattended cooking due to a sensor blackout, but the evidence is insufficient to confirm a safety hazard or device fault.

The 'sensor dropout' hypothesis relies heavily on a single transient 'None' value which recovered immediately; this is likely a telemetry glitch rather than a critical malfunction, especially given the lack of subsequent alarms.

The investigation lacks direct evidence of human presence in the kitchen during the cooking event. Relying solely on living room occupancy is speculative.

The focus on 'alarmish_count' spikes in C12 is noted, but without the actual log data for those spikes, we cannot distinguish between noise and real events. The current chunks (C10-C12) show normal post-cooking cooling and dishwasher usage, but do not explain the initial trigger context fully.

To resolve the 'unattended cooking' risk, we need to know if the user was actually in the kitchen. If no kitchen occupancy sensor exists, we must rely on cross-device correlation (e.g., lights, other sensors) which is currently weak.

The lock activity in C04/C09 appears normal (manual unlock/auto-lock), so the security risk flagged by the triage is likely low/false alarm.

Request adjacent chunks (C05-C08) to check for any morning anomalies that might have been missed, although the primary concern is the evening cooking event. More importantly, verify if there are any missing logs between 19:15 and 19:20 that could indicate a more significant communication failure.

The home is in a normal evening routine state with no active safety threats. The kitchen temperature spike and subsequent drop are consistent with cooking activity, and the missing sensor reading was a transient telemetry glitch that resolved immediately.

C04 shows a single anomalous raw value of 2750 (27.5 C) for the kitchen temp at 07:15, but it immediately returns to normal baseline (~25 C) in subsequent readings, indicating a transient error rather than a sustained hazard.

C11 shows the cook surface is 'off' at 19:43, and the dishwasher turns on at 20:15, suggesting normal appliance usage.

Occupancy logs show continuous presence in the living room from 19:22 through 22:20, implying supervision of the kitchen area.

The front door lock sequence in C04 (unlock manual -> close contact -> lock auto) represents a standard departure/secure cycle.

Does not fully explain the specific timing of the kitchen temperature gap relative to the cook surface status.

Assumes the occupant in the living room is actively monitoring the kitchen, which is an inference not directly supported by device data.

The system is functioning correctly; all devices reported stable states after initial transient fluctuations. No security breaches or equipment failures occurred.

LockState transitions in C04 and C12 follow logical sequences (Unlocked->Locked) with corresponding Contact Sensor changes (False->True).

Temperature sensors across all rooms show gradual, physically plausible changes over time without stuck values or impossible jumps.

No explicit alarm events (smoke, CO, water leak) were triggered in any chunk.

Ignores the potential risk associated with the brief period where the kitchen sensor was unavailable while appliances were active.

Potential unattended cooking or minor fire risk due to a temporary loss of environmental monitoring (kitchen temp sensor dropout) during active appliance usage, combined with a lack of direct smoke/CO alarm confirmation.

In C11, at 19:44:00, the kitchen_temp_sensor reports `MeasuredValue = None`, indicating a complete loss of telemetry from the primary heat-monitoring device in the kitchen.

Prior to this, at 19:43:00, the `kitchen_cook_surface` was explicitly turned 'off', but the dishwasher turned 'on' at 20:15:00, meaning the kitchen remained an active appliance zone.

The temperature sensor did not recover until 19:45:00, creating a 1-minute blind spot in thermal monitoring.

While the living room occupancy confirms someone is home, there is no evidence they are in the kitchen, and no smoke/CO alarm event is logged to confirm safety during the dropout window.

The earlier transient spike in C04 (27.5 C) suggests the sensor might be prone to intermittent errors or calibration drift, increasing the likelihood that the 'None' reading was a hardware fault rather than just a network glitch.

The duration of the blackout (1 minute) is short and may not constitute a significant fire risk if no ignition source was present.

The cook surface was off before the dropout, reducing the immediate heat generation risk compared to an active stove.

No actual high-temperature readings or alarms were generated, so the 'risk' is hypothetical based on monitoring failure.

Sensor malfunction or connectivity issue with the kitchen temperature sensor, evidenced by the sudden transition to 'None' and the previous erratic reading.

C04 contains a suspicious isolated reading of 2750 (27.5 C) at 07:15, which deviates from the stable ~25 C baseline, suggesting potential sensor instability.

C11 shows the sensor outputting `None` at 19:44:00, a hard failure state, before recovering at 19:45:00.

This pattern of erratic values followed by total signal loss points to a device health issue rather than a simple network timeout.

The recovery was immediate, which is common for Wi-Fi/Zigbee dropouts, making it hard to distinguish from a true hardware fault without more historical data.

C11: kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None (19:44:00)

C11: kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = off (19:43:00) vs kitchen_dishwasher | OnOff.OnOff = on (20:15:00)

C04: kitchen_temp_sensor | MeasuredValue = 2750 (19:15:00) - outlier value

C04 & C12: LockState transitions showing secure locking behavior

Status of the smoke_co_alarm device specifically during the 19:44-19:45 window (is it online? did it trigger?).

Direct motion or presence data inside the kitchen itself (not just living room) to confirm if anyone was actually supervising the appliances.

Historical frequency of 'None' readings or spikes for the kitchen sensor to establish a baseline for malfunction probability.

Cook surface was turned on at 19:15 and off at 19:43 (28 minutes), a typical duration for cooking.

No smoke/CO alarms were triggered, and no water leak detectors activated.

Door lock operations were manual unlock followed by auto-lock, consistent with normal entry/exit behavior.

At 19:15, the kitchen cook surface was turned ON.

However, no forced entry indicators (broken contact sensors, repeated failed locks) are present.

Verify smoke_co_alarm status and logs during the 19:44-19:45 window to rule out undetected fire/gas events.

Check for kitchen-specific occupancy or motion data to confirm if the area was supervised during the appliance usage period.

Review C10 (pre-evening) and C13 (post-22:20) to establish baseline device health and ensure no delayed alarms or secondary incidents occurred.

The investigator correctly identified a telemetry dropout (None value) in the kitchen temp sensor but over-interpreted it as a significant safety risk ('unattended cooking') without corroborating evidence of actual hazard (e.g., high temp readings, smoke alarm triggers).

The 'fire_risk' hypothesis relies heavily on the assumption that a 1-minute sensor gap implies an unsupervised hazardous event, which is speculative given the cook surface was off. This constitutes a high false-alarm risk.

The investigation lacks critical context: the status of the smoke/CO alarm (a primary safety device listed in the query) during the event window is unknown. Without this, we cannot confirm safety or detect a missed alarm.

