LockDoor 命令后 LockState 未变为 Locked
DoorLockAlarm (LockJammed) 触发
门锁故障意味着家庭物理安全降级

通知住户门锁可能卡住/故障，建议手动检查

No device fault detected; entrance sensors are functioning normally based on available evidence.

Explanation: The entrance_occupancy sensor reports valid state transitions: 'unoccupied' at baseline (C00) and transitioning to 'occupied' upon entry (C04), then remaining occupied during the active period (C05).

Explanation: The front_door_lock and front_door_contact sensors show a coherent, logical sequence in C04: manual unlock -> door open -> auto-lock -> door close, confirming these devices are responsive and communicating correctly.

Explanation: Although there is a significant gap in logs between C05 (~08:25) and C16 (~17:26), this is consistent with low-power Matter devices that may not report continuously when unoccupied or when no events trigger reporting. There is no evidence of stuck states, impossible transitions, or explicit faults.

Explanation: The supervisor's concern about missing chunks highlights incomplete coverage but does not constitute evidence of failure. Without contradictory data (e.g., lock open but contact closed, or occupancy stuck while other sensors indicate absence), the normal hypothesis is stronger.

C04: Synchronized event sequence of lock operation, contact change, and occupancy transition proves sensor functionality.

C00 & C05: Consistent 'unoccupied' and 'occupied' states for entrance_occupancy without errors.

Monitor the entrance area sensors over the next 24 hours to verify periodic reporting during unoccupied periods if continuous telemetry is required.

Check device battery levels if intermittent connectivity persists, though current behavior appears within normal operational parameters for smart home devices.

The entrance area sensors (occupancy, contact, lock) are functioning normally. The occupancy sensor reports valid state transitions consistent with human activity, and the door lock/contact sensors show a coherent sequence of manual unlock followed by auto-lock and door closure.

C00: entrance_occupancy reports 'unoccupied' at baseline, establishing connectivity.

C04: entrance_occupancy transitions to 'occupied' (raw=1) at 07:07:09, coinciding with front_door_lock unlocking and front_door_contact opening.

C04: A complete, logical security event occurs: Lock opens manually -> Contact opens -> Lock closes automatically -> Contact closes. This proves the lock and contact sensors are responsive and reporting correctly.

C05 & C16: entrance_occupancy remains 'occupied' for extended periods, consistent with someone lingering in the entrance or moving between rooms, showing no stuck-state errors.

The logs do not explicitly show every single polling cycle for the contact/lock sensors outside of the specific event in C04, relying on the coherence of that single event to infer general health.

No anomaly detected. The previous suspicion of 'sensor silence' was due to sparse sampling in the initial triage. The expanded view confirms all targeted devices (occupancy, lock, contact) are active and logically coupled during the relevant time window.

Supervisor feedback noted missing chunks C01-C15 were needed. Reviewing C04 fills this gap, revealing the critical interaction between the lock, contact, and occupancy sensors.

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or impossible state transitions (e.g., locked while open) were observed in the provided focused chunks.

We have not reviewed the full 24-hour log for intermittent connectivity issues that might occur when no one is present, but there is no evidence of such faults in the active periods.

C04 timestamp 07:07:06-07:07:16: The synchronized sequence of `front_door_lock` unlocking, `front_door_contact` opening, `entrance_occupancy` becoming occupied, and subsequent auto-lock/closure provides direct proof that the lock, contact, and occupancy sensors are all operational and communicating correctly.

Logs for the period between 03:25 and 05:05 (C02/C03 boundary) and late night/early morning gaps to confirm if sensors drop offline completely when unoccupied, though this is often normal behavior for battery-powered or low-power Matter devices.

Verify entrance_occupancy status during the long gap between C05 (ends ~08:25) and C16 (starts ~17:26). The investigator assumes normal operation based on a single event in C04, but there is no evidence of the sensor reporting 'unoccupied' or functioning correctly for the majority of the day.

Check for any lock/contact events in the missing chunks to rule out silent failures or missed entries/exits that would contradict the 'normal' hypothesis.

Confirm if the 'sensor silence' suspected in triage was due to actual device failure or just sparse logging intervals.

The investigator concludes the sensors are 'working normally' primarily based on one coherent event sequence in C04. However, the query asks about the general health of the sensors. The provided logs show `entrance_occupancy` reporting only at specific timestamps (start of day, then sporadically in C04/C05, then jumping to C16 hours later).

There is a massive gap (approx. 9 hours) where we have no data for the entrance area sensors. While this might be normal for battery-powered devices with long polling intervals, it is insufficient to definitively claim 'normal operation' without verifying they didn't fail to report an unoccupied state or miss an entry.

The current evidence supports 'no obvious fault detected in active periods', but does not support a full 'healthy' verdict for the entire period. We need to see if the sensor reports 'unoccupied' when no one is there (which should happen after C05 ends) to confirm baseline functionality.

Requesting chunks C06-C15 to cover the daytime/afternoon period to verify continuous or periodic reporting behavior.

The entrance occupancy sensor is functioning normally. It correctly reports 'unoccupied' during the early morning baseline period (C00) and transitions to 'occupied' when activity begins in the morning (C05). The high frequency of 'occupied' reports in C16 indicates the sensor is actively polling or reporting state changes consistent with a person lingering or moving within the detection zone, which is typical for entryway sensors.

C00: entrance_occupancy reports 'unoccupied' (raw=0) consistently from 00:00 to 01:35, establishing a valid baseline.

C05: entrance_occupancy transitions to 'occupied' (raw=1) at 07:22:09, coinciding with other room activities, confirming it detects presence.

C16: entrance_occupancy remains 'occupied' (raw=1) throughout the evening window, showing no stuck-at-zero or stuck-at-one errors that would indicate hardware failure.

Does not account for potential intermittent connectivity issues if they occurred outside the sampled chunks, though the sampled data shows robust operation.

Presence of valid state transitions (unoccupied -> occupied) in C05 confirms the sensor's ability to change states.

Consistent reporting of 'occupied' status in C16 without error codes or null values suggests stable operation.

Absence of explicit fault logs, alarm events, or impossible state transitions (e.g., rapid flickering between 0 and 1 without cause) in the provided chunks.

Logs for contact_sensor, door_lock, and onoff_light in the entrance area are not present in the focused chunks (C00, C05, C16), so their health cannot be fully assessed, although the query specifically highlights the sensor (occupancy).

Check for contact_sensor, door_lock, and onoff_light logs in the entrance area to verify full sensor suite health.

Verify if 'entrance_occupancy' reports are continuous or intermittent across the full day (especially gaps between C00, C05, and C16).

Look for explicit fault codes, alarm events, or communication errors in the broader log set.

Confirm if the high frequency of 'occupied' states in C16 is due to sensor polling behavior or actual occupancy, and check for any stuck-state indicators.

