FG-03-FP: 烟雾报警器自检触发CO检测

No security threat or device fault is confirmed; the events are consistent with normal occupancy patterns and routine device operations.

Explanation: The primary suspicion of intrusion (Hypothesis A1) relies on a 'gap' in occupancy signals from 07:19 to 16:30. However, the provided logs (C02-C06, C09-C10) show no evidence of forced entry, broken sensors, or unauthorized access attempts. The lock sequence at 07:19 (manual unlock -> auto-lock) is rapid and typical for a resident leaving or checking the door. Without corroborating motion data in blind spots or camera footage, the absence of sensor triggers is more likely due to the occupant being in unmonitored areas (e.g., hallway, bedroom) or simply away from home, rather than an intruder hiding.

Explanation: The supervisor explicitly noted that chunks C07 and C08 are missing, which would cover the critical gap period. Since these are unavailable, we cannot definitively rule out the occupant's presence, but we also lack positive evidence of an anomaly. In the absence of direct fault indicators (like stuck values, failed locks, or alarm triggers), the principle of parsimony favors the normal explanation (resident present/away) over the intrusion hypothesis.

Explanation: The cooking event in C10 (unattended cooking risk, Hypothesis A2) shows the cook surface turning on and off normally within a reasonable timeframe (19:07-19:40). No smoke or CO alarms were triggered, and the temperature rise was gradual. This does not constitute a safety hazard or anomaly requiring intervention.

Explanation: Device health checks (C05) confirm the smoke alarm self-test completed successfully, ruling out device malfunction as a cause for any perceived anomalies.

C04: Rapid manual unlock followed by auto-lock at 07:19:18-26, consistent with routine exit/check.

C05: SmokeCoAlarm.SelfTestComplete() indicates normal device operation.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turned on and off without triggering alarms, indicating no fire risk.

Review chunks C07 and C08 if available to verify occupancy status during the 07:19-16:30 gap.

Monitor future lock events for unusual patterns (e.g., prolonged unlocked states, multiple failed attempts).

C04: Manual unlock at 07:19:18 followed by auto-lock at 07:19:26. This rapid cycle suggests a quick exit/entry or a 'check' rather than a forced breach which would likely involve prolonged unlocking or contact state changes indicating an open door for longer.

C03: Occupancy events in bedroom (06:28) and bathroom (06:38-07:06) show the occupant was active in the house before the morning lock event, supporting a routine departure scenario.

C10: Living room occupancy becomes 'occupied' shortly after the second manual unlock at 18:29, consistent with the occupant returning home.

C10: Kitchen temperature rise during cooking (19:07-19:40) is gradual and stabilizes; no smoke/CO alarms triggered.

Does not fully explain the complete absence of *any* indoor occupancy signals (living room, bedroom, bathroom) between 07:19 and 08:55, relying on the assumption that the occupant was in unmonitored areas or the sensors missed them.

Assumes the 'gap' in C04 is benign without direct evidence of the occupant's location outside the living room during that specific window.

Device Health Normal: All devices functioned correctly. Temperature readings are scaled correctly (centi-degrees). Smoke alarm self-test in C05 was a scheduled maintenance check, not a fault.

C05: `SmokeCoAlarm.TestInProgress` transitions from true to false, and `SelfTestComplete()` event is logged, indicating a successful, intentional self-test.

Temperature values across all chunks follow logical diurnal patterns (cooling overnight, warming during day) without stuck values or impossible jumps.

Lock states transition cleanly between locked/unlocked with corresponding contact state changes.

None significant regarding device health based on available logs.

Potential Unauthorized Entry / Intrusion: The first manual unlock in C04 occurred while all monitored rooms were unoccupied. If the door was already closed (implied by auto-lock engaging later), an intruder could have entered, remained hidden in blind spots, and left before re-locking. The subsequent long period of total house unoccupancy supports the possibility that the occupant was not present to detect it.

C04: At 07:19:18, `front_door_lock` is manually unlocked. Immediately after, `front_door_contact` goes false (open) then true (closed) within seconds, and the lock auto-locks. This sequence is consistent with someone entering and closing the door behind them.

C04: From 07:19 to 08:55, there is a complete absence of occupancy signals in Living Room, Bedroom, Bathroom, and Entrance. While this could be normal if the person is away, it creates a window where an intruder could be present undetected by these specific sensors.

Supervisor Feedback Note: The 'gap' argument is weak without corroborating motion data, but the absence of positive evidence of the owner's presence during the unlock makes the intrusion hypothesis non-zero risk.

No physical damage or forced entry indicators (e.g., broken glass, jammed lock) are visible in logs.

The auto-lock engaged quickly, which might deter an intruder or indicate the user was just stepping out.

Lack of any other suspicious activity (lights on, other doors opened) during the gap.

Unattended Cooking Risk: In C10, the cook surface is turned on at 19:07, and kitchen temperature rises significantly. Although living room occupancy confirms someone is home, they are not in the kitchen. If the occupant leaves the living room or becomes distracted, the fire risk increases. However, the event ends with the cook surface turning off.

C10: `kitchen_cook_surface` turns on at 19:07:30.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` shows a steady rise from ~23°C to ~26.75°C over 30 minutes.

C10: `living_room_occupancy` remains 'occupied' throughout, but there is no `kitchen_occupancy` signal to confirm supervision.

C10: No smoke or CO alarms triggered, suggesting the situation did not escalate to a hazard.

The cook surface was turned off at 19:40, ending the potential hazard window.