The focus chunks (C04, C11, C12) cover morning lock activity and evening temperature/device states but miss the immediate pre-event context (C10) and post-event stability (C13). Adjacent chunks are needed to verify if the sensor dropout was an isolated glitch or part of a broader connectivity issue, and to check for any delayed safety responses.

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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: 一室一厅 (Studio/1BR)
- 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>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅台灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 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": 403,
    "bedroom": 356,
    "kitchen": 301,
    "bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 868,
    "Occupancy": 225,
    "OnOff": 19,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 225,
  "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": "2026-06-01T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-01T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [
      "li

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "entrance",
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "door_lock",
      "cook_surface",
      "water_leak_detector"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "entrance_door_lock",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "bathroom_water_leak_detector"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C11",
    "C12"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Potential security breach or unauthorized access indicated by frequent lock state flips (4 total) in C04.",
    "Possible cooking activity or appliance usage in kitchen during evening hours (C11, C12).",
    "Occupancy patterns suggesting presence in living room/bedroom during evening, contrasting with daytime absence.",
    "Need to verify if 'alarmish_count' spikes correlate with actual safety events (fire/gas/water) or are false positives/noise."
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the highest concentration of lock state changes (implied by high alarmish count and top device list including front_door_lock), which is a primary security risk indicator.",
    "C11 shows specific device interactions in the kitchen (cook_surface off, window contact false) and a missing temperature value, which could indicate a sensor fault or a specific event sequence relevant


FG-03-FP: 烟雾报警器自检触发CO检测

The cook surface was active for approximately 42 minutes in the kitchen while no occupancy was detected in that specific zone, creating a potential unattended cooking fire risk despite the absence of alarm triggers.

Explanation: 1. Security Status: The front door remained unlocked from 18:19 to 21:46 (approx. 3.5 hours). While this is a security gap, it was resolved by an automatic lock event at 21:46. This indicates a configuration delay or behavioral oversight rather than a device malfunction or active intrusion, as the system eventually secured itself.

Explanation: 2. Cooking Event Analysis: The kitchen cook surface turned on at 18:52 and off at 19:34. During this entire window, the `kitchen_occupancy` sensor did not report 'occupied'. In contrast, the `living_room_occupancy` was consistently 'occupied', suggesting the occupant was likely in the living room or bedroom, not supervising the stove directly.

Explanation: 3. Risk Assessment: The combination of an active heat source and lack of direct occupancy verification in the kitchen constitutes a potential 'unattended cooking' scenario. Although no smoke/CO alarms triggered (suggesting no actual fire occurred), the *risk* condition exists due to the lack of supervision evidence.

Explanation: 4. Telemetry Note: The `kitchen_temp_sensor` reported `None` at 18:53, coinciding with the start of cooking. This could be due to heat interference or a transient glitch, but it further reduces the reliability of environmental monitoring during the critical period. However, without explicit fault codes, this is treated as telemetry noise rather than a device failure.

Explanation: 5. Conclusion: The primary safety concern is the potential for unattended cooking. The security gap is secondary and resolved. Therefore, the anomaly is classified as unattended_cooking.

C10: `kitchen_cook_surface` OnOff = on at 18:52:30 and off at 19:34:00.

C10-C11: No `kitchen_occupancy` events indicating presence during the cooking window (18:52-19:34).

C10-C11: `living_room_occupancy` remains occupied throughout, implying the person was elsewhere.

C12: Front door auto-locked at 21:46, resolving the earlier security gap.

Review smart home automation rules to ensure the cook surface has a timer or motion-sensor shutoff if no kitchen occupancy is detected after a set duration.

Verify the status of the kitchen temperature sensor to determine if the `None` reading was a transient error or a persistent hardware issue.

Consider enabling push notifications for the cook surface state changes to allow for immediate remote intervention if unattended cooking is suspected.

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.

Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety condition and identify any potential risks.

Unlocked door with no immediate re-locking evidence in the provided snippet

High alarmish event count in evening chunks (C10-C13) requiring correlation with actual sensor states

Potential unattended cooking or appliance usage if cook_surface/dishwasher state is ambiguous

These chunks contain the living room and kitchen activity context needed to assess if high event counts correlate with human presence (normal) or device faults/alarms (risk).

The home is in a secure, normal evening state. The front door was manually unlocked for entry at 18:19 and remained open until the auto-lock engaged at 21:46 due to a configured delay or manual oversight, which is not a device fault. Cooking and dishwasher usage were supervised and completed safely.

C09 shows a successful Smoke/CO self-test at 16:57 with no alarms triggered, confirming sensor health.

C10 shows the cook surface turned on at 18:52 and off at 19:34 (42 mins), a typical cooking duration.

C11 shows the dishwasher started at 19:50, consistent with post-dinner cleanup.

C12 shows the front door lock state transitioning to 'locked' (raw=1) via Auto operation at 21:46:37, resolving the security gap.

Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout C10-C13, indicating continuous human presence in the main living area.

Does not explain why the auto-lock did not engage immediately upon the last person leaving the entrance/living room zone if that was the trigger condition, suggesting a potential configuration lag rather than immediate safety enforcement.

Security Risk: Prolonged Unsecured Entry Point. The front door remained unlocked for approximately 3 hours and 27 minutes (18:19 to 21:46). While the door eventually locked automatically, this extended window represents a significant security vulnerability where unauthorized entry could have occurred without detection by the lock system itself.

C10: `front_door_lock` Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=1, OperationSource=Manual) at 18:19:00 sets state to 'unlocked'.

C10-C12: No subsequent lock events or contact sensor closures indicating the door was closed/locked between 18:19 and 21:46.

C12: `front_door_lock` Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=0, OperationSource=Auto) at 21:46:37 finally locks the door.

Gap: The interval from 18:19 to 21:46 is over 3 hours long, during which the primary entry point was physically accessible.

The eventual auto-lock suggests the system is functional, but the delay implies either a long timer setting or a failure of the 'all occupants left' trigger logic (since living room occupancy stayed high, the trigger might have been based on entrance/bedroom absence which fluctuated).

Potential Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk. The cook surface was active for ~42 minutes while kitchen occupancy data was missing/ambiguous, relying solely on living room occupancy as a proxy for supervision. If the occupant moved to the bedroom (which became occupied later) or bathroom, the kitchen may have been unattended.

C10: `kitchen_cook_surface` OnOff = on at 18:52:30.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports None at 18:53:00, shortly after turning on, potentially due to heat interference or sensor dropout.

C10: Living room occupancy is 'occupied', but there is no explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' event recorded during the cooking window (18:52-19:34).

