只有1-2次错误（非连续多次），最终成功解锁且 UserIndex 是合法用户

The front door was manually unlocked and auto-locked at 07:24 while the only detected occupant remained in the bedroom with no corroborating exit sensors, suggesting a potential unauthorized entry or exit that bypassed standard detection zones.

Explanation: At 07:24, the front door lock performed a manual unlock followed immediately by an auto-lock within ~3 seconds. This rapid cycle is consistent with someone entering or exiting quickly.

Explanation: Crucially, the bedroom occupancy sensor remained 'occupied' throughout this period (and until at least 07:31), and no other occupancy sensors (living room, kitchen, entrance) triggered during the event window. This contradicts the expected pattern of a resident leaving the house, which would typically involve a transition to 'unoccupied' in the primary sleeping area or triggering of secondary motion/contact sensors.

Explanation: In contrast, the evening entry at 18:03 showed clear corroborating signals (entrance light on, living room occupancy active), establishing that the system does detect entries when they occur normally. The absence of such signals at 07:24 makes the morning event anomalous.

Explanation: While a device malfunction (Hypothesis A2) is possible, especially given the subsequent LockOperationError at 09:01, the specific combination of a manual unlock with no user index and no physical presence detection strongly points towards an intrusion or tailgating scenario where the actor avoided sensors. The error at 09:01 adds uncertainty but does not negate the suspicious nature of the 07:24 event itself.

Explanation: Therefore, the most plausible security-relevant explanation for the discrepancy between the lock activity and the lack of human presence detection is an intrusion or unauthorized access attempt.

C04: Front door lock manual unlock at 07:24:22 followed by auto-lock at 07:24:25.

C04/C03: Bedroom occupancy remains 'occupied' continuously from 06:36 through 07:31, with no 'unoccupied' transition prior to the lock event.

C04: No motion or contact events recorded in kitchen, living room, or entrance during the 07:24 window.

C11: Comparison with 18:03 entry shows normal entries trigger multiple sensors (lights, occupancy), highlighting the silence of the 07:24 event.

Review camera footage (if available) for the front door exterior/interior at 07:24 to confirm physical presence.

Check for any other occupants' devices (phones, wearables) near the door at 07:24 to rule out authorized users using alternative authentication methods (e.g., key fob) that might not log UserIndex.

Investigate the `LockOperationError` at 09:01 to determine if it indicates a persistent firmware issue that could have caused the 07:24 event to be logged incorrectly or triggered falsely.

判断入户门锁的状态变化是否构成安全威胁

Unusual lock state flips during night/early morning hours

Potential unauthorized access or device malfunction

判断入户门锁的状态变化是否构成安全威胁

The morning lock event (07:24) was a legitimate exit by the resident detected in the bedroom. The 'Manual' unlock followed by immediate auto-lock is consistent with a resident unlocking the door to leave, and the smart lock's auto-relock feature engaging shortly after. The lack of motion sensor data near the door is due to sensor placement or blind spots, not absence of a person.

C03 shows the bedroom occupant waking up and becoming active (bathroom/bedroom lights on, occupancy transitions) between 06:28 and 07:05.

At 07:24, just after the bedroom occupant has been active for nearly an hour, the front door unlocks manually and then auto-locks.

The bedroom occupancy remains 'occupied' until at least 07:31, but this could reflect the occupant moving out of the specific sensor zone while still being in the house, or the sensor lagging.

The evening event (18:03) shows a clear pattern of entry: manual unlock, entrance light on, living room occupancy turning on, AC turning on. This establishes that the system correctly logs entry events when they happen.

It assumes the bedroom occupant left without triggering any other sensors (kitchen/living room), which is possible if they exited directly from the bedroom/hallway area bypassing main sensors.

It relies on the assumption that the 'Manual' source implies a human user, whereas it could be a key fob or code, but doesn't rule out authorized access.

The lock mechanism is functioning normally. The 'LockOperationError' at 09:01 was a transient failure (e.g., jammed bolt or low battery warning) that self-corrected immediately, as evidenced by the successful subsequent operation at 09:01:22.

C05 shows a `LockOperationError` at 09:01:01, but immediately followed by a successful `LockOperation` at 09:01:22 with `UserIndex=1`.

This sequence (fail -> retry success) is typical for mechanical locks encountering minor resistance or for users re-attempting an action.

No persistent fault codes or stuck states are observed in C06 or later chunks.

Does not explain the context of the 07:24 event fully regarding who was present.

Unauthorized Access / Intrusion via Tailgating or Blind Spot Exploitation. An intruder unlocked the door manually at 07:24 while the only detected occupant (bedroom) remained inside, suggesting the intruder entered or exited undetected by occupancy sensors. The lack of motion/contact correlation in the hallway/kitchen suggests the intruder may have bypassed standard detection zones.

C04: At 07:24:22, the front door is unlocked manually (`OperationSource=Manual`).

C04: At 07:24:25, the door auto-locks. The window of opportunity is ~3 seconds.

C03/C04: The bedroom occupant is logged as 'occupied' continuously from 06:36 through 07:24 and beyond. There is no corresponding 'unoccupied' transition in the bedroom *before* the lock event that would confirm the resident left.

C04: No motion or occupancy events are recorded in the kitchen, living room, or entrance (other than the lock itself) during the 07:24 window.

Contrast with C11: The evening entry at 18:03 clearly triggers entrance lights and living room occupancy. The morning event lacks these corroborating signals, implying either a silent exit/entry or an intruder who didn't trigger secondary sensors.

The 'fast exit' hypothesis is weak because the bedroom sensor did not go unoccupied until much later (or never in the provided snippet), making it unlikely the resident walked out silently past all other sensors.

Relies on the assumption that the bedroom sensor accurately reflects the *only* person in the house. If another person was present but undetected (e.g., sleeping in a different room, or the sensor is unreliable), the anomaly vanishes.

The 3-second window is very short for a full entry/exit cycle unless the person was already at the door.

Could be a false positive if the 'Manual' unlock was triggered by a resident using a key/fob while the bedroom sensor was delayed in updating.

Device Malfunction / Security Bypass. The lock experienced a glitch where it unlocked manually without a valid user intent (or failed to log the correct user index/source), potentially indicating a compromised device or a hardware fault allowing unauthorized access.

C04: The lock state flips rapidly (Unlocked -> Locked) within 3 seconds.

C05: A `LockOperationError` occurs shortly after (09:01), suggesting potential instability in the lock's firmware or mechanics.

The `OperationSource=Manual` at 07:24 does not specify a User Index, unlike the 09:01 event which specifies `UserIndex=1`. This ambiguity makes it impossible to verify *who* unlocked it.

Matter protocol batching can cause timestamp jitter, so the error might be unrelated.

Lack of explicit fault codes like 'jamming' or 'motor failure' limits the strength of a pure malfunction claim over an intrusion claim.

The discrepancy between the morning lock event (07:24, Manual, no secondary sensor activity, bedroom still occupied) and the evening lock event (18:03, Manual, entrance light on, living room occupancy on).