Living room occupancy suggests the occupant was nearby, reducing the 'unattended' severity compared to an empty house.

Temperature rise is moderate and stable, not indicative of a fire.

C04 Lock Sequence: The precise timing of manual unlock -> contact open -> contact close -> auto-lock at 07:19:18-26. This specific sequence is the primary indicator of either a quick exit/entry or a potential breach.

C04 Occupancy Gap: The total absence of occupancy signals in all monitored rooms (Living, Bedroom, Bathroom, Entrance) from 07:19 to 08:55. This is the key differentiator between a 'user leaving' and a 'potential intruder hiding'.

C05 Self-Test: The explicit `SelfTestComplete()` event rules out a device fault for the smoke alarm, distinguishing it from a safety failure.

Hallway/Corridor Motion Sensor Data: To verify if the occupant moved through the house during the C04 gap, confirming they were inside vs. outside.

Pre-unlock Door Contact State in C03: To confirm if the door was closed before the manual unlock in C04. If it was already open, the unlock event is less significant.

Kitchen Occupancy Sensor Data: To determine if anyone was actually in the kitchen during the cooking event in C10, validating the supervision hypothesis.

Camera Footage: Visual confirmation of who opened the door at 07:19 and 18:29.

Verify the 'total unoccupancy' claim for C04 by checking C07/C08 for any occupancy events between 08:55 and 16:30.

Confirm if the door was locked/unlocked or if other entry points were accessed during the gap in C07/C08.

Check for any device fault logs or connectivity drops in C07/C08 that might explain missing telemetry.

The investigator correctly identified the critical lock sequence in C04 and the cooking event in C10.

However, the 'intrusion' hypothesis relies heavily on a 'gap' of total unoccupancy from 07:19 to 16:30. The provided chunks (C02-C06) only cover up to 12:36. Chunks C07 and C08 are missing from the focus but are essential to verify if the house remained empty or if the occupant returned/was present undetected by sensors.

Without C07/C08, we cannot rule out that the occupant was home (e.g., in blind spots) or that the sensors failed, making the intrusion conclusion speculative.

The 'unattended cooking' risk is low because the cook surface turned off and no alarms triggered, but the lack of kitchen occupancy data remains a minor gap.

Request C07 and C08 to close the timeline gap and validate the occupancy status before finalizing the safety verdict.

Authorized user returning home in the evening (C10) and normal morning routine with auto-lock functioning correctly (C04).

In C10, the front door is manually unlocked at 18:29, immediately followed by occupancy detection in the living room (18:29:20), lights turning on, and AC activating. This sequence strongly suggests an authorized resident entering and settling in.

In C04, the door is manually unlocked at 07:19:18, then auto-locked at 07:19:26. The contact sensor shows a brief open/close cycle consistent with someone exiting or checking the door before it locks automatically.

Temperature readings are stable and within normal residential ranges (21-26 C), showing no signs of fire or equipment failure.

Does not fully explain why the door was left unlocked for ~11 hours in C04 if the occupant was away, though this could be due to the occupant being out all day.

Relies on the assumption that the person detected in the living room is the same one who unlocked the door, which is probable but not explicitly linked via biometric or credential logs.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating during the morning event (C04), where the door remained unlocked for an extended period without corresponding indoor activity.

In C04, the door is unlocked manually at 07:19:18 and auto-locks at 07:19:26. However, the living room occupancy remains 'unoccupied' (raw=0) from 07:30 onwards through 08:55.

There is a significant gap between the lock operation and any confirmed human presence in the primary living areas. If the door was opened by an intruder who did not enter the living room (e.g., entered another part of the house or left immediately), the lack of living room occupancy might mask the intrusion.

The long duration of the 'unoccupied' state after the unlock event contrasts with the evening event (C10) where occupancy was immediately confirmed, raising a question about whether anyone actually entered during the morning unlock.

The auto-lock engaged quickly (8 seconds), suggesting the door was closed. An intruder would likely need to force entry or have a key, which isn't evidenced.

Occupancy sensors can have blind spots; absence of signal doesn't prove absence of people, just absence in the sensor's field of view.

No other security events (alarms, forced entry attempts) were triggered.

Unattended cooking risk in the kitchen during the evening (C10).

In C10, the kitchen cook surface is turned on at 19:07:30.

The kitchen temperature rises significantly from ~23 C to ~26.8 C by 19:30, indicating heat generation.

However, the living room occupancy (the only occupied zone logged) remains constant, and there is no specific 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor data provided in the focused chunks to confirm someone is in the kitchen supervising the stove.

The cook surface is turned off at 19:40, but the gap between activation and deactivation (32 minutes) combined with the lack of explicit kitchen supervision logs creates a potential unattended cooking scenario.

The living room is adjacent to the kitchen; it is highly probable the occupant in the living room moved to the kitchen to cook, making it attended.

The temperature rise is gradual and stabilizes, not indicative of a runaway fire.

C04: Manual unlock followed by auto-lock, but subsequent living room occupancy remains 0 for over an hour, creating ambiguity about whether the door opening led to entry.

C10: Immediate correlation between manual unlock, living room occupancy, and appliance activation supports authorized return.

C10: Kitchen cook surface on for 32 minutes with rising temperatures but no explicit kitchen occupancy log, leaving supervision status inferred rather than confirmed.

Kitchen-specific occupancy sensor data to confirm supervision during cooking in C10.

Motion sensor data in hallways or other rooms to trace movement after the morning unlock in C04.

Credential/Key usage logs to distinguish between manual unlock by owner vs. unauthorized key use.