C12: Bedroom occupancy becomes 'occupied' at 21:46, showing occupants move between rooms, making it plausible someone left the kitchen area during cooking.

Cooking duration (42 mins) is within normal bounds.

Living room occupancy suggests someone was home, reducing the risk of total abandonment.

C12: `front_door_lock` Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=0, OperationSource=Auto) at 21:46:37 confirms the door was eventually secured, ruling out permanent mechanical failure but highlighting the long delay.

C09: `SmokeCoAlarm.TestInProgress` sequence at 16:57 confirms the alarm system is operational and responsive, making a silent failure less likely.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` value becoming `None` at 18:53:00 coincides exactly with the start of cooking activity, raising a minor telemetry integrity question but not necessarily a fire hazard given the lack of other thermal anomalies.

Configuration details for the auto-lock timer or trigger conditions (e.g., does it lock when all doors are closed? When motion stops?).

Explicit kitchen occupancy logs for the period 18:52-19:34 to confirm if anyone was actually in the kitchen during cooking.

Water leak detector status during the dishwasher cycle (C11) to rule out water hazards.

Verify dishwasher completion status and any water leak detector triggers during/after C11 (19:50 onwards) to rule out water hazards.

Check for any smoke/CO alarm activations in C13/C14 following the cooking event to definitively rule out fire risk.

Confirm if the 'kitchen_temp_sensor' dropout at 18:53 was a transient glitch or persistent fault by checking subsequent readings in C10-C12.

The investigator correctly identified the security gap (door unlocked 18:19-21:46) and the potential unattended cooking window. However, the analysis relies heavily on the absence of evidence (no kitchen occupancy logs) for the cooking risk, which is a weak signal without corroborating sensor data (smoke/CO).

The 'device-health' aspect regarding the temperature sensor dropout is noted but not fully resolved; it requires checking if the sensor recovered or remained faulty.

Crucially, the investigation stops at C13. The query asks for a comprehensive safety status. The dishwasher cycle started in C11 and likely continued into C14. Without C14, we cannot confirm if the dishwasher finished safely or if there were leaks. Also, post-cooking safety (fire check) needs verification in later chunks.

The lock delay is significant but eventually resolved. This is a configuration/behavioral issue rather than a hard fault, but the long duration is a valid security concern. The current verdict is too speculative on the cooking front due to missing context.

Request C14 to close the loop on appliance cycles and final home state.

Normal evening routine with secure entry and standard appliance usage. The front door was unlocked manually upon entry, remained open for approximately 3 hours while occupants were present in the home (evidenced by continuous living room occupancy), and was automatically locked at 21:46 when the occupant moved to the bedroom. Cooking and dishwasher usage occurred during occupied periods with no signs of unattended hazard.

[C10] Front door lock state changed to 'unlocked' (raw=2) at 18:19 via Manual operation.

[C10-C12] Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' (raw=1) continuously from 18:19 through 22:20, indicating presence throughout the unlocked period.

[C10] Kitchen cook surface turned on at 18:52 and off at 19:34; kitchen light also on, suggesting active cooking/supervision.

[C11] Dishwasher turned on at 19:50 with OperationalState=1, occurring while living room is occupied.

[C12] At 21:46, as bedroom occupancy transitions to 'occupied' (raw=1) and lights turn on, the front door contact closes (raw=True) and lock state changes to 'locked' (raw=1) via Auto operation.

The 3-hour window between unlocking and auto-locking is unusually long for a typical 'enter-and-leave' scenario, though explained by continuous indoor presence.

No explicit 'lock engaged' confirmation event is logged immediately after the manual unlock, relying on the contact sensor state change later.

Potential security risk due to prolonged unlocked state without immediate re-locking or verification. Although occupancy sensors indicate someone is home, the front door remained physically unlocked for over 3 hours (18:19 to 21:46). This creates a vulnerability if an intruder entered during this window, or if the auto-lock feature failed to engage earlier despite being configured. The lack of any intermediate lock checks or manual re-locking events suggests a reliance on a single delayed automation trigger.

[C10] DoorLock.LockState = unlocked (raw=2) at 18:19.

[C10] No subsequent LockOperation or LockState change to 'locked' occurs until 21:46 in C12.

[C10-C12] During this entire interval, the front_door_contact sensor shows StateValue=false (open) consistently, confirming the door was not closed/locked.

[C12] The lock only engages at 21:46 via Auto operation, coinciding with movement to the bedroom, rather than immediately upon entry or at a regular interval.

Continuous living room occupancy (raw=1) strongly suggests legitimate presence, making intrusion less likely than a configuration oversight.

The eventual successful auto-lock indicates the device is functional, ruling out total failure.

No evidence of forced entry or alarm triggers exists in the logs.

Unattended cooking risk. The cook surface was activated at 18:52 but turned off at 19:34. While the living room occupancy sensor remained active, there is no direct evidence that the person in the living room was supervising the kitchen. If the occupant left the kitchen area (which is plausible given the distance from the living room) and did not return until after the stove was off, this represents a potential fire safety gap, especially since no smoke/CO alarms triggered.

[C10] kitchen_cook_surface OnOff=on at 18:52.

[C10] kitchen_cook_surface OnOff=off at 19:34.

[C10] No kitchen occupancy sensor data is provided in the focused chunks to confirm presence in the kitchen specifically.

[C10] Living room occupancy is constant, but does not guarantee proximity to the kitchen.

[C10] No smoke or CO alarm events are recorded during or after the cooking period.

The cooking duration (~42 mins) is within normal bounds for meal preparation.

The cook surface was turned off, so no active fire hazard persists.

Occupancy in the main living area often correlates with general household activity, reducing the likelihood of complete abandonment.

The 3-hour gap between manual unlock (18:19) and auto-lock (21:46) is the primary security anomaly.

Continuous living room occupancy (18:19-22:20) confirms presence but does not verify kitchen supervision.

Cook surface ON/OFF cycle (18:52-19:34) lacks direct kitchen occupancy corroboration.

Kitchen-specific occupancy sensor data to verify if anyone was in the kitchen during cooking.

Configuration details for the auto-lock timer (why it waited ~3 hours instead of locking immediately or after a shorter timeout).

Status of smoke/CO detectors during the cooking period to rule out silent failures or false negatives.

History of previous lock/unlock patterns to determine if the 3-hour delay is typical behavior or an outlier.

C09 shows a successful Smoke/CO self-test at 16:57 with no alarms triggered, confirming sensor health.

C10 shows the cook surface turned on at 18:52 and off at 19:34 (42 mins), a typical cooking duration.