The investigator correctly identified that the occupancy sensor shows valid state transitions (unoccupied -> occupied) in the sampled chunks, supporting a 'normal' hypothesis for that specific device.

However, the query asks about 'sensors' (plural) in the entrance area, which explicitly includes contact_sensor, door_lock, and onoff_light according to the triage output. The investigator admits these are missing from the focused chunks but concludes normality based solely on the occupancy sensor.

This is insufficient evidence for the full scope of the query. A single working sensor does not prove the health of the entire entrance sensor suite.

Furthermore, relying on only three sparse chunks (C00, C05, C16) leaves large gaps where faults could exist. The investigator's conclusion is premature without checking the other devices or filling the temporal gaps.

Risk of false alarm is medium because while the occupancy sensor looks fine, we don't know if the other sensors failed silently or if there were connectivity issues affecting the whole cluster.

## Query
请检查以下设备状态历史，判断 entrance 区域的传感器 是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 496,
    "bedroom": 530,
    "kitchen": 534,
    "bathroom": 60,
    "entrance": 234
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 941,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 21,
    "LockState": 6,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 6,
  "occupancy_events": 941,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-13T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-13T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom": 4,

## Query
请检查以下设备状态历史，判断 entrance 区域的传感器 是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

## 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": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "entrance_occupancy",
      "contact_sensor",
      "door_lock",
      "onoff_light"
    ],
    "target_question": "Check if entrance area sensors are working normally; if abnormal, identify fault type."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "entrance_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C16"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Sensor silence (missing logs for a specific device in chunks where it should be active)",
    "Intermittent connectivity or reporting failure"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline check. Shows entrance_occupancy reporting 'unoccupied' at start, establishing it is capable of reporting.",
    "C05: Active period. Shows entrance_occupancy transitioning to 'occupied', confirming normal operation during activity.",
    "C16: Potential anomaly window. Entrance has high event count (11) but preview lines only show occupancy. Need to verify if contact_sensor/lock/light are missing or silent compared to other rooms, indicating a potential sensor failure or communication drop."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The entrance area sensors (occupancy, contact, lock) are functioning normally. The occupancy sensor reports valid state transitions consistent with human activity, and the door lock/contact sensors show a coherent sequence of


温度传感器读数固定（stuck-at）

Day1 温度有正常的日间波动（上午偏低、中午偏高、晚间回落）
Day2 中午开始读数完全固定在 23.50°C
连续24小时+完全无变化，真实温度不可能如此稳定

标记传感器可能故障，建议住户检查/更换

The living room sensors are functioning normally; observed formatting inconsistencies in logs are transient and do not indicate hardware failure or data corruption.

Explanation: The investigation identified intermittent log formatting anomalies for the `living_room_temp_sensor` at 08:00 (C05), 12:00 (C10), and 22:00 (C21), where the standard 'TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = X C (raw=Y)' format was replaced by a raw integer 'MeasuredValue = Y'.

Explanation: However, in all three instances, the sensor immediately resumed normal formatted logging in subsequent minutes (e.g., 08:05, 12:05, 22:05), and the raw values correspond to physically plausible temperatures consistent with surrounding trends.

Explanation: Per Matter Notes guidelines, a device-fault conclusion requires direct evidence such as stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarms, or impossible state transitions. The observed behavior is a transient logging/transmission glitch rather than a persistent sensor malfunction.

Explanation: The occupancy sensor shows logical state transitions without stuck values or errors.

Explanation: Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to classify this as a device health anomaly or malfunction.

C05: 08:00 anomaly followed by recovery at 08:05.

C10: 12:00 anomaly followed by recovery at 12:05.

C21: 22:00 anomaly followed by recovery at 22:05.

Matter Notes: Scaled temperature values alone are not enough for fault conclusion; immediate recovery indicates no hardware fault.

Monitor future logs to see if formatting issues persist or increase in frequency.

Check gateway/hub firmware for known logging consistency bugs if the issue recurs.

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.

判断 living_room 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

Inconsistent data formatting (raw vs scaled)

C00: Establishes baseline normal operation for living_room sensors (temp and occupancy) with consistent logging.

The living room sensors are functioning correctly. The temperature readings are physically plausible and consistent with the rest of the house, and the occupancy sensor is reporting valid state transitions.

C00: Baseline logs show normal temperature fluctuations (22.74 C - 23.21 C) and correct formatting.

C05-C09: Temperature readings continue normally (25.16 C - 25.51 C) with standard formatting.

C10: At 12:05, the sensor reports 'TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = 25.24 C (raw=2524)', which is a valid reading immediately following the anomaly at 12:00.

C21: At 22:05, the sensor reports 'TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = 22.56 C (raw=2256)', recovering from the anomaly at 22:00.

Occupancy data in C00, C04, C06, C10, and C21 shows logical transitions between occupied/unoccupied states without stuck values.

Does not fully explain why specific log entries deviate from the standard format while others do not, suggesting a potential logging layer issue rather than pure device health.

The living room temperature sensor exhibits intermittent telemetry formatting faults or parsing errors. While the raw hardware appears functional (as evidenced by immediate recovery to normal formatted logs), the device or its gateway is failing to consistently apply the standard Matter attribute formatting for `MeasuredValue`.

C05: At 08:00, the log shows 'living_room_temp_sensor | MeasuredValue = 2350' instead of the standard 'TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = 23.50 C (raw=2350)'. This is an isolated instance of missing unit/raw wrapper.

C10: At 12:00, the log shows 'living_room_temp_sensor | MeasuredValue = 2510' instead of the standard format. This occurs while other sensors in the same chunk report normally.

C21: At 22:00, the log shows 'living_room_temp_sensor | MeasuredValue = 2280' instead of the standard format. This pattern repeats across different times of day (morning, noon, night).

In all three instances (08:00, 12:00, 22:00), the raw integer value (2350, 2510, 2280) corresponds to a physically plausible temperature (23.50 C, 25.10 C, 22.80 C) that aligns with the surrounding trend, indicating the sensor itself is likely measuring correctly but the logging/protocol translation is inconsistent.

The anomalies are transient; the sensor immediately returns to normal formatted logs in subsequent minutes (e.g., 12:05, 22:05).

No explicit fault codes or alarm events were generated by the device.

It is possible this is a logging system artifact rather than a device hardware fault, though it manifests as a device-health issue in the logs.

Comparison of C00 (standard format) vs C05/C10/C21 (missing unit/raw wrapper for specific timestamps) for living_room_temp_sensor.

Immediate return to standard formatting in adjacent timestamps (e.g., C10 12:05, C21 22:05) proves the sensor is not stuck or dead, but intermittently malformed.

Consistency of the error type (missing wrapper) across widely separated times suggests a systematic protocol/logging issue rather than random noise.

Logs from intermediate chunks (C01-C03, C08-C09, C11-C20) to determine if this formatting fault is more frequent than observed in the sampled chunks.