Door contact history prior to 07:19 in C04 to see if the door was already open or if the unlock was the first change.

C10: Kitchen temperature rise during cooking (19:07-19:40) is gradual and stabilizes; no smoke/CO alarms triggered.

Lock states transition cleanly between locked/unlocked with corresponding contact state changes.

C10: `kitchen_cook_surface` turns on at 19:07:30.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` shows a steady rise from ~23°C to ~26.75°C over 30 minutes.

C10: No smoke or CO alarms triggered, suggesting the situation did not escalate to a hazard.

Verify door contact state immediately preceding the manual unlock in C04 to determine if the door was already open or closed.

Check for motion sensor data in hallways/bedrooms during C04 gap (07:19-08:55) to rule out presence outside living room blind spots.

Confirm kitchen occupancy status via adjacent sensors or logs during C10 cooking event to validate supervision hypothesis.

Review C03 and C05 to establish baseline device states and post-event recovery/normalization.

The investigator correctly identifies the core ambiguity in C04 (unlock without immediate living room occupancy) but relies on a 'gap' argument that is weak without corroborating motion data or pre-unlock door state. The auto-lock engaged quickly, making forced entry unlikely, and the lack of indoor activity could simply mean the occupant was elsewhere or the sensor missed them.

Regarding C10, the unattended cooking hypothesis is speculative. The temperature rise is gradual and stabilizes, and the living room occupancy confirms someone is home nearby. Without explicit kitchen occupancy data or smoke alarms, this is not a confirmed safety threat.

The investigation lacks context from surrounding chunks (C03, C05). C03 would show the state before the morning unlock (was the door locked? was anyone home?), and C05 would show what happened after the morning gap (did someone enter later?). Without these, the 'intrusion' narrative is unsupported speculation.

False alarm risk is high because the primary 'threat' (morning intrusion) rests on an absence of evidence (no living room occupancy) rather than positive evidence of breach, and the secondary threat (cooking) rests on inference rather than direct hazard indicators.

## 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": 355,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 217,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "TestInProgress": 2,
    "COState": 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": "2026-06-05T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-05T01:50:00",
    "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"
    ],
    "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"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "living_room_ac"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C10"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "unauthorized_access_attempt",
    "lock_state_anomaly",
    "human_presence_correlation"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the first lock operation sequence (manual unlock followed by auto-lock) which needs verification against occupancy to rule out false alarms or unauthorized entry.",
    "C10 contains a second lock operation sequence where the door is unlocked manually and immediately followed by human presence detection in the living room, providing critical context for distinguishing between authorized user return and potential intrusion."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Morning Routine: The occupant manually unlocked the front door to leave (or retrieve something), and the auto-lock engaged immediately. The lack of living room occupancy during the gap is due to the occupant being in blind spots (hallway, bedroom, bathroom) or the sensor delay. Subsequent kitchen activity was supervised.",
      "evidence": [
        "C04: Manua


通过门锁合法进入（有 LockOperation 事件+有效 UserIndex），不是通过窗户

The event sequence represents a normal resident returning home, cooking dinner, and securing the house, with no evidence of intrusion or safety hazards.

Explanation: The primary security concern is the manual unlock at 18:25 without a visible UserIndex. However, the subsequent behavior (lights on, AC on, occupancy detected) combined with the auto-lock at 22:14 strongly suggests an authorized resident entering and later securing the home.

Explanation: The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis is weak because the cook surface was turned off after ~24 minutes, which is a typical duration for meal preparation, and there are no fire alarms or extreme temperature spikes indicating a hazard.

Explanation: The lock state transitions are consistent with normal operation: unlocked upon entry, locked automatically at night. There is no evidence of forced entry, repeated failed attempts, or persistent insecure states that would indicate a malfunction or breach.

Explanation: While the Supervisor noted missing chunks C13/C14 to verify the final state, the provided logs up to 22:25 show the door remained locked after the auto-lock event, and no further suspicious activity occurred. The available evidence supports a benign explanation over a threat.

C09/C10: Manual unlock at 18:25 followed by immediate entry indicators (light, occupancy).

C10: Cooking event (19:04-19:28) within normal timeframes.

C12: Auto-lock at 22:14:35 confirming the door was secured before bed.

Consider enabling UserIndex logging for all lock operations to improve attribution in future events.

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.

判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁

simultaneous occupancy in multiple zones after entry

判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁

Authorized resident returning home and cooking dinner.

C09 shows a manual unlock event at 18:25, followed by the door state changing to 'unlocked' in C10.

Immediate activation of entrance light (18:25:17) and living room occupancy detection (18:25:24) indicates entry.

Living room AC turned on (18:25:35) suggests comfort-seeking behavior upon arrival.

Kitchen cook surface activated at 19:04:30, consistent with preparing an evening meal.

Cook surface turned off at 19:28:00 after ~24 minutes, which is a normal duration for cooking.

Dishwasher started at 20:14, consistent with post-dinner cleanup.

Door auto-locked at 22:14:35 (C12), indicating the resident secured the home before bed.

The initial unlock in C09 lacks a preceding 'locked' state confirmation in the provided chunks, though the subsequent lock/unlock cycle implies a standard entry/exit pattern.

No explicit UserIndex was recorded for the 18:25 unlock, relying on behavioral inference rather than identity verification.

Unauthorized intrusion or tailgating event.

The front door was unlocked manually at 18:25 (C09/C10). Without prior context confirming the door was locked immediately before this, it is possible the door was left open or forced.