C11 shows the dishwasher started at 19:50, consistent with post-dinner cleanup.

Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout C10-C13, indicating continuous human presence in the main living area.

C12: `front_door_lock` Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=0, OperationSource=Auto) at 21:46:37 finally locks the door.

Gap: The interval from 18:19 to 21:46 is over 3 hours long, during which the primary entry point was physically accessible.

C10: `kitchen_cook_surface` OnOff = on at 18:52:30.

Verify if the 'unlocked' state at 18:19 was a transient glitch or sustained; check C09 for any prior lock/unlock activity or configuration changes.

Confirm if the auto-lock at 21:46 was triggered by a specific condition (e.g., all occupants leaving common areas) rather than a timer, to rule out malfunction.

Check for any smoke/CO alarm events in C10-C12 that might have been suppressed or missed, specifically during the cooking window.

The investigator correctly identified the long unlocked interval (18:19-21:46) as a potential security risk but relied heavily on the assumption that continuous living room occupancy implies safety. While plausible, this is an inference, not direct evidence of supervision or secure entry prevention.

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis is weak because the cook surface turned off normally, and no alarms triggered. The lack of kitchen occupancy data is noted but does not constitute a fault or immediate hazard without further evidence.

Crucially, Chunk C09 (the period immediately preceding the unlock event) is missing. Without C09, we cannot determine if the door was already unlocked, if there was a failed lock attempt, or if the manual unlock at 18:19 was part of a normal routine or an anomaly. This gap prevents a definitive conclusion on whether the 3-hour unlocked state was a configuration oversight or a device failure.

The investigation should refine by checking C09 to establish the baseline state before the critical event.

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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: 一室一厅 (Studio/1BR)
- 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>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅台灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 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": 398,
    "bedroom": 362,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 221,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "TestInProgress": 2,
    "COState": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 221,
  "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": "2026-06-19T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-19T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroo

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance",
      "kitchen",
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "cook_surface"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety condition and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "kitchen",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "smoke_co_alarm",
    "water_leak_detector",
    "cook_surface",
    "dishwasher"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C10",
    "C11",
    "C12"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Unlocked door with no immediate re-locking evidence in the provided snippet",
    "High alarmish event count in evening chunks (C10-C13) requiring correlation with actual sensor states",
    "Potential unattended cooking or appliance usage if cook_surface/dishwasher state is ambiguous"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C10 captures the critical entry event: front door unlock at 18:19. It is essential to verify if the lock re-engaged later or if it remained open, which is a primary security risk.",
    "C11 and C12 cover the subsequent evening hours where 'alarmish_count' is highest (24-27). These chunks must be inspected to distinguish between normal occupancy activity and genuine safety alarms (smoke, CO, leak).",
    "These chunks contain the living room and kitchen activity context needed to assess if high event counts correlate with human presence (normal) or device faults/a


FG-02-FP: 电暖器/取暖器正常使用

有人在房间且温度上升后趋于稳定（不是持续飙升），无烟雾报警触发

No confirmed safety anomaly detected; the evening routine appears normal with no evidence of fire, intrusion, or device failure.

Explanation: The cook surface was active for 46 minutes (19:01-19:47), which is a standard duration for meal preparation. It was manually turned off at 19:47, indicating user supervision and safe termination of the heat source.

Explanation: Kitchen temperature rose from ~23°C to ~26.8°C during cooking and cooled down afterwards, consistent with normal thermal dynamics of cooking in a residential space without indicating a fire hazard (which would typically show rapid, uncontrolled spikes or smoke alarm triggers).

Explanation: Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' throughout the evening, suggesting an adult was present in the home. While direct kitchen presence wasn't logged, the manual shutdown of the stove implies awareness and control.

Explanation: Two isolated 'None' readings from the kitchen temp sensor are transient telemetry errors that recovered immediately; per Matter notes, this does not constitute a device fault requiring escalation.

Explanation: Front door lock operated normally (manual unlock on entry, auto-lock on exit/bedtime) with no signs of forced entry or malfunction.

Explanation: No smoke/CO alarms were triggered, and no other hazardous events (water leaks, etc.) were recorded.

Cook surface OnOff=on at 19:01 and OnOff=off at 19:47 (manual intervention).

Kitchen temperature peaked at 26.86°C and subsequently decreased, showing no runaway heating.

Living room occupancy remained occupied (raw=1) from 18:21 onwards, indicating presence.

Front door lock state transitions: unlocked (18:21) -> locked (22:12) via auto-operation.

Continue monitoring kitchen activity logs if available to correlate occupancy with appliance usage.

Verify smoke/CO alarm functionality periodically as part of routine maintenance.

Potential unattended cooking or fire hazard in kitchen (high temp, cook surface activity)

Access control events at entrance (lock state changes)

Occupancy patterns indicating presence during high-risk activities

Missing explicit alarm triggers despite environmental anomalies

C12 continues the evening timeline with sustained occupancy in living room and bedroom, allowing assessment of whether the situation stabilized or if risks persisted into the night.

Normal evening routine with supervised cooking and standard device operation.

Cook surface was turned on at 19:01 and manually turned off at 19:47 (46 minutes duration), which is a plausible timeframe for meal preparation.

Kitchen temperature rose from ~23°C to ~26.8°C during the cooking window, consistent with heat generation from cooking, then cooled down after the stove was turned off.

Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' throughout the evening (18:21 onwards), suggesting an adult was present in the home and likely nearby or aware of kitchen activity.

Front door lock operated normally: unlocked manually upon entry (18:21) and locked automatically upon exit/bedtime (22:12).

Dishwasher started at 20:08, following the completion of cooking/cleanup, indicating a logical sequence of events.

Does not fully explain the two isolated 'None' readings from the kitchen temp sensor, though these could be transient telemetry errors.

Relies on the assumption that 'living room occupied' implies supervision of the kitchen, which is not guaranteed if the person was in a separate part of an open-plan space or distracted.

Potential unattended cooking risk due to lack of direct kitchen presence verification and sensor data gaps.

The cook surface was active for 46 minutes (19:01-19:47) without any explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' logs confirming someone was in the kitchen during this period.

Kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' twice (19:02, 19:48) during critical phases of the cooking event, creating data blind spots exactly when monitoring would be most valuable.

While living room occupancy was high, there is no cross-device correlation (e.g., motion in hallway, kitchen light interaction) proving the occupant was actively supervising the stove.

The temperature rise (23°C to 26.8°C) was gradual but sustained, typical of residual heat from cooking, but the absence of smoke/CO alarm triggers (if they exist and are logged) leaves the safety outcome dependent solely on manual intervention.