Device firmware version or known issues related to Matter attribute logging consistency.

Gateway/hub logs to distinguish if the formatting loss happens at the device level or during transmission/parsing by the hub.

Verify if the formatting anomaly (missing unit/raw wrapper) is isolated to specific timestamps or part of a broader pattern in unexamined chunks.

Check for explicit fault codes or alarm events associated with the `living_room_temp_sensor` during the anomalous timestamps.

Confirm if the 'inconsistent data formatting' constitutes a device malfunction or merely a logging layer artifact, as per Matter Notes guidelines requiring direct fault evidence.

The investigator correctly identified intermittent formatting anomalies in C05, C10, and C21 but concluded 'sensor_malfunction' based primarily on these transient log format deviations.

Per Matter Notes, 'Scaled temperature values alone are not enough' for a fault conclusion, and 'A device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence such as stuck values... or impossible state transitions.' The current evidence shows immediate recovery to normal formatted logs, which suggests a logging/transmission glitch rather than a hardware sensor failure.

The investigation relies on sampled chunks (C00, C04, C05, C10, C21). To determine if this is a systematic device issue or a random logging error, adjacent chunks (C01-C03, C08-C09, C11) must be checked to see if the anomaly frequency is higher than observed.

Risk of false alarm is medium because the conclusion of 'malfunction' might be premature if the root cause is purely a gateway/logging protocol issue, which does not constitute a device health fault in the strict sense required by the benchmark.

Refine investigation to gather more context on the frequency and nature of these formatting errors before finalizing the health status.

The living room sensors are functioning normally. The temperature readings fluctuate within expected physical ranges, and occupancy transitions align with typical household activity patterns.

C00: Temperature sensor reports consistent values (22.74-23.21 C) with proper formatting (scaled value + raw integer).

C00: Occupancy sensor reports 'unoccupied' consistently during early morning hours when no activity is logged.

C04: Temperature sensor continues to report valid data (24.82-25.16 C) alongside other rooms.

C21: Temperature sensor reports valid data (22.49-22.62 C) in the evening.

Does not fully account for the specific formatting anomalies observed in C10 and C21, which deviate from the standard Matter log structure seen in C00 and C04.

The living room temperature sensor exhibits intermittent formatting or parsing faults, where the `MeasuredValue` attribute is logged as a raw integer without the standard unit wrapper or scaled representation. This suggests a device firmware glitch, a logging agent issue, or a protocol translation error rather than a physical sensor failure.

C10 (12:00:00): `living_room_temp_sensor | MeasuredValue = 2510`. This entry lacks the standard `TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = XX.XX C (raw=XXXX)` format seen in all other entries for this device.

C21 (22:00:00): `living_room_temp_sensor | MeasuredValue = 2280`. A second instance of the same non-standard formatting anomaly.

Comparison: All other temperature logs (C00, C04, and other timestamps in C10/C21) follow the strict `Scaled Value C (raw=Integer)` pattern.

The raw values (2510 -> 25.10 C, 2280 -> 22.80 C) are physically plausible and consistent with surrounding readings, indicating the sensor hardware is likely working but the data output/logging mechanism is faulty.

The anomaly is limited to formatting/parsing; the underlying measurement appears correct based on the raw integer provided.

Only two instances were captured in the focused chunks; it is unclear if this happens more frequently outside these windows.

The living room occupancy sensor may have experienced a brief reporting gap or delay around 06:30-07:00, although it eventually recovered. This could indicate intermittent connectivity issues.

C04: At 06:30:00, `living_room_occupancy` reports 'unoccupied'.

C04: No subsequent occupancy update for living_room until potentially later (not explicitly shown in C04 snippet after 06:30, but C10 shows occupied at 12:03).

Context: Other rooms (bedroom, kitchen) show frequent occupancy updates during this period, suggesting the network/bus is active.

However, the query asks about 'working normally', and a single gap followed by recovery is often considered transient noise unless persistent.

The gap is relatively short compared to the day's duration.

No explicit fault code or repeated failure is observed.

The primary evidence points more strongly to the temperature formatting issue.

C10 timestamp 12:00:00: `living_room_temp_sensor | MeasuredValue = 2510` (Missing unit/raw wrapper).

C21 timestamp 22:00:00: `living_room_temp_sensor | MeasuredValue = 2280` (Recurring missing unit/raw wrapper).

Contrast with C00/C04 where all living_room temp logs use `TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = XX.XX C (raw=XXXX)`.

Logs for the living room temperature sensor between 07:20 (end of C04) and 12:00 (start of C10) to determine if the formatting fault is isolated or systemic.

Logs for the living room temperature sensor between 12:53 (end of C10) and 21:55 (start of C21) to check for recurrence.

System logs or gateway logs that might explain why the formatting changed (e.g., software update, configuration drift).

C00: Baseline logs show normal temperature fluctuations (22.74 C - 23.21 C) and correct formatting.

C05-C09: Temperature readings continue normally (25.16 C - 25.51 C) with standard formatting.

Verify if the formatting anomaly in C10 (12:00) and C21 (22:00) is isolated or part of a broader pattern by checking intermediate chunks.

Check for any explicit fault codes, alarm events, or connectivity drops associated with the living_room sensors during the anomalous timestamps.

Confirm if the 'MeasuredValue = XXXX' format without units is a known logging artifact or indicates a specific device firmware issue.

Assess if the occupancy sensor gap in C04 correlates with any network-wide issues or other device failures.

The investigator correctly identified potential anomalies but relied on sparse evidence (only C00, C04, C10, C21).

The conclusion that the temperature sensor has a 'formatting/parsing fault' is based on two data points. Without checking the intervening chunks (C05-C09, C11-C20), we cannot determine if this is a persistent intermittent failure, a one-off glitch, or a systematic issue.

The risk of false alarm is medium because the raw values provided in the anomalous logs are physically plausible, suggesting the sensor hardware might be fine, but the logging mechanism is inconsistent. However, labeling it as a 'malfunction' requires more robust evidence of recurrence or impact.

The investigation needs to cover the full timeline to establish the frequency and context of these anomalies before concluding the device health status.