The sequence of events (unlock -> contact false -> lights on -> occupancy) is identical for both authorized entry and unauthorized entry.

Lack of UserIndex in the 18:25 LockOperation event prevents definitive attribution to a known resident profile.

If the door was previously locked (as implied by the auto-lock later), an unknown manual unlock constitutes a potential breach.

The subsequent behavior (cooking, dishwasher, auto-locking at night) is highly consistent with a resident's routine, making malicious intent less likely than benign oversight.

No forced entry indicators (e.g., high-impact contact sensor values, alarm triggers) are present.

The occupant remained in the house for several hours and engaged in domestic activities, which is atypical for a quick theft/burglary scenario.

Unattended cooking risk due to lack of kitchen occupancy monitoring.

Kitchen cook surface was turned on at 19:04:30 (C10).

There is no 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor data in the logs; only living_room, bedroom, bathroom, and entrance occupancy are tracked.

The cook surface was turned off at 19:28:00. While this is within a safe timeframe, the absence of direct supervision evidence (kitchen presence) creates a blind spot.

If the person left the kitchen area (e.g., went to the living room) while the stove was on, there is no automated alert triggered by the current system configuration.

The cook surface was turned off relatively quickly (~24 mins), reducing the probability of a fire hazard compared to long-duration unattended cooking.

The person was detected in the living room immediately after entering, suggesting they were present in the home during the cooking event.

C09: LockOperation(LockOperationType=1, OperationSource=Manual) at 18:25:00 establishes the trigger event but lacks UserIndex.

C10: Sequential activation of entrance light, living room occupancy, and AC confirms entry and habitation.

C10: Kitchen cook surface On (19:04:30) and Off (19:28:00) defines the safety-relevant window.

C12: Auto-lock at 22:14:35 with UserIndex=3 (likely different from the manual unlock source if it were a specific user, but here just 'Auto') confirms the door was eventually secured.

Pre-18:25 state of the front door lock (was it locked?) to confirm if the 18:25 event was a re-locking or an unlocking from a closed state.

UserIndex mapping for the 18:25 manual unlock to verify if it matches a known resident credential.

Presence of a smoke or heat detector in the kitchen to corroborate the 'unattended cooking' hypothesis.

Verify the final state of the front door lock in chunks C13/C14 to confirm if the auto-lock at 22:14 was successful and remained locked.

Check for any subsequent manual unlock events or forced entry indicators after 22:14.

Confirm if the 'kitchen_cook_surface' off event at 19:28 was followed by any abnormal temperature spikes or smoke detector triggers (if available) to rule out fire risk.

Clarify the 'UserIndex=5' at 20:44 vs 'UserIndex=3' mentioned in Investigator Output (discrepancy in notes vs logs).

The investigation correctly identifies the sequence of events but stops short of verifying the final security posture. The auto-lock at 22:14 is a critical mitigation step; however, without checking C13/C14, we cannot confirm the door stayed locked or if there were further breaches.

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis is weak because the cook surface was turned off within a normal timeframe (~24 mins), and no fire alarms or extreme temperature spikes are evident in the provided logs. This reduces the false alarm risk for safety emergencies, but the security conclusion remains incomplete.

There is a minor inconsistency in the Investigator Output regarding UserIndex (notes say 3, log says 5). This needs clarification but does not invalidate the overall behavioral analysis.

Evidence is insufficient for a final verdict on 'security threat' because the post-mitigation state is unverified.

Authorized resident returning home in the evening. The sequence of events (door unlock, contact open, lights on, AC on, occupancy detected) is consistent with a resident entering their own home after being away.

At 18:25:00, front_door_lock unlocked and front_door_contact opened simultaneously.

Immediately following entry (18:25:17-18:25:35), entrance light, living room light, and AC turned on, indicating purposeful habitation.

Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' continuously from 18:25 until at least 21:05, suggesting sustained presence rather than a transient intruder.

Subsequent activities like cooking (kitchen cook surface on at 19:04) and dishwasher use (20:14) are typical evening household routines.

Lock state flipped back to locked at 20:44 via a standard LockOperation event with UserIndex=5, implying an authorized user re-secured the door.

Does not explain why the lock was initially unlocked without a prior 'lock' command visible in the immediate preceding logs (though it may have been unlocked manually or by a previous event outside the window).

Relies on the assumption that UserIndex=5 corresponds to a known resident.

Unauthorized intrusion or tailgating. An unknown individual entered while the door was unlocked (or forced it open if the contact sensor failed to register force, though contact shows false/open). The lack of a preceding 'lock' event for the initial unlock is suspicious, and the subsequent behavior (lights/AC on) mimics normal usage but could be an intruder settling in or searching.

The first logged event is the door unlocking and opening at 18:25:00. There is no preceding log showing the door being locked just before this, which might suggest the door was left unsecured or picked/unlocked by someone with access.

The rapid activation of multiple systems (light, AC) immediately upon entry suggests familiarity or a deliberate attempt to make the house look occupied, or simply an intruder seeking comfort/security.

If the door was supposed to be locked, its state at 18:25:00 represents a security failure.

The continuous occupancy in the living room for over 2 hours without any other movement patterns (like going to bedroom/bathroom frequently) could indicate loitering or hiding, although the kitchen activity counters this slightly.

The behavior is highly consistent with a resident returning home (lights, AC, cooking).

The lock operation at 20:44 with a specific UserIndex suggests an authenticated action, making unauthorized entry less likely unless the attacker has credentials.

No evidence of forced entry (contact sensor shows simple open, not necessarily impact).