No evidence of fire, smoke, or alarm activation; the situation resolved safely.

The 'None' values may simply be transmission errors rather than sensor failure, and their isolation doesn't prove malicious intent or negligence.

46 minutes is within normal cooking times; 'unattended' is inferred from missing negative evidence (no kitchen presence log) rather than positive evidence of abandonment.

Minor sensor telemetry instability in the kitchen environment.

Kitchen temperature sensor returned 'None' at 19:02:00 and 19:48:00, interrupting the data stream.

These dropouts occurred immediately before and after the peak temperature readings, potentially obscuring the exact thermal profile of the hazard.

However, the sensor recovered quickly, returning to valid Celsius readings in subsequent intervals.

Only two isolated instances of 'None'; no repeated failures or stuck values.

Recovery was immediate, ruling out permanent hardware damage.

Does not meet the threshold for confirmed device fault as per Matter notes (requires repeated non-recovery or explicit fault events).

Absence of 'kitchen_occupancy' logs during the 19:01-19:47 cook surface active window.

Two 'None' telemetry values from kitchen_temp_sensor at 19:02 and 19:48.

Manual turn-off of cook_surface at 19:47 by a user (implied by OnOff=off event), preventing escalation.

Sustained 'occupied' status in living_room_occupancy from 18:21 to 23:48.

Logs for a dedicated 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor to confirm or deny presence in the kitchen during cooking.

Smoke/CO alarm event logs to verify if alarms were silent due to no hazard or because they were not queried/logged.

Confirmation of whether the cook surface has an auto-shutoff feature that might have been triggered or bypassed.

Context on whether the 'living_room_occupancy' sensor covers the entire living area including sightlines to the kitchen.

Verification of cook_surface auto-shutoff or safety timer logs (if available) to confirm if the manual turn-off at 19:47 was necessary or redundant.

Confirmation of smoke/CO alarm status specifically during the 19:01-19:47 window to rule out silent hazards.

Analysis of C14 to determine if any delayed alarms or secondary events occurred after the initial cooking period.

The investigator correctly identified the key event (cooking) and potential risks (unattended cooking, sensor gaps).

However, the 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is flagged as high false-alarm risk because it relies on two isolated 'None' values which recovered immediately. Per protocol, this does not constitute a confirmed device fault without repeated non-recovery or explicit fault codes.

The 'unattended_cooking' risk is also high false-alarm risk because it relies on the absence of kitchen occupancy logs rather than positive evidence of abandonment, and the situation resolved safely with no fire/smoke indicators.

Crucially, the investigation stops at C13 (ending ~23:48). The query asks for a comprehensive safety assessment. We must check C14 to ensure no delayed consequences (e.g., late-night fire, security breach) occurred. Without C14, the 'safety condition' conclusion is incomplete.

The current evidence supports a 'normal evening routine' narrative more strongly than a 'hazard' narrative, but the lack of C14 prevents a final verdict.

Normal evening routine with cooking and cleanup. The kitchen temperature rise is due to normal cooking heat dissipation, and the cook surface was turned off before leaving the area or going to sleep. The dishwasher cycle started as part of post-dinner cleanup.

Cook surface turned on at 19:01 and off at 19:47 (46 minutes), consistent with meal preparation.

Kitchen temperature rose from ~23°C to ~26.8°C during cooking, then stabilized/dropped after the cook surface was turned off.

Dishwasher turned on at 20:08, following the cooking activity.

Living room occupancy remained constant throughout, suggesting occupants were present in the home but not necessarily in the kitchen.

No smoke alarm triggers or fire-related events recorded.

Does not fully explain why the occupant left the kitchen for an extended period (approx. 1 hour) while the cook surface was active, relying on the assumption that 'leaving the room' implies supervision elsewhere or that the risk is negligible.

Assumes the temperature drop after 19:47 indicates safe cooling, ignoring the potential for residual heat hazards if flammable items were nearby.

Device telemetry glitch or sensor placement issue. The 'None' reading for the kitchen temp sensor is a transient communication error, and the temperature fluctuations are within normal environmental variance.

Kitchen temp sensor reported 'None' at 19:02 and 19:48, but recovered immediately with plausible values.

Temperature readings in other rooms (living room, bedroom) remained stable and consistent.

No explicit fault codes or repeated failures observed for the sensor.

The correlation between the 'None' reading and the cook surface being active/on might suggest the sensor was affected by the heat source or electromagnetic interference, which could indicate a hardware limitation rather than just a glitch.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk. The cook surface was left active for nearly an hour while the primary kitchen occupancy was not confirmed, and the temperature sensor failed to report data during critical heating phases. Although no fire occurred, the sequence represents a significant safety hazard due to lack of direct supervision and monitoring failure.

Kitchen temp sensor reported 'None' at 19:02:00, indicating a loss of monitoring capability right after cooking started.

Kitchen temp sensor reported 'None' again at 19:48:00, shortly after the cook surface was turned OFF at 19:47:00.

During the interval 19:01-19:47, there is no explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' event confirming someone was actively watching the stove. Living room occupancy was high, implying the person may have been in another room.

Kitchen temperature rose significantly (23°C to 26.8°C) during this unmonitored period.

No smoke detector or CO alarm triggered, meaning the hazard was not mitigated by automated safety systems.

We rely on the absence of 'kitchen_occupancy' logs to infer lack of supervision; it's possible the person was in the kitchen but the sensor didn't trigger (though less likely given the frequent updates in other rooms).

The cook surface was eventually turned off, so no catastrophic outcome occurred. This is a 'near-miss' scenario.

Sensor Malfunction / Environmental Interference. The kitchen temperature sensor experienced intermittent failures ('None') specifically correlated with high-heat events (cooking), suggesting it may be damaged, poorly placed, or unable to handle the thermal environment, compromising its reliability for future safety monitoring.

Kitchen temp sensor output 'None' at 19:02:00, exactly 30 seconds after cook surface turned ON.

Kitchen temp sensor output 'None' at 19:48:00, exactly 1 minute after cook surface turned OFF.

These failures coincide with rapid thermal changes in the kitchen.

Other sensors (living room, bedroom) did not show similar dropout patterns, isolating the issue to the kitchen environment or device.

The sensor recovered quickly, which is typical for transient network issues or temporary overload, making it hard to distinguish from a simple glitch without more historical data.

Cook surface ON (19:01) and OFF (19:47) timestamps.

Kitchen temp sensor 'None' readings at 19:02 and 19:48.

Absence of explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' events during the cooking window, contrasted with persistent 'living_room_occupancy'.