The absence of a 'Bedroom Unoccupied' event prior to the 07:24 lock unlock, which contradicts the expected behavior of a resident leaving the house.

The `LockOperationError` at 09:01, which adds a layer of uncertainty about the lock's reliability around that time period.

Motion sensor data specifically located at the front door threshold or hallway leading to the front door to confirm physical presence during the 07:24 event.

Camera footage (if available) of the front door exterior/interior at 07:24.

Confirmation of whether the bedroom occupancy sensor covers the entire room or has blind spots.

Logs for other occupants' devices (phones, wearables) to see if anyone else was near the door at 07:24.

Explanation for why the `OperationSource` at 07:24 lacked a `UserIndex` while the 09:01 event had one.

Verify if the 'LockOperationError' at 09:01 is a transient glitch or indicates a persistent mechanical/firmware issue by checking subsequent lock operations in C06-C09.

Check for any other door contact sensor activations or motion events near the front door between 07:24 and 09:01 to rule out silent entry/exit.

Confirm if the bedroom occupancy sensor has blind spots that could explain the lack of 'unoccupied' transition despite the resident leaving.

Investigate the `UserIndex` discrepancy: why did the 07:24 event lack a UserIndex while the 09:01 event had one? This may indicate different authentication methods (e.g., key fob vs. code) or logging inconsistencies.

The investigator correctly identifies the core anomaly: a manual unlock at 07:24 with no corroborating occupancy exit from the bedroom, contrasted with a normal evening entry.

However, the investigation stops short of verifying the device's health status after the error at 09:01. The presence of a `LockOperationError` suggests potential instability, which strengthens the 'malfunction' hypothesis but requires confirmation that it wasn't an isolated incident.

The 'intrusion' hypothesis relies heavily on the assumption that the bedroom sensor is perfect and covers all egress paths. Without checking adjacent chunks (C07-C09) for any other activity or confirming the sensor's reliability, the conclusion remains speculative.

The missing `UserIndex` in the morning event is a significant detail that needs explanation (protocol batching vs. different auth method).

Requesting C07-C09 to observe the lock's behavior post-error and check for any other subtle security-relevant events in the morning hours.

Normal resident activity: The lock operations correspond to a resident leaving the house in the morning and returning in the evening. The sequence of events (lock unlock -> door open -> lights/AC on) is consistent with normal occupancy patterns.

C04 (07:24): Lock operation 'Manual' unlocks, followed by contact sensor opening (door open), then auto-lock engages. This is a standard 'exit' sequence.

C11 (18:03): Lock operation 'Manual' unlocks, followed by contact sensor opening, entrance light on, living room occupancy detected, and AC turned on. This is a standard 'entry' sequence.

Occupancy sensors show consistent presence in the bedroom during both periods, suggesting someone is home or the system is configured for partial occupancy detection.

No contradictory states (e.g., locked but door open for extended time without alarm) are observed.

Does not account for *who* performed the manual unlock if the resident was already inside (though C04 shows bedroom occupied, it doesn't prove the person unlocking was inside vs outside).

Relies on the assumption that 'Manual' source implies authorized user, which is generally true but could be spoofed or forced.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating: In the morning (C04), the lock was manually unlocked while the bedroom occupancy sensor indicated 'occupied'. If the occupant was asleep or unaware, this could indicate an intruder entering or a family member leaving unnoticed. In the evening (C11), the entry sequence is normal, but the lack of explicit 'person detected at door' prior to unlock makes it hard to rule out credential theft or forced entry if the lock mechanism was compromised.

C04 (07:24): `front_door_lock` Manual Unlock occurs at 07:24:22. At 07:24:24, `front_door_contact` goes false (open). At 07:24:25, it goes true (closed) and lock auto-locks. The entire event window is ~3 seconds. This is extremely fast for a human to exit, verify, and re-lock, suggesting either a very efficient resident or a mechanical glitch/spoof.

C04 (07:06-07:24): `bedroom_occupancy` is 'occupied' continuously from 07:06 to 07:24. If the person in the bedroom is the only resident, they did not perform the manual unlock (as they were in the bedroom). This implies either a second person (unseen by sensors) or an intruder.

C11 (18:03): Similar rapid sequence. `entrance_light` turns on immediately upon unlock/open, which might be triggered by motion or the contact sensor. The speed again raises questions about automation vs human action.

The 'fast exit' could be explained by a smart lock feature where the user pushes the door shut and it auto-locks instantly, or the user was standing right at the door when the log started.

Bedroom occupancy does not preclude other people being in the house (e.g., kitchen, living room) who could have performed the unlock. Living room occupancy is sparse/unreliable in logs (often unoccupied or missing data points).

No explicit alarm or fault code was generated by the lock.

Device malfunction / Logic error: The lock state transitions and contact sensor readings show erratic or physically impossible timing (e.g., contact sensor flipping false/true within 2 seconds of each other in C04, or the rapid auto-lock engagement).

C04 (07:24:24-07:24:25): `front_door_contact` StateValue = false at :24, then true at :25. Simultaneously, lock goes from Unlocked to Locked. This tight coupling suggests a single event trigger, but the raw values might indicate a sensor bounce or communication glitch.

C11 (18:03:02-18:03:09): Contact goes false at :02, but entrance light doesn't turn on until :09. This 7-second delay between door opening and lighting activation is unusual for standard PIR/contact triggers, suggesting potential latency or misconfiguration rather than a direct safety threat, but indicates system instability.

Matter protocol logs often batch updates; the timestamps might reflect processing time rather than physical event time.

The system recovered normally after these events (lock stayed locked, lights worked later), so it's not a persistent failure.

C04: Bedroom occupancy is 'occupied' at 07:24 when the front door is manually unlocked. This creates a discrepancy: if the bedroom occupant is the only person, they didn't unlock the door. If there are multiple people, we need evidence of their location.

C04: The duration of the door being open/unlocked is extremely short (~3 seconds), which is suspiciously fast for a human exit unless assisted by automation or occurring at the threshold.

C11: The delay between door contact change (:02) and entrance light activation (:09) suggests potential sensor/actuator latency or configuration issues.

Presence of other occupants: Logs do not clearly show living room or kitchen occupancy at 07:24 (C04) to confirm if another person was present to unlock the door.

Lock history: Previous state of the lock before 07:24 in C04. Was it already locked? Did it fail to lock previously?

Motion sensor data: Are there motion sensors near the front door that correlate with the unlock event?

User authentication logs: Does the smart lock support identifying *which* key/fingerprint was used? (Source=Manual is generic).

C03 shows the bedroom occupant waking up and becoming active (bathroom/bedroom lights on, occupancy transitions) between 06:28 and 07:05.

At 07:24, just after the bedroom occupant has been active for nearly an hour, the front door unlocks manually and then auto-locks.

C05 shows a `LockOperationError` at 09:01:01, but immediately followed by a successful `LockOperation` at 09:01:22 with `UserIndex=1`.

This sequence (fail -> retry success) is typical for mechanical locks encountering minor resistance or for users re-attempting an action.

No persistent fault codes or stuck states are observed in C06 or later chunks.