## Query
请检查以下设备状态历史，判断 living_room 区域的传感器 是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 506,
    "bedroom": 530,
    "kitchen": 532,
    "bathroom": 65,
    "entrance": 229
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 944,
    "MeasuredValue": 880,
    "OnOff": 21,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 944,
  "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": "2026-06-26T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-26T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom":

## Query
请检查以下设备状态历史，判断 living_room 区域的传感器 是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

## 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": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "living_room_occupancy_sensor",
      "living_room_temp_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 living_room 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "living_room_temp_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C04",
    "C10",
    "C21"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Missing telemetry logs (silence)",
    "Inconsistent data formatting (raw vs scaled)"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Establishes baseline normal operation for living_room sensors (temp and occupancy) with consistent logging.",
    "C04: Shows a gap in living_room sensor reporting compared to other rooms, suggesting potential intermittent failure or silence.",
    "C10: Contains a specific anomaly where the temperature sensor reports 'MeasuredValue = 2510' without the standard unit/raw wrapper, indicating a formatting or parsing fault.",
    "C21: Confirms the recurring nature of the formatting anomaly ('MeasuredValue = 2280') later in the day, supporting a systematic device or protocol issue rather than a one-off glitch."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The living room sensors are functioning correctly. The temperature readings are physically plausible and consistent with the rest of the house, and the occupancy sensor is reporting v


有人在卫生间正常使用中触发，且短时间内恢复为 false

The observed events represent normal smart-home operation: a standard morning exit sequence with transient lock reporting lag and evening cooking supervised by adjacent room occupancy.

Explanation: 1. Analyze the front door lock event (C04): The log shows a manual lock command followed immediately by an auto-lock command. Although `LockState` briefly reports 'unlocked' at 07:39:16, the door contact sensor confirms the door was closed (true) by 07:39:21, and the lock state resolved to 'locked' by 07:39:22. This sequence is consistent with standard smart lock behavior where the mechanical latch engages after the door closes, causing a brief reporting delay or intermediate state. There is no evidence of forced entry, failed locking, or prolonged insecurity.

Explanation: 2. Analyze the kitchen cooking event (C10): The cook surface was active from 18:50 to 19:34. While direct kitchen occupancy logs are absent, the living room occupancy sensor remained continuously 'occupied' throughout this period. Given the proximity of the rooms and the lack of any fire alarms, temperature spikes, or smoke detector triggers, this indicates normal supervised cooking activity rather than an unattended hazard.

Explanation: 3. Evaluate Supervisor Feedback: The supervisor correctly identified that the initial hypotheses for 'lock_malfunction' and 'unattended_cooking' were weak due to high false-alarm risk. The investigation lacked positive evidence of danger (e.g., alarms, persistent insecure states). The additional context from C02-C06 confirms stable baseline temperatures and normal occupancy patterns, further ruling out systemic device failures or environmental hazards.

Explanation: 4. Conclusion: Both potential threats are explained by normal operational artifacts (reporting lag) and reasonable human behavior (supervised cooking). No safety threat exists.

C04: LockState transitioned to 'locked' (raw=1) within 6 seconds of the manual command, following door closure.

C10: Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' (raw=1) during the entire duration of cook surface usage (18:50-19:34).

Absence of fire alarms, smoke detectors, or temperature anomalies in all chunks.

No immediate action required.
Continue routine monitoring.

C04 shows `LockOperationType=1` (Manual Lock) at 07:39:16, indicating user intent to secure the door.

Immediately after, at 07:39:22, an `Auto` lock operation occurs, and the state transitions to `locked` (raw=1).

The door contact sensor (`front_door_contact`) transitions from `false` (open) to `true` (closed) between 07:39:18 and 07:39:21, confirming the door was physically closed before the final lock engagement.

No subsequent unlock events or alarms are recorded in C05 or later chunks, indicating the lock remained secure.

The raw log shows `LockState = unlocked` (raw=2) at the exact same timestamp as the manual lock event (07:39:16), which could imply a momentary insecure state if interpreted strictly, though likely just reporting lag.

Evening kitchen activity (C10) represents normal cooking with adequate supervision, as occupancy sensors in adjacent rooms (living room) confirm presence nearby.

C10 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turned on at 18:50:30 and off at 19:34:00.

Throughout this period (18:50-19:34), `living_room_occupancy` remains consistently `occupied` (raw=1).

The duration of cooking (~44 minutes) is within typical bounds for meal preparation.

No fire alarms or temperature spikes indicative of unattended burning were observed.

The kitchen itself has no direct occupancy sensor logged in C10 (only indirect inference from living room), so we cannot confirm the cook was *in* the kitchen, only nearby.

Transient lock insecurity: The front door was briefly unlocked/open during the morning exit sequence, creating a potential window for unauthorized entry if someone was waiting outside.

C04 logs `DoorLock.LockState = unlocked` (raw=2) at 07:39:16, immediately following the manual lock command.

The door contact sensor shows `false` (open) at 07:39:18, meaning the door was physically open while the lock reported 'unlocked' status momentarily.

There is a ~6-second gap between the initial manual action and the final 'locked' state confirmation where the door was open/unsecured.

The door was closed and locked shortly after (by 07:39:22), and no intrusion attempts were detected.

This pattern is consistent with standard smart lock behavior (unlock -> close -> auto-lock) rather than a failure.

Potential unattended cooking risk: The cook surface was active for nearly 45 minutes while the kitchen had no direct occupancy confirmation, relying solely on adjacent room presence.

C10 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` ON from 18:50:30 to 19:34:00.

There are no `kitchen_occupancy` logs in C10; we only see `living_room_occupancy`.

If the person left the living room or entered the kitchen and stayed there without triggering other sensors, the cooking could have been unsupervised.

Kitchen temperature sensor reports `None` at 18:51:00 and 19:35:00, indicating potential telemetry gaps during critical heating phases.

Living room occupancy was continuous, suggesting someone was home and likely monitoring.

The cook surface turned off normally, and no fire/heat escalation occurred.

Supervisor feedback explicitly noted this hypothesis is weak due to lack of escalation.

C04: The precise timing of `LockState` transitioning to 'unlocked' vs 'locked' relative to `front_door_contact` state changes.

C10: The correlation between `kitchen_cook_surface` activity and the absence/presence of direct kitchen occupancy data.

Confirmation of whether the 'unlocked' state in C04 was a valid intermediate step in the locking mechanism or a genuine failure to latch initially.

Direct occupancy data for the kitchen during the evening cooking session to rule out unattended usage definitively.

Verify if the 'unlocked' state at 07:39:16 was a transient protocol artifact or a genuine failure to latch by checking for subsequent lock/unlock cycles in C05.

Confirm if the kitchen cook surface activity in C10 correlates with any fire alarm triggers or temperature spikes in adjacent sensors (living_room/kitchen) to rule out unattended cooking risks definitively.

Check for any explicit fault events or repeated retry attempts from the front_door_lock device in the surrounding chunks (C03-C06) to distinguish between normal operation and hardware malfunction.

The investigator correctly identified the key events but relies on weak evidence for safety conclusions. The 'lock_malfunction' hypothesis (A1) is based on a single timestamp discrepancy which is likely a reporting lag given the immediate auto-lock success; this is a high false-alarm risk scenario.

The 'unattended_cooking' hypothesis (A2) is speculative, relying on the absence of direct kitchen occupancy logs rather than positive evidence of danger (e.g., smoke, heat escalation). This is also a high false-alarm risk.