Rise in kitchen temperature from 23.07°C to 26.86°C during the unmonitored cooking period.

Direct confirmation of human presence in the kitchen during 19:01-19:47 (e.g., motion sensor data specific to the kitchen, or voice assistant interaction logs).

Smoke detector status/logs during the cooking period to confirm if it detected any smoke/heat anomalies.

Detailed history of the kitchen temperature sensor to determine if 'None' readings are a recurring pattern during high-heat events.

Cook surface turned on at 19:01 and off at 19:47 (46 minutes), consistent with meal preparation.

Dishwasher turned on at 20:08, following the cooking activity.

No smoke alarm triggers or fire-related events recorded.

Kitchen temp sensor reported 'None' at 19:02 and 19:48, but recovered immediately with plausible values.

Temperature readings in other rooms (living room, bedroom) remained stable and consistent.

No explicit fault codes or repeated failures observed for the sensor.

Kitchen temp sensor reported 'None' at 19:02:00, indicating a loss of monitoring capability right after cooking started.

Kitchen temp sensor reported 'None' again at 19:48:00, shortly after the cook surface was turned OFF at 19:47:00.

Kitchen temperature rose significantly (23°C to 26.8°C) during this unmonitored period.

No smoke detector or CO alarm triggered, meaning the hazard was not mitigated by automated safety systems.

Kitchen temp sensor output 'None' at 19:02:00, exactly 30 seconds after cook surface turned ON.

Kitchen temp sensor output 'None' at 19:48:00, exactly 1 minute after cook surface turned OFF.

These failures coincide with rapid thermal changes in the kitchen.

Front door lock operated normally: unlocked manually upon entry (18:21) and locked automatically upon exit/bedtime (22:12).

Dishwasher started at 20:08, following the completion of cooking/cleanup, indicating a logical sequence of events.

Kitchen temperature sensor returned 'None' at 19:02:00 and 19:48:00, interrupting the data stream.

However, the sensor recovered quickly, returning to valid Celsius readings in subsequent intervals.

Verify if 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor exists and check its logs in C09/C10 to confirm absence of presence vs. sensor limitation.

Check for explicit smoke/CO alarm events or fault states during the cooking window (C10).

Distinguish between transient telemetry dropout and actual device malfunction for the temperature sensor.

Confirm if the cook surface has an auto-shutoff feature or if the manual turn-off at 19:47 was the sole mitigation.

The investigator correctly identified the temporal sequence of cooking and temperature rise but relies heavily on the *absence* of kitchen occupancy logs to infer 'unattended cooking'. This is a weak inference without direct confirmation that a kitchen occupancy sensor exists and failed to trigger, or that no other activity occurred in the kitchen.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is flagged as high false-alarm risk because it rests on two isolated 'None' readings that recovered immediately, with no repeated failures or explicit fault codes. This does not meet the threshold for a confirmed device health issue.

The 'unattended_cooking' safety conclusion is also high false-alarm risk because it assumes the lack of logged presence equals lack of supervision, ignoring potential gaps in logging or multi-sensor correlation (e.g., motion elsewhere might imply proximity).

Chunk C09 (pre-cooking) is missing from the focused chunks but is critical to establish the baseline state of the kitchen sensors and any prior anomalies before the event started.

The investigation needs to explicitly rule out that the 'None' values are just data transmission errors rather than sensor damage, and verify if the smoke alarm remained silent due to no smoke or because it wasn't queried/logged.

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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: 一室一厅 (Studio/1BR)
- 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>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅台灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 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": 402,
    "bedroom": 355,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 58,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 869,
    "Occupancy": 222,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 222,
  "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": "2026-06-18T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [
      "li

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "entrance",
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "cook_surface",
      "front_door_lock",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "dishwasher"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "front_door_lock",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "bathroom_water_leak_detector"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C10",
    "C11",
    "C12"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Potential unattended cooking or fire hazard in kitchen (high temp, cook surface activity)",
    "Access control events at entrance (lock state changes)",
    "Occupancy patterns indicating presence during high-risk activities",
    "Missing explicit alarm triggers despite environmental anomalies"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C10 captures the evening arrival/entry sequence (lock operation) and initial occupancy, establishing the baseline for human presence.",
    "C11 shows critical kitchen activity: cook surface turning off, window contact status, and a temperature sensor reading 'None' (potential device fault or data loss), alongside rising temperatures which could indicate residual heat or cooking residue.",
    "C12 continues the evening timeline with sustained occupancy in living roo


BA-02-FP: 住户周末改变习惯早起做饭

住户先从卧室起床再去厨房（正常路径），虽然时间段不同寻常但行为模式是住户自己

No definitive safety anomaly detected; observed patterns are consistent with normal household activity and transient telemetry glitches.

Explanation: The investigator's primary hypothesis of 'unattended cooking' relies on the absence of kitchen occupancy logs during cook surface activation. However, the provided logs do not contain any 'kitchen_occupancy' device events at all, making it impossible to distinguish between a sensor failure/absence and actual unattended usage based solely on missing data. This is an 'absence of evidence' fallacy.

Explanation: Temperature readings in the kitchen show expected spikes (up to ~29.5°C) during cooking, which is normal for a kitchen environment and does not indicate fire or thermal runaway. The temperatures return to baseline after cooking stops.

Explanation: Transient 'None' readings from the kitchen temperature sensor occur immediately after cook surface activation. While this suggests potential environmental interference (steam/heat) or temporary network dropouts, these are brief and recover quickly. Per protocol, transient recovery without explicit fault codes or persistent stuck values does not constitute a confirmed device fault requiring immediate safety intervention.

Explanation: There is no evidence of smoke alarm triggers, water leaks, or security breaches (door lock status is not shown as compromised in the analyzed chunks, and C16 was not fully analyzed but no intrusion indicators were present in the rest).

Explanation: Given the lack of positive evidence for unsupervised hazard (e.g., smoke, extreme heat escalation, explicit absence confirmation) and the presence of plausible normal explanations (supervised cooking with sensor blind spots/glitches), the case defaults to 'none' with low confidence due to incomplete telemetry coverage.

Cook surface activated multiple times (C05, C07, C13) with corresponding temperature rises, but no smoke/fire alarms triggered.

Kitchen temperature peaked at 29.48°C (C07) then returned to ~25°C, indicating controlled heating rather than fire.

Transient 'None' values from kitchen_temp_sensor recovered within minutes, suggesting telemetry glitch rather than permanent failure.

No 'kitchen_occupancy' logs exist to confirm or deny presence, weakening the unattended cooking hypothesis.