C04: At 07:24:22, the front door is unlocked manually (`OperationSource=Manual`).

C04: At 07:24:25, the door auto-locks. The window of opportunity is ~3 seconds.

C04: No motion or occupancy events are recorded in the kitchen, living room, or entrance (other than the lock itself) during the 07:24 window.

C04: The lock state flips rapidly (Unlocked -> Locked) within 3 seconds.

C05: A `LockOperationError` occurs shortly after (09:01), suggesting potential instability in the lock's firmware or mechanics.

Verify if 'Manual' unlock source implies a specific user ID or just generic manual actuation.

Check for motion sensor data near the front door to corroborate physical presence during unlock events.

Analyze C03 (pre-07:05) to establish the lock's state before the morning event and check for any prior anomalies.

Analyze C05 (post-08:30) to see if the bedroom occupant leaves the house later, confirming they were not the one who exited at 07:24.

The investigator correctly identified the core ambiguity: a manual unlock occurred while the only detected occupant was in the bedroom. However, the conclusion relies heavily on the assumption that the bedroom occupant is the *only* person in the house, which is not proven by the current logs (living room occupancy is sparse/unreliable).

The 'fast exit' hypothesis (A1) is speculative without motion sensor data or clearer multi-person occupancy evidence. The 'device malfunction' hypothesis (A2) is weak because the system recovered normally and there are no explicit fault codes; Matter protocol batching can explain timing discrepancies.

Crucially, we lack the context of what happened immediately before C04 (was the door already locked?) and after C04 (did the bedroom occupant leave?). Without C03 and C05, we cannot rule out that the bedroom occupant left earlier or that another person was present but undetected by sensors.

Do not conclude safety threat yet. Refine investigation to gather pre/post context and motion data.

## 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: 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": 509,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 57,
    "entrance": 17
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 378,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 6,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 378,
  "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": [
      "living_room_temp_s

## 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": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_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",
    "bedroom",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "entrance_contact_sensor",
    "bedroom_occupancy",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C11"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Unusual lock state flips during night/early morning hours",
    "Potential unauthorized access or device malfunction"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 (07:05-08:30) captures the first appearance of 'front_door_lock' in top devices and shows occupancy transitions in the bedroom, which may correlate with entry/exit events.",
    "C11 (17:40-18:50) shows another instance of 'front_door_lock' activity near evening hours, allowing comparison of context (e.g., is someone home?).",
    "These chunks allow checking if lock flips correspond to valid occupancy patterns (e.g., resident returning home) or suspicious isolated events."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The morning lock event (07:24) was a legitimate exit by the resident detected in the bedroom. The 'Manual' unlock followed by immediate auto-lock is consistent with a resident unlocking the door to leave, and the smart lock's auto-relock feature engaging shortly after. The lack of motion sensor data near the door


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 represents a normal morning departure by the resident, characterized by logical device transitions and preceding occupancy activity.

Explanation: The core event at 07:28 involves a manual unlock of the front door, followed immediately by the contact sensor detecting the door open for ~4 seconds, and then an auto-lock engaging. This specific sequence (Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Lock) is mechanically consistent with a user exiting the home.

Explanation: Preceding context in C03 confirms the resident was active in the house (bedroom/bathroom occupancy and lights on between 06:32 and 07:03), supporting the hypothesis that the person at the door was the authorized resident preparing to leave.

Explanation: There is no evidence of forced entry (no alarm triggers, no broken glass sensors), nor are there signs of device malfunction (e.g., contradictory states, repeated retries). The 'Manual' operation source is ambiguous regarding the key type but does not inherently imply unauthorized access given the coherent exit behavior.

Explanation: While the lack of immediate occupancy detection in the living room/entrance creates slight ambiguity about whether someone entered or just exited, the short duration of the door being open (4s) combined with the subsequent auto-lock makes an intrusion highly unlikely compared to a quick exit.

C04: LockOperation Manual Unlock at 07:28:15, Contact False at 07:28:17, Contact True at 07:28:21, Auto Lock at 07:28:22.

C03: Bedroom and Bathroom occupancy/activity logs from 06:32-07:03 indicating resident presence prior to the event.

Absence of any security alarms or fault codes in the logs.

Monitor for future similar patterns to confirm baseline behavior if confidence needs strengthening.

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.

TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue is represented in centi-degrees Celsius in this benchmark: 2466 means 24.66 C, not 2466 C.

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.

判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

C04 shows lights turning off in the kitchen (07:28) and bedroom (07:28) just before the lock event, consistent with tidying up before leaving.

The sequence of events at 07:28:15-07:28:22 is logically coherent: Manual Unlock -> Door Open (Contact False) -> Door Closed (Contact True) -> Auto Lock.

No subsequent unauthorized entry or suspicious activity is observed in C04-C06.

Does not explain *why* the manual unlock was necessary if an app command or key fob wasn't used, though this is minor.

Relies on the assumption that 'Manual' operation source implies a physical key or keypad entry by the resident, rather than a forced entry followed by immediate re-locking (though unlikely given the contact sensor timing).

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating: An intruder manually unlocked the door, entered, and the door closed. The auto-lock engaged quickly, but the lack of immediate occupancy detection in the entrance/living room makes it unclear if anyone actually entered or if the door was left ajar briefly before closing.

The lock state changed from Locked to Unlocked via 'Manual' operation at 07:28:15.

The contact sensor went false (open) for only ~4 seconds (07:28:17 to 07:28:21) before going true (closed). This is a very short window for a person to fully enter and close a door, suggesting either a quick exit/entry or a door that didn't open fully.

There is no corresponding 'Occupied' signal in the living_room_occupancy or entrance sensors during or immediately after the unlock event in C04, which might suggest no one entered, or the sensors are slow/delayed.

The supervisor noted the need to check C03 for preceding context; while C03 shows internal activity, it doesn't confirm the resident's location relative to the front door at 07:28.

The 4-second gap is consistent with a resident walking out and pulling the door shut.

The absence of occupancy signals could simply be due to sensor placement (e.g., PIR sensors not detecting movement near the door immediately upon exit) or delay, not necessarily absence of a person.

No evidence of forced entry (no broken glass, no alarm trigger) or repeated failed attempts.

The auto-lock engaging so quickly (7 seconds after unlock) suggests a configured timeout, which is normal behavior for many smart locks, reducing the likelihood of a glitch causing a false 'unlocked' state.

Device Malfunction / Glitch: The lock reported a manual unlock erroneously, or the contact sensor misreported the door state, leading to a confusing sequence.

The transition from 'Unlocked' to 'Locked' happened via 'Auto' source just 7 seconds after the manual unlock. If the auto-lock timer is set to a very short duration, this is normal. However, if the system is prone to glitches, this rapid cycle could indicate a sensor bounce or communication error.

The contact sensor state change (False->True) happened rapidly. If the door was physically stuck or the sensor misaligned, it might report 'Closed' even if the door was slightly ajar, creating a false sense of security.

No explicit fault codes or repeated non-recovery patterns are visible in the logs.

The temperature and other device states remain stable and normal throughout C04-C06, making a systemic device failure less likely.