Unattended cooking risk. The kitchen cook surface was turned on at 19:04 and remained on until 19:28. During this time, the only confirmed occupancy was in the living room. If the person in the living room did not monitor the kitchen, this constitutes an unattended cooking hazard.

Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 19:04:30.

Kitchen cook surface turned OFF at 19:28:00.

Living room occupancy was 'occupied' throughout this period.

Bedroom and bathroom occupancies were 'unoccupied'.

There is no explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor data confirming someone was in the kitchen during the cooking window, relying instead on inference from living room proximity.

The duration (approx 24 minutes) is significant enough to pose a fire risk if attention was diverted.

It is highly probable the person in the living room moved to the kitchen to cook, given the adjacency and common household layout. The absence of a dedicated kitchen motion sensor doesn't prove absence.

The cook surface was eventually turned off, mitigating the immediate fire risk.

No smoke alarms or temperature spikes were recorded to indicate a hazardous outcome.

The sequence at 18:25:00: Door Unlock + Contact Open -> Lights/AC On -> Occupancy Detected. This strongly supports the 'Resident Returning Home' narrative over random malfunction.

The LockOperation event at 20:44 with UserIndex=5 provides strong evidence of an authorized interaction, weakening the pure 'intruder' hypothesis unless credential theft occurred.

The gap between Cook Surface ON (19:04) and OFF (19:28) with only Living Room occupancy confirmed creates the 'Unattended Cooking' anomaly signal, even if likely benign due to human proximity inference.

History of the front door lock state prior to 18:25:00 (was it locked? Was it auto-locked?).

Identity/UserIndex mapping for UserIndex=5 (is this a known resident?).

Presence of a kitchen-specific motion or occupancy sensor to confirm supervision during cooking.

Audio or video feeds to verify the identity of the person entering and their behavior.

C09 shows a manual unlock event at 18:25, followed by the door state changing to 'unlocked' in C10.

Immediate activation of entrance light (18:25:17) and living room occupancy detection (18:25:24) indicates entry.

Living room AC turned on (18:25:35) suggests comfort-seeking behavior upon arrival.

Kitchen cook surface activated at 19:04:30, consistent with preparing an evening meal.

Cook surface turned off at 19:28:00 after ~24 minutes, which is a normal duration for cooking.

Dishwasher started at 20:14, consistent with post-dinner cleanup.

Door auto-locked at 22:14:35 (C12), indicating the resident secured the home before bed.

Lack of UserIndex in the 18:25 LockOperation event prevents definitive attribution to a known resident profile.

Kitchen cook surface was turned on at 19:04:30 (C10).

Verify front door lock state and any prior LockOperation events in the chunk immediately preceding C10 (likely C09) to determine if the door was previously locked or if this is a continuous unlocked state.

Confirm UserIndex=5 identity mapping against known resident profiles to validate the 'authorized user' hypothesis.

Check for explicit 'forced entry' indicators (e.g., high-impact contact sensor values, alarm triggers) which are currently absent but critical for ruling out intrusion.

The investigator correctly identifies the sequence of events but relies on an assumption that the door was locked before 18:25. Without C09 (the preceding chunk), we cannot confirm if the door was left open by mistake, auto-locked previously, or if the initial unlock was unauthorized.

The 'unattended cooking' risk is flagged as medium/high potential but dismissed based on inference rather than evidence. While likely benign, the lack of kitchen occupancy data means this remains an unverified safety gap.

The investigation is on-topic but incomplete regarding the primary security question (intrusion vs. authorized entry). The missing pre-trigger context is essential to distinguish between a security breach and a routine event.

No protocol-format misunderstandings detected (temperatures interpreted correctly).

Recommend retrieving C09 to establish the baseline state of the front door lock.

## 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": 353,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 59,
    "entrance": 15
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 221,
    "OnOff": 19,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 221,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-15T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-15T01:50:00",
    "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",
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact",
      "entrance_light",
      "living_room_occupancy"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "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 mismatch (unlocked door)",
    "simultaneous occupancy in multiple zones after entry"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C10 contains the critical trigger event: front door lock unlocked and contact sensor false at 18:25, followed immediately by entrance light on and living room occupancy occupied. This sequence suggests an entry event.",
    "C11 confirms sustained presence in the living room (occupied status continues) and shows normal temperature/occupancy telemetry for the rest of the house, helping to distinguish between a transient glitch, a resident returning home, or an intruder. It provides the necessary context to evaluate if the 'unlocked' state was authorized."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Authorized resident returning home and cooking dinner.",
      "evidence": [
        "C09 s


开窗前住户先在同一房间活动并开灯，是主动行为

The event sequence represents normal cooking activity with expected thermal inertia and residual heat decay, posing no safety threat.

Explanation: The primary event is the activation of the kitchen cook surface at 12:02, followed by a gradual temperature rise in the kitchen sensor from ~25.3°C to a peak of 29.22°C at 12:30-12:35, while the appliance remained ON.

Explanation: At 12:48, the cook surface was turned OFF. The subsequent temperature profile shows a smooth, monotonic decay from 28.32°C (12:50) back to baseline levels (~24.6°C) by 13:35, which is physically consistent with residual heat dissipation from a heated appliance in a closed room.

Explanation: There is no evidence of uncontrolled escalation, fire indicators (smoke/CO alarms), or sensor malfunction (the 'None' readings were transient glitches immediately resolved).