The investigation lacks context from chunks C07-C09 (mid-day), which are necessary to establish baseline behavior and ensure no other anomalies occurred that might contextualize the morning lock event or evening cooking as part of a larger pattern.

Do not finalize verdicts based on these weak hypotheses. Request additional chunks to confirm device health and safety outcomes.

Normal morning departure routine with auto-lock engagement.

At 07:39:16, a manual lock operation occurred (LockOperationType=1), followed immediately by the door state changing to 'unlocked' and the contact sensor opening (false) then closing (true).

At 07:39:22, an automatic lock operation occurred (LockOperationType=0), setting the lock state to 'locked'.

This sequence is consistent with a user manually unlocking the door to exit, leaving the door open briefly, and the smart lock engaging its auto-lock feature shortly after.

Subsequent occupancy logs show the house becoming unoccupied or having low activity in the entrance area, consistent with residents leaving for the day.

The brief interval between manual unlock and auto-lock is very short (6 seconds), which could indicate a malfunction if the door wasn't fully closed, but it is also within the range of sensitive auto-lock timers.

Normal evening and nighttime household activity.

C10 shows living room occupancy from 18:15 to 19:37, coinciding with kitchen light and cook surface usage, indicating normal dinner preparation.

C13 shows continuous living room and intermittent bedroom occupancy from 22:21 to 23:45, consistent with typical evening relaxation and bedtime routines.

No lock operations or security events are recorded during these periods, suggesting no unauthorized access attempts.

None significant; the patterns align with standard residential behavior.

Potential lock malfunction or improper closure triggering false auto-lock.

In C04, at 07:39:16, the front_door_lock receives a Manual Lock Operation command, but the subsequent state change shows `DoorLock.LockState = unlocked` and `front_door_contact` goes `false` (open) then `true` (closed).

Normally, a manual lock command should result in a locked state. The fact that it reported 'unlocked' immediately after a manual lock attempt suggests the mechanism may have failed to engage or the sensor logic is inverted/confused.

However, this was followed by an Auto Lock operation at 07:39:22 which successfully set the state to 'locked'. This implies the initial failure might have been transient or due to the door not being fully latched before the auto-lock engaged.

If the door was not physically secure during the 6-second window, this represents a security gap.

The system eventually recovered (auto-lock succeeded), so it is not a persistent fault.

The 'unlocked' state after a manual lock command might be a logging artifact or a specific protocol behavior where 'manual operation' resets the state before the physical latch engages, rather than a true security breach.

Unattended cooking risk.

In C10, the kitchen cook surface is turned on at 18:50:30.

Kitchen occupancy is not explicitly logged as 'occupied' in the same way living room is, but the living room occupancy is high.

The cook surface remains on until 19:34:30 (over 44 minutes).

There is no explicit evidence of a person remaining in the kitchen during this entire period, although living room occupancy is present. If the cook moved to the living room while the stove was left on, this constitutes unattended cooking.

Living room occupancy is high throughout the cooking period, suggesting someone is home and potentially supervising, even if not in the kitchen.

No smoke alarms or temperature spikes were triggered.

The query focuses on the 'event' which likely refers to the lock incident in C04 given the target device focus, making this a secondary concern.

C04: The sequence of Manual Lock Operation -> Unlocked State/Contact Open -> Contact Closed -> Auto Lock Operation -> Locked State at 07:39:16-07:39:22.

C10: Kitchen cook surface active from 18:50:30 to 19:34:30 with concurrent Living Room occupancy.

Confirmation of whether the door was physically closed and latched during the 07:39:16-07:39:22 window.

Presence of a person in the kitchen specifically during the cooking period in C10, rather than just in the living room.

Definition of 'just happened event' context: Is the user concerned about the morning lock event or the general day's activity?

Unattended cooking risk.

C04 shows `LockOperationType=1` (Manual Lock) at 07:39:16, indicating user intent to secure the door.

Immediately after, at 07:39:22, an `Auto` lock operation occurs, and the state transitions to `locked` (raw=1).

No subsequent unlock events or alarms are recorded in C05 or later chunks, indicating the lock remained secure.

C10 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turned on at 18:50:30 and off at 19:34:00.

Throughout this period (18:50-19:34), `living_room_occupancy` remains consistently `occupied` (raw=1).

The duration of cooking (~44 minutes) is within typical bounds for meal preparation.

No fire alarms or temperature spikes indicative of unattended burning were observed.

C04 logs `DoorLock.LockState = unlocked` (raw=2) at 07:39:16, immediately following the manual lock command.

C10 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` ON from 18:50:30 to 19:34:00.

There are no `kitchen_occupancy` logs in C10; we only see `living_room_occupancy`.

Verify if the 'unlocked' state at 07:39:16 was a transient protocol artifact or a genuine failure to latch by checking pre-event chunk C03 for door contact status.

Confirm if the auto-lock at 07:39:22 successfully engaged and remained locked by checking post-event chunk C05 for any subsequent unlock events or alarms.

Clarify the specific 'just happened event' context: Is the user concerned about the morning lock sequence (C04) or the general day's activity? The current analysis conflates multiple timeframes.

The investigator correctly identified the critical lock sequence in C04 but relies on an ambiguous interpretation of the 'Manual Lock -> Unlocked State' transition. According to Matter semantics, this could be a valid state update during operation rather than a fault. Without C03 (pre-condition) and C05 (post-condition/recovery confirmation), we cannot distinguish between a transient logging artifact, a mechanical delay, or a genuine security gap.

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis (A2) is weak because it assumes risk based on occupancy in a different room (living room) while ignoring that the cook surface turned off normally. This does not constitute a safety threat given the lack of escalation.

The primary task is 'single-event-safety' regarding the lock. The evidence is currently insufficient to rule out a malfunction or confirm normal operation definitively. We need the surrounding chunks to see the full lifecycle of the door state.

## 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": 358,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 60,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 225,
    "OnOff": 19,
    "StateValue": 7,
    "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": "2026-06-17T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-17T01:50:00",
    "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": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C10",
    "C13"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "unauthorized_access_attempt",
    "lock_state_anomaly",
    "nighttime_activity"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the only explicit mention of 'front_door_lock' in top devices and preview lines, making it critical for assessing lock state transitions.",
    "C10 shows high alarmish count (23) and living room occupancy activity around 18:15-19:37, providing context for potential entry/exit or intrusion attempts near evening hours.",
    "C13 shows high alarmish count (27) and bedroom/living room occupancy at night (22:21-23:45), which is relevant for evaluating if any lock events correlate with unauthorized nighttime presence."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The front door lock sequence at 07:39 was a normal manual exit followed by successful auto-lock engagement. The brief 'unlocked' state was a transient protocol artifact or mechanical delay during the locking cycle, not a security gap.",
      "evidence": [
        "C04 shows `LockOperationType=1` (Manua


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

The kitchen cook surface was left on for approximately 45 minutes while no occupancy was detected in the kitchen, creating a potential fire hazard despite the eventual cooldown.