The sequence is internally consistent (Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Lock), which points more towards user action than random noise.

The precise timing of the contact sensor (False at 07:28:17, True at 07:28:21) relative to the manual unlock (07:28:15) and auto-lock (07:28:22). A 4-second open interval is consistent with a human exiting, but too short for a complex intrusion without detection.

The 'OperationSource=Manual' flag on the unlock event, which distinguishes it from app-controlled or auto-unlock events.

The lack of immediate occupancy detection in the living room or entrance area following the unlock, which creates ambiguity about whether someone actually crossed the threshold.

The preceding activity in C03 (bedroom/bathroom usage) confirms the household was active, supporting the 'routine departure' hypothesis over a random breach.

Confirmation of the resident's actual location or identity at 07:28 (e.g., via mobile app login, camera footage, or another device like a phone beacon).

Details on the auto-lock configuration (timeout duration) to determine if 7 seconds is a standard setting or an unusually short one.

History of similar rapid lock/unlock cycles to rule out intermittent hardware faults.

Status of the entrance motion sensor (if any) to corroborate the contact sensor data.

The investigator correctly identifies the event sequence but fails to explicitly rule out 'forced entry' vs 'authorized manual unlock' with sufficient confidence. The 'Manual' source is ambiguous without knowing if it was a key, keypad, or physical manipulation.

The investigation relies heavily on the absence of occupancy signals in the living room/entrance to support the 'exit' hypothesis, which is weak evidence (PIR sensors have blind spots). It does not positively confirm the resident's location outside the home.

No check for historical patterns of auto-lock timeout settings or previous similar events to establish baseline behavior.

The investigator's analysis is logically sound and stays on topic regarding the single-event safety query.

However, the conclusion leans towards 'normal departure' based largely on the coherence of the lock/contact sensor sequence and preceding bedroom activity. This is a strong inference but not definitive proof of authorized access.

The risk of false alarm is medium because the 'intruder' hypothesis (A1) cannot be fully ruled out by the available logs alone; an intruder could also trigger a manual unlock and exit quickly, or the door could have been left ajar briefly. The lack of positive confirmation of the resident's identity/location at the moment of exit leaves ambiguity.

Since no new chunks are requested (the current set C02-C06 covers the relevant timeframe), and the evidence is inherently limited by the lack of camera/identity data, we cannot definitively clear this as 'safe' nor flag it as a confirmed breach. The current verdict is likely 'Normal' but with low confidence. Further refinement isn't possible with more telemetry chunks from this specific event window, so the case should likely be closed as 'Normal - Low Confidence' or flagged for human review if policy requires higher certainty. However, per instructions, if evidence is ambiguous, do not convert to normal verdict automatically. Since I cannot get more data, I will mark as insufficient for a high-confidence final verdict, but given the constraints, 'allow_final_verdict' might be premature. Actually, looking at the rules: 'If the evidence is still ambiguous after this round, do not automatically convert that into a normal verdict.' This implies I should keep it open or abstain. But 'abstain' is for weak stories. The story is plausible. 'Refine investigation' is for when another round helps. Here, no more chunks help. So perhaps 'allow_final_verdict' with a caveat? No, the prompt asks me to judge sufficiency. The evidence is NOT sufficient for a high-confidence security clearance. But is it sufficient for a 'no threat' verdict? In smart home triage, usually, if there's no forced entry alarm and the sequence is logical, it's treated as normal. The investigator did this. The missing check is just about the strength of the 'absence of evidence' argument. I will stick with 'refine_investigation' to highlight that the 'Manual' source needs context (keypad vs key) which is missing, making the evidence technically insufficient for a definitive 'safe' label without assumptions.

Wait, re-reading the 'Matter Notes': 'BooleanState... interpreted using transitions'. The investigator did this. 'Temperature... centi-degrees'. Investigator did this. The main gap is the 'why' of the manual unlock. Without a keypad log or app log, 'Manual' is opaque. This is a protocol limitation, not a data error. The investigator noted this weakness. The conclusion is reasonable. Is it 'sufficient'? For a binary 'is this a threat?' question, the answer is 'Likely No', but the evidence is not 'sufficient' to prove 'No' beyond doubt. Given the options, 'refine_investigation' is appropriate to note the limitation, even if no new chunks exist. Or should I allow the verdict? The investigator's output is a draft. As supervisor, I see the logic holds up well enough for a 'Normal' classification in most operational contexts, but strictly speaking, the 'unauthorized' branch isn't killed. I will recommend refining the *conclusion* to reflect uncertainty, rather than getting more data. But the action type is 'refine_investigation'. This usually means 'get more data'. If no more data is needed, maybe 'allow_final_verdict' is better? Let's look at 'abstain'. 'Only when the current anomaly story is weak...'. The anomaly story (A1) is weak. The normal story (N1) is strong. So 'allow_final_verdict' seems correct. Why did I think otherwise? Because of the 'Manual' ambiguity. But N1 explains it. A1 doesn't explain why an intruder would leave immediately. N1 is the Occam's razor. The evidence IS sufficient for a 'Normal' verdict. The 'missing checks' are valid critiques but don't invalidate the core logic. I will change to 'allow_final_verdict' but add notes about the assumption.

Correction: The prompt says 'If the evidence is still ambiguous... do not automatically convert that into a normal verdict.' The evidence IS ambiguous regarding the *identity* of the actor. But is it ambiguous regarding the *threat*? An unconfirmed manual unlock is a potential threat until proven otherwise. However, in the context of the whole day (bedroom activity, lights off), it's highly probable. I will stick with 'refine_investigation' to force the model to explicitly state the assumption that 'Manual' = Authorized Resident, which is a critical leap. The current output lists it as a weakness but accepts it. I want to ensure that leap is documented as a necessary assumption for the verdict.

Authorized resident manually unlocking the front door (e.g., to let someone in or check outside) followed by an automatic re-lock. The brief window of being unlocked was within normal operational parameters, and no unauthorized entry occurred.

At 07:28:15, `front_door_lock` received a manual lock operation event (`LockOperationType=1`, `OperationSource=Manual`).

Immediately after, at 07:28:22 (7 seconds later), the lock state changed to 'locked' via an auto-operation event (`LockOperationType=0`, `OperationSource=Auto`).

The contact sensor showed a transient open/close sequence (false -> true) consistent with the door being opened and then closed during this short interval.

No subsequent occupancy events were recorded in the entrance or immediate interior areas that would suggest a prolonged unauthorized presence.

Temperature readings across all rooms remained stable and within normal residential ranges (24-25°C), showing no signs of HVAC failure or environmental hazards.

Does not account for who performed the manual unlock if it wasn't the homeowner, though smart locks often allow multiple authorized users.

Relies on the assumption that 'auto-lock' implies the door was fully secured and no one was lingering inside, which is generally true but not provable from logs alone.

Potential tailgating or unauthorized entry where an intruder entered during the manual unlock window, and the auto-lock engaged before they could be detected by occupancy sensors, or the occupant failed to verify the entry.

The manual unlock at 07:28:15 created a security gap. If the user did not intend to let anyone in, this is suspicious.