Verify if a kitchen occupancy sensor exists and is functioning correctly by checking its configuration and recent logs.

Monitor the kitchen temperature sensor for recurring 'None' errors during high-heat events to determine if placement needs adjustment.

Ensure smoke detectors are tested and functional to provide redundant safety coverage.

kitchen living_room bedroom bathroom entrance

Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety status and identify any potential risks.

Cooking activity without immediate smoke alarm trigger (potential delayed response or sensor placement issue)

Temperature sensor reading 'None' during active cooking (possible device fault or communication drop)

Lock state change at end of day (security context)

C16: Shows the front door lock state at night, relevant for overall security status assessment.

Normal daily household activity with transient telemetry glitches. Cooking events were supervised (implied by short duration and lack of escalation), and temperature sensor 'None' readings were brief communication drops that recovered immediately.

Cook surface activation in C05 (09:17-09:35) and C07 (11:46-12:44) was followed by normal deactivation, indicating controlled usage rather than unattended burning.

Kitchen temperatures peaked at ~29.5°C (C07) during cooking but returned to baseline (~25°C) shortly after, showing no thermal runaway or fire conditions.

The kitchen_temp_sensor 'None' values (e.g., C05 09:18, C07 11:47) lasted only minutes before returning to valid readings, consistent with transient network/telemetry issues rather than permanent failure.

Occupancy logs show continuous presence in the home (Living Room/Bedroom occupied throughout), making it plausible that occupants were nearby even if not explicitly logged in the kitchen at every second.

No smoke alarm triggers or water leak detections occurred across all chunks.

Does not fully explain why kitchen occupancy sensors did not trigger during active cooking periods, which is unusual for a standard PIR sensor unless the occupant was stationary or the sensor has blind spots.

Relies on the assumption that 'no smoke/fire' equals 'supervised', ignoring the possibility of unsupervised cooking that didn't result in a hazard.

Unattended cooking risk due to missing supervision evidence and sensor blind spots. The cook surface was activated multiple times without corresponding kitchen occupancy logs, suggesting the user may have left the kitchen area while the stove was on, relying on external factors (like the living room occupancy) to infer safety.

In C05, kitchen_cook_surface turned ON at 09:17, but kitchen_occupancy never reported 'occupied' during this period; bathroom_occupancy went unoccupied at 09:18, and bedroom/living room remained occupied.

In C07, kitchen_cook_surface turned ON at 11:46, again with no explicit kitchen_occupancy log confirming presence; the next kitchen event was the window contact closing at 12:44.

The kitchen_temp_sensor experienced 'None' readings immediately following cook surface activation (C05 09:18, C07 11:47), potentially masking early heat spikes or indicating environmental interference from cooking steam/heat that affected the sensor.

The gap between cook surface activation and deactivation (approx. 1 hour in C07) is significant, and without direct occupancy confirmation, there is a window where the appliance could be unattended.

Lack of kitchen occupancy logs does not prove absence; the user could be sitting still in a blind spot or the sensor could be faulty/insensitive.

Temperatures did not escalate dangerously, and the cook surface was eventually turned off, mitigating immediate fire risk.

Supervisor feedback noted that 'unattended cooking' hypothesis is weak without positive evidence of unsupervised hazard, as the logs imply presence elsewhere in the home.

Sensor malfunction or placement issue causing monitoring gaps. The repeated 'None' readings for the kitchen temperature sensor coinciding with cooking activities suggest the sensor may be failing under specific environmental conditions (heat/humidity) or is poorly placed.

kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None' at 09:18 (C05) and 11:47 (C07), both shortly after cook_surface activation.

These 'None' events are transient but repeatable, suggesting a pattern related to the cooking environment rather than random noise.

If the sensor fails to report during high-heat events, it compromises the ability to detect overheating or fire risks via temperature thresholds.

The sensor recovers quickly, so it is not a permanent failure.

No explicit fault codes were generated by the device itself.

Could be explained by temporary signal interference rather than hardware malfunction.

Absence of kitchen_occupancy logs during confirmed cook_surface ON periods (C05 09:17-09:35, C07 11:46-12:44).

Transient 'None' readings from kitchen_temp_sensor immediately following cook_surface activation (C05 09:18, C07 11:47).

Peak kitchen temperature of 29.48°C (C07 11:30) which is elevated but not hazardous, occurring during the unlogged cooking period.

Direct video or audio confirmation of kitchen occupancy during cooking windows.

Smoke detector status/logs specifically for the kitchen zone to rule out any triggered alarms that might have been missed in the summary.

Detailed configuration of the kitchen occupancy sensor (e.g., sensitivity, blind spots) to determine if 'no log' truly means 'no person'.

Water leak detector status to ensure no secondary hazards were present during cooking.

Verify C12 for the second cooking event and temperature sensor 'None' reading mentioned in triage.

Verify C16 for front door lock state and security context mentioned in triage.

Check for explicit smoke alarm triggers or fault codes in all chunks to rule out fire/sensor failure definitively.

Confirm if 'kitchen_occupancy' device exists in logs or if it was a misinterpretation of other occupancy sensors.

The investigator's analysis relies heavily on 'unattended cooking' based on missing kitchen occupancy logs, but the provided chunks (C05-C09, C11, C13) do not contain any 'kitchen_occupancy' events at all. This suggests the hypothesis is built on an assumption that the device exists and failed to report, rather than evidence of its absence or malfunction. Without seeing the specific chunk where this 'missing log' is claimed to be significant (likely C12 as per triage), the risk of false alarm is high because the 'absence of evidence' is being treated as 'evidence of absence'.

The triage output explicitly flags C12 and C16 as focus chunks. The current investigation has not analyzed C12 (which likely contains the second cooking event and the critical 'None' reading pattern) or C16 (security context). Therefore, the evidence is insufficient to form a complete safety picture.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is also weakly supported by transient 'None' values which recovered immediately. Per protocol, transient recovery without explicit fault codes does not constitute a confirmed device fault requiring immediate safety intervention, but rather a telemetry glitch. However, the lack of C12 prevents confirming if this is a recurring pattern linked to hazards.

Must retrieve C12 and C16 to validate the triage suspicions and ensure the 'unattended cooking' claim is grounded in actual log gaps vs. just missing device data.

Normal household activity with intermittent sensor telemetry dropouts. The kitchen temperature sensor experienced brief communication failures or measurement errors (returning 'None') during cooking events, but recovered immediately after the event or at the next polling interval. No safety alarms were triggered, and the cook surface was turned off normally.

C07: Kitchen temp sensor returns 'None' at 11:47:00, then reports 28.61 C at 11:50:00. Cook surface turns off at 12:44:00.