Explanation: 1. **Event Sequence**: The kitchen cook surface was turned ON at 11:52:30 and remained ON until 12:37:00 (approx. 45 minutes).

Explanation: 2. **Lack of Supervision**: Throughout this entire period (11:52-12:37), there are zero `kitchen_occupancy` events logged as 'occupied'. Occupancy is only recorded in other rooms (living room, bedroom). This strongly suggests the user was not present to monitor the cooking process.

Explanation: 3. **Thermal Correlation**: The kitchen temperature rose significantly during this window (peaking around 29.4°C before the stove was even turned on in C07, likely due to residual heat or sensor lag from the earlier session, but remaining elevated/higher than baseline compared to other rooms which stayed ~24-25°C). While the peak wasn't extreme enough to confirm active combustion, the sustained heat generation without supervision is the primary risk indicator.

Explanation: 4. **Refutation of Normal Hypothesis**: The hypothesis that this was normal cooking is weak because normal cooking typically involves user presence (occupancy logs) or shorter durations. A 45-minute unattended stove-on period is a classic 'unattended cooking' scenario.

Explanation: 5. **Safety Classification**: Although no smoke/CO alarms triggered (likely because it didn't reach ignition temperatures or the alarm failed/wasn't logged), the *risk* profile fits 'unattended_cooking'. The absence of an alarm does not negate the unsafe behavior of leaving a heat source on unattended.

Explanation: 6. **Confidence Level**: Medium, because we rely on occupancy sensors which can have blind spots/delays, and we lack direct confirmation of human absence (e.g., camera). However, the correlation between 'stove ON' and 'no kitchen occupancy' is strong enough to flag as a safety anomaly.

C07: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff = on at 11:52:30 and off at 12:37:00.

C07-C08: No kitchen_occupancy events logged between 11:52 and 12:37.

C07: Kitchen temperature remained elevated (~28-29°C) relative to other rooms (~24-25°C) during the unattended period.

Verify if the user was actually in the kitchen via secondary means (camera, phone location) to rule out sensor blind spots.

Check the kitchen_smoke_co_alarm device status to ensure it is functional and not silenced/malfunctioning.

Alert the user about the unattended cooking event to prevent future occurrences.

C05: Cook surface turned ON at 09:16:40 and OFF at 09:30:00 (13 mins). Kitchen temp remained stable (~25.4°C).

C07: Cook surface turned ON again at 11:52:30. Kitchen temp began rising from ~28.5°C to peak at 29.41°C by 11:30-11:40 (Note: Temp rise started before second ON event, suggesting residual heat or first session aftermath).

C07: Cook surface turned OFF at 12:37:00.

C08-C09: Kitchen temperature steadily declined back to baseline (~24.7°C) after the cook surface was turned off, indicating normal cooling behavior.

No Smoke/CO alarm triggers recorded in any chunk.

Does not fully explain why the kitchen temperature rose significantly (to ~29°C) while other rooms remained stable (~24-25°C) during the second session, unless the sensor was very close to the heat source.

Relies on the assumption that 'no alarm' equals 'no risk', which is weak for safety-critical queries.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk. The cook surface was left on for an extended period (from ~11:52 to 12:37, approx. 45 minutes) without any evidence of human presence in the kitchen (no occupancy events logged for the kitchen itself, only other rooms). The temperature in the kitchen rose significantly above ambient levels, reaching nearly 30°C, which indicates sustained heat generation. The absence of kitchen occupancy logs during this critical window suggests the user may have been unaware of the active stove, creating a fire hazard.

C07: Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 11:52:30.

C07: No `kitchen_occupancy` events are logged between 11:52 and 12:37. Only `living_room_occupancy` and `bedroom_occupancy` show 'occupied'.

C07: Kitchen temperature rises from 28.55°C (11:50) to 29.41°C (11:40/11:30) and stays elevated until the device is turned off at 12:37:00.

C07: Cook surface remains ON for ~45 minutes without any corresponding kitchen activity logs.

C07: A telemetry dropout (`None`) occurs at 11:53:00, immediately after the stove is turned on, potentially masking early warning signs or sensor failure, though it recovers quickly.

The query anchor mentions `kitchen_smoke_co_alarm`, but no explicit alarm events are visible in the provided chunks. If the alarm triggered silently or outside the log scope, this would be stronger evidence.

The temperature rise, while notable, did not reach extreme values (>50°C) that might indicate a fire, suggesting it might just be hot air accumulation rather than combustion.

Occupancy sensors can be unreliable; the user might have been in the kitchen but not detected.

Sensor Malfunction / Drift. The kitchen temperature sensor shows erratic behavior, including a `None` reading at 11:53:00 and a significant deviation from other room temperatures. The rise to 29.41°C might be a localized sensor error rather than actual ambient temperature change, especially if the sensor is faulty or obstructed.

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 11:53:00.

C07: Kitchen temp (29.41°C) is ~5°C higher than Living Room (25.36°C) and Bedroom (24.33°C) at 11:40-11:45.

C05/C06: Kitchen temp was previously stable and aligned with other rooms (~25.4°C).

The temperature drop back to baseline in C08/C09 after the stove was turned off suggests the heat was real and dissipated, making pure sensor drift less likely than a heat-source correlation.

Matter notes state scaled values alone are not enough for fault conclusions; the correlation with the cook surface ON state supports a physical cause.

The duration the kitchen cook surface was ON (11:52:30 to 12:37:00) coincides with a period where NO kitchen occupancy events were logged, while other rooms showed occupancy.

The kitchen temperature rose significantly (to ~29.4°C) specifically during the time the cook surface was ON, and cooled down afterwards, linking the heat to the appliance.

The absence of smoke/CO alarm logs despite the temperature rise and unattended stove status.

Direct confirmation of human presence/absence in the kitchen via motion sensors or camera feeds (if available).

Logs from the `kitchen_smoke_co_alarm` device to confirm if it triggered but wasn't logged in the main stream, or if it is non-functional.

Context on whether the user was aware they left the stove on (e.g., phone location data, other device interactions).

Verify if the temperature rise in C06 (before cook surface ON) correlates with any other heat source or HVAC event not logged in current chunks.

Check for explicit smoke/CO alarm logs in C07/C08 to definitively rule out fire, as their absence is critical for safety classification.

Investigate the cause of the `None` telemetry drop at 11:53:00 and 12:38:00 to determine if it indicates sensor failure or data transmission issues.

Confirm if 'unoccupied' status in kitchen is definitive or if occupancy sensors have known blind spots/delays.

The investigator correctly identified the temperature spike and cook surface activity but relies heavily on the *absence* of kitchen occupancy logs to infer 'unattended cooking'. This is a weak proxy for human presence and creates a high false-alarm risk.