The auto-lock engaged at 07:28:22. If an intruder entered between 07:28:15 and 07:28:22, they would be inside when the door locked.

However, there is a lack of corroborating occupancy evidence in the 'entrance' or adjacent rooms immediately following the event to confirm or deny presence.

The query specifically targets 'safety threat', and any unverified manual unlock at the primary entry point carries inherent risk.

There is no explicit evidence of intrusion (e.g., forced entry, broken glass, alarm triggers).

The short duration (7 seconds) makes successful stealthy entry difficult without triggering motion/occupancy sensors if they are sensitive enough.

No subsequent abnormal behavior (like lights turning on in empty rooms) was observed in the focused chunks to support an ongoing breach.

The 'auto-lock' source suggests a configured safety feature, reducing the likelihood of a malicious actor forcing the lock state.

Device malfunction or misconfiguration causing false lock/unlock cycles, potentially indicating a compromised lock or faulty firmware.

The rapid transition from Manual Unlock to Auto Lock might indicate a conflict in lock logic or a glitch in the Matter protocol handling of simultaneous commands.

If the lock is prone to such rapid state flips, it may fail to secure the home reliably in other instances.

This appears to be a single isolated event in the provided logs, not a repeated pattern of failures.

Matter-style logs show standard enum transitions; raw codes (1 for locked, 2 for unlocked) are consistent with expected states.

No error codes or fault flags were reported by the device.

The specific sequence at 07:28:15-07:28:22: Manual Unlock -> Contact Sensor Open/Close -> Auto Lock.

Absence of any OccupancySensing.Occupancy = 1 (occupied) events in the entrance or living room immediately following the unlock, which would strongly support an authorized entry or intrusion.

Stability of temperature data ruling out environmental emergencies.

Identity of the user performing the manual unlock (if biometric/app-based logs are available).

Motion sensor data for the entrance area to correlate physical movement with the door state change.

Historical context: Is this time (07:28 AM) typical for household activity?

Confirmation of whether the auto-lock feature is enabled and functioning as intended by the user.

No subsequent unauthorized entry or suspicious activity is observed in C04-C06.

Does not explain *why* the manual unlock was necessary if an app command or key fob wasn't used, though this is minor.

The lock state changed from Locked to Unlocked via 'Manual' operation at 07:28:15.

The 4-second gap is consistent with a resident walking out and pulling the door shut.

No evidence of forced entry (no broken glass, no alarm trigger) or repeated failed attempts.

No explicit fault codes or repeated non-recovery patterns are visible in the logs.

The temperature and other device states remain stable and normal throughout C04-C06, making a systemic device failure less likely.

The sequence is internally consistent (Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Lock), which points more towards user action than random noise.

Verify if the 'auto-lock' at 07:28:22 was a standard timeout or an immediate forced lock (which might indicate a glitch or specific user setting).

Check for any preceding events in C03 that might explain the manual unlock (e.g., app command, alarm trigger) to rule out unauthorized access.

Confirm if the contact sensor state change (false->true) corresponds to the door closing *after* the auto-lock or if there is a timing discrepancy suggesting the door was left ajar briefly.

The investigator correctly identified the core event sequence (Manual Unlock -> Contact Change -> Auto Lock) and interpreted Matter-scaled temperatures correctly (no false alarm on temp).

However, the conclusion relies heavily on the assumption that the auto-lock engaged normally. Without checking the preceding context (C03), we cannot confirm if this was a routine morning activity or part of a suspicious pattern (e.g., rapid cycling, alarm response).

The 'unauthorized entry' hypothesis is weak due to lack of occupancy evidence, but the 'device malfunction' hypothesis is also weak without more data points. The current evidence is insufficient to definitively rule out a security breach or confirm normal operation without the pre-event context.

Requesting C03 to establish the baseline behavior and intent before the 07:28:15 event.

## 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: 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": 400,
    "bedroom": 356,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 57,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 220,
    "OnOff": 19,
    "StateValue": 7,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 220,
  "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": "2026-06-25T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-25T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [
      "living_room_temp_s

## 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"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "entrance_contact_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C05"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "manual_lock_operation_at_unusual_hour",
    "potential_breach_or_false_alarm"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the specific event of manual lock operation at the entrance (07:28:15) and the subsequent state change to 'unlocked', which is the primary trigger for the safety assessment.",
    "C05 provides the immediate context following the unlock event, showing occupancy states and temperature readings to determine if this was an authorized entry or a potential security breach."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Routine morning departure: The resident manually unlocked the front door to leave, closed it behind them (triggering the contact sensor), and the auto-lock engaged immediately as configured. This is a standard exit sequence.",
      "evidence": [
        "C03 shows occupancy activity in the bedroom (06:32) and bathroom (06:49-07:03), indicating the resident was awake and active in the house prior to the event.",


FG-03-FP: 烟雾报警器自检触发CO检测

The event sequence represents a normal resident returning home and engaging in typical evening household activities, with no evidence of unauthorized intrusion or device malfunction.

Explanation: 1. **Entry Analysis**: At 18:29:00, the front door lock was manually unlocked (`OperationSource=Manual`) and immediately reported as `unlocked`. This is consistent with an authorized user entering their home.

Explanation: 2. **Behavioral Consistency**: Following entry, the resident triggered standard smart-home automations (lights on, AC on) and engaged in routine domestic activities (cooking at 19:13, dishwasher at 20:03). These behaviors are highly conspicuous and inconsistent with stealthy intruder activity.

Explanation: 3. **Security Verification**: At 22:00:28, the system executed an automatic lock operation (`OperationSource=Auto`), changing the state to `locked`. The subsequent logs show continued occupancy inside the house without any further door contact events or forced entry attempts, confirming the security perimeter remained intact after the initial entry.

Explanation: 4. **Refutation of Anomalies**: Hypothesis A1 (intrusion) is weak because intruders typically avoid turning on all lights and running noisy appliances like dishwashers. Hypothesis A2 (fault) is unsupported as there are no error codes, stuck values, or contradictory states in the lock or sensor logs.

C09: Manual unlock at 18:29:00 followed by immediate 'unlocked' state.

C10-C12: Sustained occupancy and normal appliance usage (cooking, dishwasher) indicating legitimate presence.

C12: Successful auto-lock at 22:00:28 with no subsequent breach indicators.

No action required; this is a benign event.

判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

unexpected occupancy after door contact event

判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

Routine resident arrival and evening activity. The resident unlocked the door manually, entered, triggered automation (lights/AC), and proceeded with normal household tasks (cooking, dishwasher).

C09 shows `front_door_lock` event at 18:29:00 with `OperationSource=Manual`, indicating a deliberate user action to unlock.

C09 shows `LockState = unlocked` immediately after the manual operation, confirming successful state change.

C10 shows a logical sequence of automation triggers following entry: Door Contact Open -> Entrance Light On -> Living Room Occupancy Detected -> Living Room Lights/AC On.

Subsequent events in C10-C12 (kitchen cooking, dishwasher running, smoke alarm self-test) are consistent with typical evening residential behavior.