Explanation: Although kitchen occupancy logs are absent during the cooking window, the presence of occupants in the adjacent living room and the controlled nature of the thermal event rule out an immediate safety threat like fire or hazardous unattended operation.

kitchen_cook_surface ON from 12:02 to 12:48

Kitchen temp peaked at 29.22 C while surface was ON, then decayed smoothly after shutoff

Living room occupancy confirmed throughout the event

No immediate action required.
Routine monitoring continues.

判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

Temperature spike in kitchen (28.32 C) coinciding with cook surface off and window closed

Potential unattended cooking or appliance malfunction

Occupancy in living room but not explicitly confirmed in kitchen at the moment of anomaly

判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

Normal cooking activity with residual heat decay. The cook surface was turned on at 12:02, used for approximately 46 minutes, and then turned off at 12:48. The subsequent temperature rise in the kitchen sensor (peaking around 12:30-12:45) reflects thermal inertia and residual heat from the appliance/oven rather than a malfunction or fire. The 'None' reading at 12:03 is a transient telemetry glitch common in IoT sensors during power state changes or initial connection, which immediately recovered to valid data.

C09 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turning ON at 12:02:30.

C09 shows `kitchen_temp_sensor` reporting a gradual increase from 25.24 C (11:50) to 29.22 C (12:30), consistent with heating up.

C10 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turning OFF at 12:48:00.

Post-shutoff (C10), the temperature decays smoothly from 28.32 C (12:50) back to baseline ~24.6 C by 13:35, indicating no active heat source.

The 'None' value at 12:03:00 is isolated and followed by immediate recovery, lacking evidence of persistent fault.

Does not fully explain why the temperature continued to rise slightly *after* the cook surface was turned off (peak at 12:30 vs shutoff at 12:48? Wait, peak was 12:30, shutoff 12:48. Actually, looking at C09, temp peaked at 12:30 (29.22) while surface was still ON. Then it stayed high until shutoff. This supports normal heating.

Relies on assumption that 'unoccupied' logs mean no one was there, though living room occupancy suggests someone was home nearby.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk. The cook surface was left active for an extended period (~46 mins) without direct supervision in the kitchen (no kitchen occupancy logs). While the temperature eventually stabilized, the lack of human presence in the hazard zone combined with the use of a high-heat appliance creates a latent safety risk. The 'None' gap might indicate a sensor failure that obscured real-time monitoring, but the primary anomaly is the behavioral context of unsupervised heat generation.

C09: `kitchen_cook_surface` is ON from 12:02 to 12:48.

C09 & C10: No `kitchen_occupancy` events are logged during this entire window. Only `living_room_occupancy` is consistently 'occupied'.

C09: Temperature rises significantly (25.2 -> 29.2 C) while unattended.

C10: Window remains closed (`false`) throughout the event, trapping any potential fumes or heat.

Temperature did not escalate uncontrollably; it behaved predictably for a heated appliance.

Living room occupancy confirms someone was in the house, reducing the severity of 'unattended' compared to an empty home.

Sensor Malfunction / Glitch. The `kitchen_temp_sensor` reported 'None' twice (12:03 and 12:49) coinciding with device state changes (ON/OFF). This pattern suggests the sensor may be unreliable or experiencing intermittent connectivity issues during power cycles, potentially compromising its ability to detect true thermal anomalies if they were to occur.

C09: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 12:03:00, right after `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON at 12:02:30.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 12:49:00, right after `kitchen_cook_surface` turns OFF at 12:48:00.

The values surrounding these gaps are stable, suggesting the issue is transient/disconnect-related rather than drift.

Single isolated glitches do not constitute a confirmed hardware fault per strict definitions.

Recovery was immediate, so functionality was restored.

Timing correlation between `kitchen_cook_surface` state changes (ON at 12:02, OFF at 12:48) and `kitchen_temp_sensor` 'None' readings (12:03, 12:49).

Absence of `kitchen_occupancy` logs during the 46-minute active cooking window, contrasted with continuous `living_room_occupancy`.

Temperature profile: Rise during ON phase, plateau/high hold, smooth decay after OFF phase, ruling out runaway fire but confirming heat source activity.

Smoke or CO detector logs for the kitchen during 12:00-13:00 to rule out combustion byproducts.

Confirmation of whether the 'cook surface' is an induction hob (cooler ambient heat) or electric coil/gas (higher ambient heat), which affects the interpretation of the 29C reading.

Logs for other kitchen appliances (oven, microwave) to ensure no secondary heat sources were active.

Verify if 'kitchen_cook_surface' is a high-risk appliance (e.g., electric coil/gas) vs low-risk (induction), as this affects the interpretation of ambient temperature rise.

Check for smoke/CO detector logs in the kitchen during the event window to rule out combustion byproducts.

Confirm if the 'None' readings are isolated telemetry glitches or indicate a sensor fault that compromised monitoring reliability.

The investigator correctly identified the core sequence: cook surface ON -> temp rise -> cook surface OFF -> temp decay. This pattern strongly supports 'Normal cooking activity with residual heat' rather than a fire hazard, as temperatures remained within safe bounds (<30C) and decayed smoothly.

However, the investigation remains inconclusive regarding 'unattended cooking' because it lacks explicit kitchen occupancy data (only living room occupancy is confirmed). While the lack of escalation suggests no immediate threat, the absence of direct safety sensors (smoke/CO) and the ambiguity of 'unattended' status prevent a definitive 'No Threat' verdict.

The 'sensor malfunction' hypothesis is weak; the transient 'None' values are consistent with power-cycle glitches and do not constitute a persistent device fault requiring health intervention.