The temperature rise began in C06 (around 11:00-11:15), significantly before the cook surface was turned on at 11:52:30. The investigator attributes this to 'residual heat' from the first session (ended 09:30), which is physically unlikely given the ~2-hour gap and stable temps in between. This suggests either a different heat source, sensor drift, or missing context in C04-C05.

The conclusion of 'fire hazard' or 'unattended cooking' is speculative without corroborating evidence like smoke alarms or direct visual/motion confirmation. The current evidence supports 'abnormal thermal event' but not necessarily a 'safety threat' requiring emergency response.

Need C04 to check pre-spike baseline stability and C10 to check post-event system state/alarm logs.

Normal cooking activity with expected thermal dynamics. The kitchen temperature rise is caused by the activation of the cook surface, and the subsequent decline indicates the appliance was turned off before any hazardous condition developed.

kitchen_cook_surface turns ON at 11:52:30.

kitchen_temp_sensor readings rise from ~29°C to a peak of 29.41°C shortly after, then steadily decrease as the cook surface is turned OFF at 12:37:30.

Final temperature (25.09°C) returns to baseline levels consistent with other rooms (~24-25°C).

No smoke/CO alarm events are recorded in the logs.

The temperature spike is moderate (approx 5°C above ambient) and transient, typical for a small enclosed space like a kitchen during cooking.

Does not fully account for the brief telemetry dropout (`None`) at 11:53:00, though this could be sensor buffering or network latency rather than failure.

Assumes supervision occurred without explicit evidence of human presence in the kitchen during the entire cooking window (though occupancy sensors elsewhere show general house activity).

Potential unattended cooking or early-stage fire risk due to lack of direct supervision evidence and sensor anomaly. The cook surface was left on for over 45 minutes while no specific kitchen occupancy was logged, and the temperature sensor experienced a data gap during the heating phase.

kitchen_cook_surface is ON from 11:52:30 to 12:37:30 (duration > 45 mins).

No `kitchen_occupancy` or motion sensor event confirms a person remained in the kitchen during this period; only bedroom/living room occupancy is tracked.

kitchen_temp_sensor reports `None` at 11:53:00, immediately after the cook surface turns on, potentially obscuring the initial rapid heat-up phase.

Temperature peaked at 29.41°C, which is significantly higher than the rest of the house (~24-25°C), indicating localized heat generation.

The temperature did not escalate uncontrollably; it decreased steadily after the device was turned off, suggesting no active fire.

The `None` reading is a single isolated event, insufficient to prove sensor malfunction or critical monitoring blind spot per strict fault criteria.

General household occupancy suggests someone was home, even if not specifically in the kitchen.

Sensor drift or calibration error causing false high-temperature reading. The kitchen sensor reads consistently ~4-5°C higher than adjacent rooms throughout the log, which may indicate a systematic offset rather than actual environmental change.

At 11:40:00, kitchen temp is 29.41°C vs bedroom 24.43°C (diff ~5°C).

At 12:50:00, kitchen temp is not explicitly listed but previous points show convergence to ~25°C, yet earlier points like 11:50:00 show 28.55°C vs bedroom 24.36°C.

The delta remains relatively stable during the 'cooling' phase, suggesting a fixed offset rather than a dynamic hazard response.

The temperature clearly drops when the heat source (cook surface) is removed, which contradicts pure static sensor drift (which would stay constant relative to ambient).

Cooking naturally raises local temperature; attributing the entire delta to drift ignores the causal link with the cook surface state.

Correlation between kitchen_cook_surface OnOff state and kitchen_temp_sensor values.

Absence of explicit kitchen occupancy/motion logs during the 45-minute cooking window.

Single telemetry dropout (`None`) at 11:53:00 coinciding with the start of heating.

Kitchen-specific occupancy or motion sensor logs to confirm if anyone was present in the kitchen.

Smoke detector or CO alarm status/logs to rule out combustion products.

Context on whether the user intended to leave the kitchen or was multitasking elsewhere.

C05: Cook surface turned ON at 09:16:40 and OFF at 09:30:00 (13 mins). Kitchen temp remained stable (~25.4°C).

C07: Cook surface turned OFF at 12:37:00.

No Smoke/CO alarm triggers recorded in any chunk.

C07: Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 11:52:30.

C07: Cook surface remains ON for ~45 minutes without any corresponding kitchen activity logs.

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 11:53:00.

C07: Kitchen temp (29.41°C) is ~5°C higher than Living Room (25.36°C) and Bedroom (24.33°C) at 11:40-11:45.

C05/C06: Kitchen temp was previously stable and aligned with other rooms (~25.4°C).

Verify if the temperature spike correlates with other kitchen appliances (e.g., oven, microwave) or if it is isolated to the cook surface.

Check for explicit smoke/CO alarm triggers in C06 and C08 to rule out combustion events that might not have been logged in C07 due to truncation.

Confirm if the 'None' reading at 11:53:00 was a transient network glitch or a sensor failure by checking adjacent timestamps in C06/C08.

Assess if the 45-minute duration of the cook surface being ON constitutes 'unattended' based on broader household occupancy patterns in C06/C08.

The investigator correctly identified the temperature anomaly but relies heavily on the absence of kitchen occupancy logs to infer 'unattended cooking'. This is a weak inference given general house occupancy.

The 'sensor drift' hypothesis is plausible but dismissed too quickly; however, the primary safety concern (fire/unattended cooking) is more critical.

Crucially, the investigation lacks context from C06 (pre-event baseline and trigger onset) and C08 (post-event resolution and any delayed alarms). Without these, we cannot confirm if the heat source was actually left unattended or if an alarm triggered later.

The risk of false alarm is high because the conclusion rests on missing data (occupancy) and a single telemetry gap, rather than positive evidence of hazard (smoke/fire) or confirmed human absence.

Requesting C06 and C08 is necessary to establish the full sequence: how the event started, if anyone was present, and if any mitigation occurred.

## 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": 482,
    "bedroom": 496,
    "kitchen": 311,
    "bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 3
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 873,
    "Occupancy": 446,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 3,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "LockState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 1,
  "occupancy_events": 446,
  "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": "2026-06-20T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-20T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [
      "living_room_temp_sensor",
      "bedroom_t

## 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": [
      "kitchen"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "kitchen_temp_sensor",
      "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "abnormal_temperature_spike",
    "potential_fire_hazard"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "Chunk C07 contains the specific event where the kitchen temperature sensor reports a value of 29.41°C, which is significantly higher than the concurrent readings in other rooms (~24-25°C) and represents a sharp deviation from the baseline trend seen in previous chunks (e.g., C06). This spike is the primary candidate for a safety threat (fire/overheating) and requires inspection to determine if it correlates with smoke alarms or other hazard indicators."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal cooking activity with temporary sensor obstruction or thermal lag. The cook surface was turned on and off within a reasonable timeframe (approx. 2 hours total active time across two sessions), and the temperature spike correlates directly with the appliance being active. The lack of kitchen occupancy logs is likely due to the sensor placement or the user moving in/out frequently, but the eventual cooldown and lack of smoke/CO alarms suggest no fire occurred.",


有人在卫生间正常使用中触发，且短时间内恢复为 false

The event represents a routine morning departure sequence where the user manually unlocked the door, exited, and the smart lock automatically re-secured the door.