C12 shows the door being locked automatically (`OperationSource=Auto`) at 22:00:28, which is a standard security routine for residents.

Does not account for *who* unlocked the door if the resident was previously unaccounted for, though this is minor given the sustained occupancy.

Relies on the assumption that 'Manual' unlock implies authorized access, which is statistically probable but not provable from logs alone.

Unauthorized intrusion via forced or copied key entry. An intruder manually unlocked the door (possibly using a copied key or forcing it) and entered without triggering an immediate alarm, then settled into the home.

The house was completely unoccupied (all rooms `unoccupied`) from ~15:00 until 18:29:00.

The lock operation at 18:29:00 was `Manual`. If the door was previously locked (implied by the auto-lock at 22:00 and general security norms), a manual unlock is the primary vector for entry.

There is no prior 'approach' or 'motion' log before the door contact opens, which might be expected if someone walked up to the door, though this depends on sensor coverage.

The occupant remained in the living room/kitchen area for several hours, engaging in activities that could mask noise or presence from outside.

The lack of any 'forced entry' or 'error' flag on the lock does not rule out a skilled intruder using a valid credential or bypassing the mechanism silently.

The subsequent behavior (turning on lights, AC, cooking, running dishwasher) is highly conspicuous and risky for an intruder, who would typically avoid drawing attention.

The automatic re-locking at 22:00 suggests the system is functioning as intended for security, but doesn't prove the initial entry was unauthorized.

No evidence of tampering with sensors or locks was found.

Sensor/Actuator Fault: The lock reported a manual unlock when it was actually stuck or malfunctioning, or the contact sensor failed to detect the door closing initially.

The transition from `unlocked` (C09) to `locked` (C12) happened via `Auto` source, which is normal, but the gap between manual unlock and auto-lock is long (~4 hours).

If the lock mechanism were faulty, it might report states incorrectly.

However, there are no explicit fault codes or repeated non-recovery patterns in the lock logs.

The lock successfully executed both manual and automatic operations without error flags.

The contact sensor correctly reported the door open/closed states corresponding to the lock events.

No evidence of stuck values or contradictory states exists.

C09: `front_door_lock | Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=1, OperationSource=Manual)` followed by `DoorLock.LockState = unlocked`. This confirms the door was physically unlocked by a human or device command, not just opened while already unlocked.

C12: `front_door_lock | Event: LockOperation(..., OperationSource=Auto)` and `DoorLock.LockState = locked`. This confirms the security system's auto-lock feature engaged later, validating the lock's functionality.

C10: The tight temporal coupling of `front_door_contact` opening -> `entrance_light` on -> `living_room_occupancy` occupied -> `living_room_ac` on. This pattern strongly supports a legitimate resident returning home and triggering smart home automations, rather than an intruder who would likely avoid turning on all lights and AC immediately.

Pre-18:29 lock state history: Was the door explicitly locked before 18:29? (Though auto-lock at 22:00 suggests it was, we need to know if it was locked earlier in the day).

Biometric/App logs: Who initiated the manual unlock? (Key fob, app, keypad code?). This would definitively distinguish N1 from A1.

Video surveillance: Visual confirmation of the person entering at 18:29.

Verify post-22:00 lock state and occupancy to confirm if the 'auto-lock' at 22:00:28 was a successful security action or a system error (e.g., door still open but sensor stuck).

Check for any subsequent 'forced entry' attempts or alarm triggers in C13/C14 that might contradict the 'normal resident' hypothesis.

Confirm if the kitchen smoke alarm self-test (C11) had any side effects or if it indicates a separate device health issue unrelated to the intrusion query.

The investigator correctly identifies the primary sequence (C09-C12) as likely normal resident behavior based on automation logic (lights/AC on after entry).

However, the investigation stops abruptly at 22:28. The critical security event is the auto-lock at 22:00:28. To conclude 'no threat', we must verify that the lock actually engaged and remained locked, and that no one re-entered or forced the door afterwards.

Chunks C13 and C14 are missing from the focused set but are available. Without them, we cannot rule out a scenario where the auto-lock failed, or an intruder entered later.

The 'false-alarm risk' is medium because the current evidence strongly supports a benign explanation, but the lack of post-event verification leaves a small window for undetected activity.

Request C13 and C14 to close the loop on the security status after the auto-lock event.

Normal evening routine: Resident enters home, unlocks door, lights turn on automatically or manually, AC activates for comfort, and cooking/dishwasher activities proceed normally.

front_door_contact changed to false (open) at 18:29:02, followed by entrance_light turning on at 18:29:17, consistent with entry.

living_room_occupancy became occupied shortly after entry (18:29:25), indicating presence.

living_room_ac turned on and set to mode 3 (likely Cool) at 18:29:37, a standard response to occupancy/heat.

Kitchen appliances (cook surface, dishwasher) operated within normal timeframes without hazardous escalation.

Smoke alarm self-test completed successfully at 21:02, showing safety devices are functional.

Does not fully explain the specific timing correlation between door opening and immediate multi-device activation if automation is not configured that way.

Assumes resident was present and authorized; does not account for potential unauthorized access if no one lives there or if the lock state was manipulated.

Unauthorized Entry / Intrusion: An unknown individual entered through the front door, triggering automated responses (lights, AC) and occupying the living room, while the homeowner may have been unaware or absent.

The sequence starts with front_door_contact becoming false (open) at 18:29:02.

Immediately following this, entrance_light turned on (18:29:17) and living_room_occupancy detected presence (18:29:25).

Living room AC turned on immediately after occupancy detection, suggesting an active attempt to cool the space for someone inside.

No explicit 'LockState' change to 'Unlocked' is visible in the focused chunks, but the contact sensor open implies physical access.

Occupancy persisted in the living room for over an hour (until ~19:54+), suggesting sustained presence rather than a quick check-in/out.

The query specifically targets 'safety threat', and unverified entry into a secured home is a primary candidate.

Lack of explicit 'LockState' logs showing an unlock command makes it hard to distinguish between a resident unlocking via app/keypad vs. forced entry vs. leaving ajar.

If the resident lives there, this is normal behavior. The hypothesis relies on the assumption that the entry was *unauthorized* or *unexpected* by the owner, which isn't explicitly contradicted by logs but isn't confirmed either.

No motion progression from entrance to other rooms (bedroom/kitchen) is clearly logged as 'occupied' until later kitchen activity, which could be normal movement.

Sensor/Automation False Positive: The door contact sensor triggered erroneously (or was left open), causing lights/AC to turn on, but no actual person entered.

Door contact went false (open) at 18:29:02.

Lights and AC turned on, which could be triggered by the contact sensor state change alone.

However, living_room_occupancy also reported 'occupied' (raw=1) at 18:29:25. If no one was there, this occupancy sensor might be faulty or triggered by a pet/small animal.

Temperature readings remained stable and normal, ruling out environmental hazards like fire.

Occupancy sensors (PIR/UWB) are less likely to trigger falsely for extended periods (hours) compared to contact sensors.

Multiple devices (light, AC, occupancy) activating in tight succession suggests a coherent event (entry) rather than isolated sensor noise.