To finalize, we need to confirm if the user was present in the house (living room occupancy helps but doesn't confirm kitchen presence) and if any secondary hazards were triggered. Given the safe temperature profile, the risk is low, but evidence is technically insufficient to rule out behavioral anomalies completely without more context on user location or appliance type.

The temperature spike in the kitchen was caused by residual heat from recent cooking activity or a localized thermal event (e.g., hot appliance, steam) that dissipated naturally. The cook surface was turned off at 12:48, and the subsequent temperature decay curve (from 28.32°C to ~24.6°C over 40 minutes) is consistent with passive cooling of a heated object or room zone, not an active fire.

At 12:48:00, `kitchen_cook_surface` state changed to `off`.

Immediately after, at 12:50:00, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reported 28.32°C, while other rooms were stable around 25.0-25.1°C.

By 13:35, the kitchen temperature (24.92°C) had returned to baseline levels consistent with the rest of the house.

No smoke alarms, CO detectors, or emergency alerts were triggered in the logs.

The window was closed (`false`) at 12:48:30, which would slow down cooling but still allow for natural dissipation over time.

Does not fully explain why the initial reading at 12:49:00 was `None`, suggesting a potential sensor glitch or data gap right before the spike.

Assumes no active heat source remained; if a different appliance (e.g., oven, toaster) was left on, this hypothesis fails.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk: A cooking event occurred just prior to the logs starting (before 12:48), causing the cook surface to be turned off manually or automatically, but leaving residual heat or a smoldering hazard. The high temperature (28.32°C) indicates significant localized heating. Although the temperature eventually cooled, the lack of immediate supervision (no kitchen occupancy logged during the peak) and the absence of mitigation (window stayed closed) present a latent safety risk.

Cook surface turned off at 12:48:00, immediately preceding the temperature anomaly.

Kitchen temperature spiked to 28.32°C at 12:50:00, significantly higher than the home average (~25°C).

No `OccupancySensing.Occupancy` events for the kitchen are recorded in the provided chunks, implying the area might have been unoccupied or the sensor failed to detect presence during the critical window.

Living room occupancy is confirmed as `occupied` throughout, but there is no evidence of anyone entering the kitchen to check the situation.

Window contact remained `false` (closed) throughout the event, preventing natural ventilation to cool the area or disperse potential smoke/gases.

The temperature trend is strictly decreasing after the first measurement, lacking the exponential growth characteristic of an active, uncontrolled fire.

No explicit fire/heat alarms were triggered.

The 'None' reading at 12:49:00 could indicate a sensor dropout rather than a hazardous condition, weakening the certainty of the 'spike' being real physical heat vs. telemetry artifact.

Sensor Malfunction / Telemetry Error: The `kitchen_temp_sensor` experienced a transient fault, reporting `None` at 12:49:00 followed by a spurious high reading (28.32°C) at 12:50:00, which then normalized. This is a device health issue rather than a physical safety threat.

At 12:49:00, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reported `TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None`.

One minute later, it reported 28.32°C, a sudden jump from the implied baseline.

The value then decayed smoothly back to normal without any corresponding change in other environmental factors (like HVAC mode changes or other sensors reacting).

Other sensors in the house remained stable, isolating the anomaly to the kitchen sensor.

Cannot definitively rule out a real thermal event based solely on the smooth decay; real objects also cool down smoothly.

Requires assuming the sensor is faulty without direct error codes.

The sequence of `kitchen_cook_surface` turning `off` at 12:48:00 followed by a temperature spike at 12:50:00 links the thermal event directly to the appliance.

The steady decay of temperature from 28.32°C to 24.6°C over 40 minutes supports either passive cooling of a residual heat source or a sensor recovering from a glitch, but argues against an actively growing fire.

The absence of kitchen occupancy logs during the peak temperature window creates uncertainty about human supervision.

Logs for the period *before* 12:48:00 to confirm if the cook surface was actually on and what its state was prior to turning off.

Data from smoke or carbon monoxide detectors in the kitchen to rule out combustion products.

Confirmation of whether the `kitchen_window_contact` sensor is reliable or if it has a history of false readings.

Presence of other heat sources in the kitchen (oven, microwave) that might have been active.

C09 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turning ON at 12:02:30.

C10 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turning OFF at 12:48:00.

C09: `kitchen_cook_surface` is ON from 12:02 to 12:48.

C09: Temperature rises significantly (25.2 -> 29.2 C) while unattended.

C10: Window remains closed (`false`) throughout the event, trapping any potential fumes or heat.

C09: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 12:03:00, right after `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON at 12:02:30.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 12:49:00, right after `kitchen_cook_surface` turns OFF at 12:48:00.

Logs for the kitchen_cook_surface state prior to 12:48:00 (to confirm if it was actively heating or just turned off).

Smoke/CO detector logs for the kitchen during the event window.

Verification of whether the 'None' reading at 12:49:00 is a known sensor glitch pattern or indicative of a hardware fault.

Confirmation of other active heat sources in the kitchen (oven, microwave) that could explain the residual heat.

The investigator correctly identifies the temperature spike and decay but relies heavily on the absence of kitchen occupancy logs to suggest 'unattended cooking'. This is a weak inference; lack of log does not equal unoccupied status, especially if the sensor is intermittent (as suggested by the 'None' reading).

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is plausible given the transient 'None' followed by a spike that decays smoothly. However, the investigation treats this as secondary without sufficient evidence to rule out real thermal events (like residual heat from cooking).