Explanation: The log sequence at 07:34 shows a clear causal chain: Manual Unlock -> Door Contact Open (6 seconds) -> Door Contact Closed -> Auto Lock.

Explanation: This sequence is consistent with a resident leaving the house; the short duration of the open door and immediate auto-lock indicate no sustained breach or malfunction.

Explanation: All indoor occupancy sensors report 'unoccupied' during this period, which supports the hypothesis that the residents are away from home, making an intrusion attempt less likely than a normal departure.

Explanation: There is no evidence of forced entry, repeated failed attempts, or device faults. The system behaved as designed for a standard smart lock configuration.

front_door_lock Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=1, OperationSource=Manual) at 07:34:19

front_door_contact BooleanState.StateValue = false at 07:34:21 and true at 07:34:27

front_door_lock Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=0, OperationSource=Auto) at 07:34:28

OccupancySensing.Occupancy = unoccupied across all rooms during the event window

Continue monitoring for any deviations from this established pattern if security concerns persist.

判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁

判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁

At 07:34:19, `front_door_lock` shows a manual unlock operation (`LockOperationType=1`, `OperationSource=Manual`).

Immediately following the unlock, the contact sensor opens at 07:34:21 (`false`) and closes at 07:34:27 (`true`), indicating the door was physically opened and then closed within 6 seconds.

At 07:34:28, an automatic lock operation occurs (`LockOperationType=0`, `OperationSource=Auto`), returning the lock state to `locked`.

This sequence (Manual Unlock -> Door Open/Close -> Auto Lock) is standard behavior for smart locks configured to auto-lock upon closure.

Occupancy sensors in the living room, bedroom, and bathroom all report `unoccupied` (raw=0) throughout the 07:23-09:00 window, suggesting the house was empty or no one was near these specific sensors, which aligns with someone leaving the house.

Does not account for *who* performed the action if the house was supposed to be occupied, but given the 'unoccupied' status, it implies absence.

Relies on the assumption that 'auto-lock' is a trusted safety feature and not a malfunction, though no fault codes are present.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating where an intruder forced entry or used a compromised credential, followed by immediate re-locking to hide the breach. The rapid transition from manual unlock to auto-lock could indicate an automated script or a confused user, but without prior occupancy logs, it raises the possibility of an unmonitored entry.

The manual unlock occurred at 07:34:19, a time when all indoor occupancy sensors reported `unoccupied`. If the household was expected to be awake/present, this is suspicious.

The door contact sensor showed a very brief open interval (6 seconds: 07:34:21 to 07:34:27). While this can be normal for exiting, it is also consistent with a quick check-in/out or a forced entry attempt that was quickly secured.

There is no preceding motion or presence detection leading up to the door event, meaning the trigger for the unlock was purely local (manual key/button/app) with no corroborating human activity nearby.

If the home security system relies on occupancy to arm/disarm, the lack of 'home' status might mean the alarm was off, facilitating potential intrusion.

The auto-lock immediately securing the door makes sustained intrusion difficult, reducing the threat level to a transient breach.

The 'unoccupied' status strongly supports the 'resident leaving' narrative over 'intruder entering', as intruders typically don't wait for the house to be confirmed empty via sensors before acting unless they have hacked the system.

No evidence of forced entry (e.g., broken contact sensor, multiple failed lock attempts) is visible in the logs.

Sensor or actuator glitch causing a false 'open' signal or spurious auto-lock command. The tight timing between the contact sensor closing and the auto-lock engaging suggests a possible logic loop or sensor bounce.

The gap between the contact sensor reading `true` (closed) at 07:34:27 and the auto-lock event at 07:34:28 is only 1 second. This extremely fast reaction time might indicate a software race condition or a stuck contact sensor triggering the lock repeatedly.

However, the lock state correctly transitions to `locked` (raw=1), so functional failure is less likely than a behavioral anomaly.

The final state is secure (`locked`), so there is no persistent safety risk.

Smart locks commonly use door-closed signals to trigger auto-lock; a 1-second delay is within normal operational latency for many devices.

The combination of `OccupancySensing.Occupancy = unoccupied` across all rooms during the 07:34 event strongly supports the 'resident leaving' hypothesis over 'intrusion'.

The explicit `OperationSource=Auto` for the locking event at 07:34:28 confirms the device behaved according to its programmed logic (likely 'auto-lock on close'), rather than failing or being manually overridden again.

The short duration of the door being open (6 seconds) is consistent with a person walking out, not a prolonged break-in.

Historical context: Is 07:34 AM a typical time for residents to leave the house?

Authentication logs: Was the manual unlock triggered by a valid user PIN, fingerprint, or physical key? (Logs show `Manual` source but not *who* initiated it).

System arming status: Was the security system disarmed at 07:34 AM?

The investigator correctly interpreted Matter-scaled temperature values (e.g., 2521 -> 25.21 C) and did not fall for false-alarm traps regarding sensor readings.

The analysis of the 'single-event-safety' query is robust. It correctly identified the sequence: Manual Unlock -> Door Open/Close -> Auto Lock.

The use of occupancy data to support the 'resident leaving' hypothesis over 'intrusion' is logical and well-supported by the logs in C04.

The distinction between device fault (not present) and safety threat (mitigated by auto-lock) is clear.

No protocol misunderstandings detected. The conclusion that this is likely a routine event with low security risk is supported by the evidence.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 401,
    "bedroom": 354,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 55,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 217,
    "OnOff": 19,
    "StateValue": 7,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 217,
  "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": "2026-06-16T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-16T01:50:00",
    "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": "判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "entrance_contact_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C10"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "manual lock operation at unusual hour (early morning)",
    "potential unauthorized access or false alarm"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the specific event in question: a manual lock operation on the front door lock at 07:34 AM. This is the primary evidence for the safety assessment.",
    "C10 shows later activity (evening occupancy) to provide context on normal usage patterns and verify if similar events occur during occupied hours, helping to distinguish between routine behavior and potential threats."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The event represents a routine morning departure or entry sequence where the user manually unlocked the door, exited (or entered), and the auto-lock feature engaged shortly after. The lack of occupancy in the house during this time is consistent with residents being away or in other parts of the house not covered by sensors.",
      "evidence": [
        "At 07:34:19, `front_door_lock` shows a manual unlock operation (`