Kitchen activity (cooking, dishwasher) later suggests human presence, making a pure 'no one there' theory less likely unless it's a very complex coincidence.

The precise timestamp correlation: Door Contact Open (18:29:02) -> Entrance Light On (18:29:17) -> Living Room Occupied (18:29:25) -> AC On (18:29:37). This tight coupling strongly suggests an entry event triggering automations.

Sustained 'Occupied' status in the living room from 18:29 to at least 19:54, indicating prolonged presence.

Absence of explicit 'LockState' logs in the provided chunks prevents confirming if the lock was physically unlocked or if it was already unlocked.

Kitchen activity (cooking/dishwasher) occurring later confirms human presence in the house, supporting the 'person entered' narrative over 'sensor error'.

Explicit 'LockState' logs for the front_door_lock around 18:29:00 to confirm if it was locked/unlocked and by what method (key, code, auto-lock).

Historical context: Was the door expected to be opened? Is this a regular arrival time?

Presence of other occupants: Were other family members away, making this entry suspicious?

Motion sensor data: To verify if movement progressed from entrance to living room to kitchen, confirming a single person's path.

C09 shows `front_door_lock` event at 18:29:00 with `OperationSource=Manual`, indicating a deliberate user action to unlock.

C09 shows `LockState = unlocked` immediately after the manual operation, confirming successful state change.

The house was completely unoccupied (all rooms `unoccupied`) from ~15:00 until 18:29:00.

If the lock mechanism were faulty, it might report states incorrectly.

However, there are no explicit fault codes or repeated non-recovery patterns in the lock logs.

front_door_lock LockState logs around 18:29:00 to confirm if the door was physically locked/unlocked or just opened while unlocked.

Contextual history (pre-18:29) to determine if this is a routine arrival or an unexpected entry.

Verification of automation rules linking door contact to lights/AC to distinguish between human action and system response.

The investigator correctly identified the sequence of events but failed to check the critical 'LockState' evidence. Without knowing if the lock changed state (Locked -> Unlocked), it is impossible to distinguish between a resident entering normally (unlocking then opening) vs. an intruder forcing entry vs. a door left ajar.

The current evidence (Contact Open + Occupancy) confirms presence but not authorization. The absence of LockState logs in C10/C11 is a significant gap for a security threat assessment.

Request C09 (immediately preceding C10) to capture the lock state transition and any pre-entry context.

False alarm risk is medium because the scenario could easily be a normal routine if the lock was properly engaged before entry; however, without that log, we cannot rule out unauthorized access.

## 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: 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": 396,
    "bedroom": 357,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "bathroom": 51,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 214,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "TestInProgress": 2,
    "COState": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 214,
  "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": "2026-06-22T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-22T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 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",
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact",
      "entrance_light",
      "living_room_occupancy",
      "living_room_ac"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "entrance_light",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "living_room_ac"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C10",
    "C11"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "unauthorized entry or tailgating",
    "lock state inconsistency",
    "unexpected occupancy after door contact event"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C10 captures the critical sequence: front door contact change, entrance light on, living room occupancy becoming occupied, and AC turning on. This is the primary candidate for an intrusion or unauthorized access event.",
    "C11 provides immediate context for the subsequent period, showing continued occupancy in the living room and kitchen activity, helping to determine if the initial entry was sustained (potential threat) or transient/erroneous."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Routine resident arrival and evening activity. The resident unlocked the door manually, entered, triggered automation (lights/AC), and proceeded with normal household tasks (cooking, dis


WD-03-FP: 住户外出但开了自动浇花系统

漏水传感器触发后在短时间内（3分钟）恢复为false，而非持续触发超过10分钟

The event sequence represents a normal resident exit routine with no evidence of unauthorized access or device malfunction.

Explanation: The primary security-relevant event occurred in chunk C04 at 07:15:18, where the front door lock was manually unlocked, followed by the contact sensor detecting the door open, and finally an automatic re-lock engaging 6 seconds later.

Explanation: This sequence (Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Auto Lock) is consistent with a legitimate resident exiting the home. The short duration (~6 seconds) allows sufficient time for a person to walk through the doorway.

Explanation: There are no indicators of forced entry, such as broken glass alarms, repeated failed unlock attempts, or the door remaining unlocked after the auto-lock timer should have expired.

Explanation: Occupancy data from surrounding chunks (C03 showing unoccupied rooms prior, C10/C13 showing occupied areas later) supports a narrative of normal daily activity rather than an intrusion attempt during an empty house or a lingering threat.

Explanation: No other anomalies (device faults, water leaks, fire risks) were detected in the provided logs that would constitute a safety threat.

C04: LockOperation(Manual) at 07:15:18 followed by Contact False/True and LockOperation(Auto) at 07:15:24.

C03/C10: Occupancy context showing pre-event absence and post-event presence, ruling out 'empty home' intrusion scenarios.

No immediate action required.
Continue standard monitoring.

Normal resident exit routine: A resident manually unlocked the front door, exited the house, and the smart lock automatically re-locked after a short delay. The contact sensor confirmed the door was open during the transition and closed afterward.

C04 shows a clear sequence: Manual Unlock (07:15:18) -> Door Open (Contact False at 07:15:20) -> Auto Lock (07:15:24).

The time interval between unlock and auto-lock is ~6 seconds, which is consistent with a person walking out the door.

No subsequent lock/unlock events or contact changes occurred in C05, indicating the door remained secure.

Occupancy sensors in living room/bedroom were unoccupied prior to this event (C03), suggesting the residents may have been preparing to leave or had already left other areas.

We cannot confirm the identity of the 'Manual' operator without credential logs.

The pre-event state of the lock (whether it was already locked) is inferred but not explicitly logged in the immediate preceding second of C03.

Unauthorized access attempt followed by rapid exit: An intruder forced or picked the lock (triggering manual unlock signal if compromised, or simply opening it), entered briefly, and left quickly before the auto-lock engaged or immediately after. However, the 'Auto' lock event suggests the mechanism functioned correctly.

The event occurred early in the morning (07:15), a common time for unauthorized entry attempts.

The 'OperationSource=Manual' flag indicates human interaction at the lock, which could be legitimate or malicious.

If the door was locked prior to this (inferred from standard security posture), any manual unlock is an access event.

The brevity of the open window (4 seconds between contact false and true) allows for a very quick entry/exit or just exiting.

The lock successfully re-engaged via 'Auto' mode immediately after, securing the perimeter. There is no evidence of the lock failing to engage or being left open.

There are no signs of forced entry (e.g., broken glass, alarm triggers) in the provided chunks.

Without evidence of the door remaining open or further activity inside, the 'intrusion' hypothesis lacks confirmation of successful breach or theft.

The 'Auto' lock event strongly implies the system behaved as designed, making a 'malfunction' or 'failure to secure' unlikely.

Sensor/Actuator Latency or Glitch: The contact sensor or lock reported states with slight timing discrepancies that might indicate a glitch, though the final state was correct.

The gap between 'Unlocked' state and 'Contact False' is 2 seconds. The gap between 'Contact True' and 'Locked' is 0 seconds (simultaneous in log resolution).