C12: Kitchen temp sensor returns 'None' at 18:01:00 and 18:32:00, but reports valid temperatures (23.27 C, 22.99 C) at other times. Cook surface turns off at 18:31:00.

Temperature readings in C07 show a gradual decline from ~29°C to ~25°C after cooking stops, consistent with cooling down rather than a fire.

No smoke alarm activation logs are present in the provided chunks, suggesting no smoke was detected or the alarm is not part of this specific log stream.

The recurrence of 'None' values specifically around cooking times suggests a potential correlation between high heat/steam and sensor failure, which might indicate a physical issue (e.g., steam obscuring the sensor) rather than just random network noise.

The absence of smoke alarm logs is ambiguous; it could mean the alarm is silent, offline, or simply not logging to this specific view.

Secure home environment with normal occupancy patterns. The front door lock was engaged at night (22:54), and all rooms showed expected occupancy levels. No signs of intrusion or unauthorized access.

C16: Front door lock state is 'locked' (raw=1) at 22:54:30.

Occupancy sensors show continuous presence in living room and bedroom throughout the evening, with bathroom usage being transient and normal.

No lock state flips or open contact events for the front door during the night period.

Does not address the kitchen safety concerns raised by the sensor anomalies.

Sensor Malfunction / Environmental Interference causing monitoring blind spot. The kitchen temperature sensor consistently fails to report data ('None') during or immediately after cooking events. This may be due to steam, heat, or grease interfering with the sensor, creating a gap in environmental monitoring that could mask early signs of overheating or fire if the smoke alarm were also compromised or delayed.

C07: Temp sensor reads 29.27 C at 11:40, goes to 'None' at 11:47 (during cooking), recovers at 11:50. Another 'None' at 12:45 (after cooking).

C12: Temp sensor reads 23.25 C at 18:00, goes to 'None' at 18:01 (immediately after cook surface on), recovers at 18:05. Another 'None' at 18:32 (after dishwasher start/cook surface off).

Pattern: 'None' values appear within minutes of cook surface activation or significant thermal changes.

The sensor eventually recovers, so it is not permanently stuck or dead.

There is no explicit fault code from the device itself, only missing data points.

Potential Unattended Cooking Risk with Delayed Mitigation. In C07, the cook surface is left on for approximately 58 minutes (11:46 to 12:44). While occupants are present in the house (living room/bedroom occupied), there is no evidence of active supervision in the kitchen (kitchen occupancy is not explicitly logged as 'occupied' in the snippets, though lights are on). The temperature sensor failure during this period removes a key safety feedback loop.

C07: Kitchen light on at 11:46, cook surface on at 11:46:30. Cook surface off at 12:44:00. Duration ~58 mins.

Kitchen occupancy is not explicitly shown as 'occupied' in the frequent 5-minute polls in C07 (only living_room and bedroom are listed).

Temperature sensor drops out during the peak heating phase.

Living room and bedroom occupancy is constant, implying someone is home nearby. It is plausible they are in the kitchen but the sensor didn't trigger or wasn't logged in these specific chunks.

The temperature did not spike dangerously high (max 29.27 C), suggesting the cooking was controlled or low-heat.

Recurring 'None' values for kitchen_temp_sensor immediately following cook_surface activation (C07: 11:47, C12: 18:01, 18:32).

Duration of cook surface activity in C07 (~58 minutes) without explicit kitchen occupancy confirmation in the logs.

Front door lock status being 'locked' at night (C16) confirming security posture.

Smoke alarm logs to confirm if any alarm was triggered or silenced.

Kitchen occupancy sensor logs to verify if anyone was physically present in the kitchen during the long cooking session.

Water leak detector status to rule out other hazards.

Detailed logs for the entrance area to confirm no entry/exit events coinciding with the lock state.

No smoke alarm triggers or water leak detections occurred across all chunks.

kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None' at 09:18 (C05) and 11:47 (C07), both shortly after cook_surface activation.

Smoke alarm logs for the entire day to confirm no fire/smoke events occurred.

Kitchen occupancy sensor data to verify if anyone was present in the kitchen during cooking.

Water leak detector status to rule out other hazards.

Detailed entrance/door logs to confirm entry/exit patterns around lock state changes.

The investigator correctly identified potential device health issues (sensor 'None' values) and security posture (lock state).

However, the 'unattended cooking' hypothesis (A2) is weak because it relies on the *absence* of kitchen occupancy logs rather than positive evidence of unsupervised hazard. The logs show living room/bedroom occupancy, implying presence in the home, but do not prove absence in the kitchen.

Crucially, there is no evidence of actual danger: temperatures remained low (~29°C max), cook surfaces turned off normally, and no smoke alarms triggered. The 'None' readings are transient and recovered, suggesting telemetry glitches or environmental interference rather than a critical safety failure.

The current chunks (C07, C12, C16) are isolated snapshots. To properly assess 'composite safety', we need adjacent context (C06/C08 for morning, C11/C13 for evening) to see if these 'None' events are part of a larger pattern or isolated incidents, and to check for any missed smoke/fire events in the full timeline.

Marking false-alarm risk as high because the primary safety concern (fire/unattended cooking) is not supported by hazardous outcomes (high temp, smoke, long duration without mitigation), only by ambiguous telemetry gaps.

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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: 一室一厅 (Studio/1BR)
- 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>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅台灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 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": 483,
    "bedroom": 497,
    "kitchen": 310,
    "bathroom": 55,
    "entrance": 3
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "Occupancy": 447,
    "OnOff": 20,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 3,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "LockState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 1,
  "occupancy_events": 447,
  "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": "2026-06-21T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-21T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [
      "living_room_temp_sensor",

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "living_room",
      "bedroom",
      "bathroom",
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "cook_surface",
      "door_lock",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "temperature_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety status and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "front_door_lock",
    "kitchen_temperature_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C07",
    "C12",
    "C16"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Cooking activity without immediate smoke alarm trigger (potential delayed response or sensor placement issue)",
    "Temperature sensor reading 'None' during active cooking (possible device fault or communication drop)",
    "Lock state change at end of day (security context)"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C07: Shows kitchen temperature spike to ~29°C and cook surface activation, followed by a 'None' reading for the temp sensor. This is critical for assessing if the smoke alarm triggered (it didn't appear in preview) and if the temp sensor failed.",
    "C12: Shows another instance of cook surface activation with a subsequent 'None' reading for the kitchen temp sensor, reinforcing the potential device health issue or environmental interference.",
    "C16: Shows the front door lock state at night, relevant for overal