If the contact sensor failed to detect the door closing until the lock re-engaged, it might suggest a sensor lag, but this is minor.

The sequence is logically coherent: Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Lock.

No repeated failures or stuck values are observed.

C04: The precise timestamped sequence of LockOperation(Manual) -> Contact(False) -> Contact(True) -> LockOperation(Auto) within a 6-second window.

C05: Absence of any further lock/contact anomalies or occupancy changes in the entrance area immediately following the event.

C03: Pre-event occupancy status showing unoccupied rooms, providing context for potential departure.

Credential verification logs to confirm if 'Manual' operation matched a known resident's key/fingerprint/app usage.

Video surveillance footage of the front door area at 07:15:18 to visually identify the actor.

Historical baseline of 'Auto-lock' delay times to determine if 6 seconds is typical or unusually fast/slow for this specific device configuration.

The investigator correctly identified the primary security event in C04 (Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Auto Lock) and interpreted it as a normal resident exit routine.

The analysis properly utilized occupancy data from C03 (pre-event unoccupied) and C10/C13 (post-event occupied) to contextualize the behavior, ruling out false alarms associated with empty homes or lingering intruders.

No protocol-format misunderstandings were detected; temperature values were not misinterpreted, and boolean states were handled correctly.

The distinction between 'unauthorized access' and 'normal exit' was made based on the successful auto-lock engagement and lack of forced entry indicators, which is consistent with the provided evidence.

The conclusion that this is not a security threat is well-supported by the coherent sequence of events.

Normal morning routine: A resident manually unlocked the front door (likely to exit or let someone in), the door was briefly open, and the smart lock's auto-lock feature engaged immediately after closing. The rest of the day shows normal occupancy patterns with residents present in the living room and bedroom during evening hours.

C04: At 07:15:18, `front_door_lock` received a manual unlock event (`OperationSource=Manual`).

C04: Immediately following, at 07:15:20-23, the `front_door_contact` sensor toggled from false to true, indicating the door opened.

C04: At 07:15:24, just 6 seconds after opening, the lock performed an auto-lock operation (`OperationSource=Auto`) and state changed to locked.

C04-C13: Temperature readings are stable and within normal residential ranges (21-27 C).

C10-C13: Occupancy sensors show consistent presence in the living room and bedroom during evening/night hours, suggesting the home was occupied and secure.

Does not account for why the door was left unlocked for any significant duration if it was just an exit, though 6 seconds is very short.

Assumes the manual unlock was authorized by a resident.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating attempt: The manual unlock followed by a very brief window before auto-lock could indicate an intruder forcing entry or a resident forgetting to lock, but the rapid auto-lock suggests the system functioned correctly. However, without evidence of forced entry or multiple failed attempts, this remains a low-probability intrusion hypothesis compared to normal usage.

C04: Manual unlock occurred at 07:15:18.

The short interval between unlock and auto-lock might suggest a 'tailgate' scenario where someone entered quickly, or a user error where the door wasn't fully secured until the auto-timer triggered.

No evidence of forced entry (no broken glass, no alarm triggers).

No subsequent lock failures or repeated unlock attempts.

The auto-lock worked as designed, securing the perimeter.

Occupancy data does not show sudden unexplained entries into private rooms (bedroom) that would correlate with an intrusion.

The event is isolated; no other suspicious activity precedes or follows it.

Device configuration anomaly or user behavior issue: The reliance on auto-lock implies the user may have forgotten to manually re-lock, or the auto-lock timer is set too aggressively. While not a security breach per se, it indicates a potential vulnerability if the auto-lock fails or is disabled.

C04: The lock relies on `OperationSource=Auto` to return to a secure state after a manual unlock.

If the user had intended to leave the door open longer (e.g., for ventilation or waiting for someone), the auto-lock would have interrupted that intent, potentially causing confusion or safety issues (e.g., trapping someone outside).

This is a configuration/behavioral note, not a direct security threat like theft or damage.

The system behaved according to its programmed logic.

C04: The sequence of Manual Unlock -> Contact Open -> Auto Lock within 6 seconds strongly supports a normal exit/entry cycle rather than a prolonged break-in.

C04: No 'forced' or 'error' flags in the lock events.

C10-C13: Sustained occupancy in living areas confirms the home was likely occupied, reducing the likelihood of an empty-home burglary scenario.

Whether the manual unlock was initiated by a known resident (e.g., via app, key fob, or code) vs. unknown source.

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

Confirmation of whether the door was physically closed before the auto-lock engaged (though contact sensor going true usually implies open, it doesn't confirm closure before auto-lock, but auto-lock typically requires closure or timeout).

No subsequent lock/unlock events or contact changes occurred in C05, indicating the door remained secure.

We cannot confirm the identity of the 'Manual' operator without credential logs.

The event occurred early in the morning (07:15), a common time for unauthorized entry attempts.

The 'OperationSource=Manual' flag indicates human interaction at the lock, which could be legitimate or malicious.

There are no signs of forced entry (e.g., broken glass, alarm triggers) in the provided chunks.

The sequence is logically coherent: Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Lock.

No repeated failures or stuck values are observed.

Verify the state of the front_door_contact sensor immediately preceding the manual unlock in C03 to confirm if the door was closed (locked) before being opened.

Check C05 for any subsequent lock/unlock events or contact sensor changes that might indicate a second entry/exit or a failure of the auto-lock mechanism.

Confirm if 'OperationSource=Manual' correlates with known resident credentials (if available) or if it could be an unauthorized attempt.

The investigator correctly identified the core event sequence in C04 (Manual Unlock -> Open -> Auto Lock) and contextualized it with occupancy data from C10/C13.

However, the investigation is incomplete because it lacks the immediate pre-event context (C03) to establish the baseline state of the door (was it locked?) and the post-event context (C05) to ensure no further anomalies occurred.

Without C03, we cannot definitively rule out that the door was already unlocked or that the 'manual unlock' was actually a forced entry attempt that triggered the lock's response differently than a normal user action.

The current evidence supports a 'normal routine' hypothesis but does not sufficiently exclude 'unauthorized access followed by rapid exit' without seeing the full sequence. Therefore, evidence is insufficient for a final verdict.

No protocol-format misunderstandings detected regarding temperature scaling or boolean logic.

## 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: 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": 360,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 222,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 7,
    "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": "2026-06-10T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-10T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [
      "living_room_temp_s

## 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",
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C10",
    "C13"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "unauthorized_access_attempt",
    "lock_state_anomaly",
    "occupancy_correlation"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the specific lock operation events (manual unlock followed by auto-lock) and contact sensor state changes at the entrance, which is the primary candidate for a security event.",
    "C10 shows the start of evening occupancy in the living room, providing context for whether the door activity coincides with resident presence or absence.",
    "C13 confirms sustained occupancy in the bedroom/living room later in the night, helping to rule out false alarms due to empty home scenarios or to confirm if the lock event was an isolated incident during occupied hours."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal resident exit routine: A resident manually unlocked the front door, exited the house, and the smart lock automatically re-locked after a short delay. The contact sensor confirmed the door was ope