Crucially, the analysis lacks context *before* the cook surface turned off. Without knowing if the stove was on immediately prior, we cannot distinguish between 'residual heat from normal use' and 'hazardous smoldering'. The current chunks start exactly when the device turns off, missing the trigger event.

Risk of false alarm is high because the safety conclusion ('unattended cooking') rests on missing data (occupancy) and a single ambiguous telemetry gap ('None'), while the alternative explanation (sensor glitch or normal cooling) is equally supported by the smooth decay curve.

Need C09 to see the pre-12:48 state of the cook surface and any preceding anomalies.

## 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: 两室一厅 (2BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- 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>
- 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>, 客厅落地灯<onoff_light>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bedroom: 次卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 486,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "kitchen": 308,
    "bathroom": 58,
    "entrance": 51
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1158,
    "Occupancy": 389,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "LockState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 1,
  "occupancy_events": 389,
  "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
[
  {

## 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": [
      "kitchen"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "kitchen_temp_sensor",
      "kitchen_cook_surface",
      "kitchen_window_contact"
    ],
    "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": [
    "kitchen",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "kitchen_window_contact",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C10",
    "C11"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Temperature spike in kitchen (28.32 C) coinciding with cook surface off and window closed",
    "Potential unattended cooking or appliance malfunction",
    "Occupancy in living room but not explicitly confirmed in kitchen at the moment of anomaly"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C10 contains the specific event sequence: cook surface turns off, window contact is false (closed), and temperature sensor reports a significant spike to 28.32 C while other sensors remain normal. This is the primary candidate for a safety threat (fire/overheat risk).",
    "C11 provides the immediate follow-up context to see if the temperature stabilizes or rises further, and checks occupancy status in the kitchen/living room to determine if someone is present to address the potential hazard."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal cooking activity with residual heat decay. The cook surface was turned on


FG-03-FP: 烟雾报警器自检触发CO检测

The event was a scheduled or manual self-test of the kitchen smoke/CO alarm, not a real safety threat.

Explanation: The logs in Chunk C13 explicitly show `SmokeCoAlarm.TestInProgress = true` starting at 18:40:00, which coincides exactly with the transient `COState = 1` reading.

Explanation: The `COState` returned to 0 and `TestInProgress` became false at 18:40:30, followed immediately by a `SelfTestComplete()` event, confirming the completion of a diagnostic routine.

Explanation: Cross-device telemetry from surrounding sensors (C12-C14) shows stable, normal temperatures (~23°C) and unoccupied states throughout the period, ruling out fire, gas leaks, or other environmental hazards that would trigger a genuine alarm.

Explanation: There is no evidence of device fault (e.g., stuck values, repeated non-recovery) or actual hazardous conditions; the behavior is consistent with a standard maintenance self-test.

SmokeCoAlarm.TestInProgress = true at 18:40:00

SmokeCoAlarm.COState transitioned to 1 only during the test window and returned to 0 at 18:40:30

Event: SelfTestComplete() logged at 18:40:30

Stable temperature readings (~23°C) and unoccupied status across all rooms

No action required; this was a benign self-test.

Verify if the self-test schedule is appropriate for the user's needs.

Smoke/CO alarm activation without corresponding temperature spike or occupancy

Potential false positive due to device fault or non-emergency event

Chunk C13 explicitly logs `SmokeCoAlarm.TestInProgress = true` at 18:40:00.

A `SelfTestComplete()` event was logged at 18:40:30, confirming the successful completion of a diagnostic routine.

Temperature sensors in the kitchen and surrounding rooms show stable, normal readings (~23°C) with no spikes indicative of fire or heat generation.

No occupancy was detected in the kitchen or other rooms, ruling out active cooking or human presence that might trigger a false positive from steam or food.

Does not explain why the user queried the system as a potential threat if they were aware of the test, though users often query automated alerts regardless of intent.

The device triggered a safety alarm due to actual Carbon Monoxide presence, but the telemetry for the external siren/notification is missing or suppressed in the logs.

`COState` was recorded as 1, which typically indicates detection of carbon monoxide above a threshold.

The query specifically targets 'safety threat' regarding the kitchen smoke alarm.

The `COState=1` occurred strictly within a `TestInProgress=true` window, which strongly suggests simulation rather than environmental detection.

There is no corroborating evidence of a fire or gas leak (e.g., temperature spike, other sensor anomalies).

The supervisor feedback explicitly notes that without evidence of an external alarm (siren) or persistence outside the test, this is likely a telemetry artifact.

The immediate return to `COState=0` and the `SelfTestComplete` event align perfectly with a standard self-test cycle, making a real hazard highly improbable.

The presence of `SmokeCoAlarm.TestInProgress = true` coinciding exactly with the `COState = 1` reading.

The subsequent `SelfTestComplete()` event confirming the end of the diagnostic routine.

The absence of any temperature spikes or other environmental anomalies in the kitchen or adjacent rooms.

Logs indicating whether an audible siren or push notification was actually triggered by the device (to distinguish between internal state change and external alert).

Confirmation of whether the self-test was initiated manually by a user or automatically by the system schedule.

The investigator correctly identified the event as a self-test based on the explicit `SmokeCoAlarm.TestInProgress` and `SelfTestComplete()` logs in Chunk C13.

The analysis properly contextualized the transient `COState=1` within the test window, ruling out a real hazard.

Cross-device evidence (stable temperatures, unoccupied status) was correctly used to support the 'no fire/gas' conclusion.

The distinction between device fault (none found) and safety threat (false alarm/self-test) is clear and well-supported by the provided logs.

No protocol misunderstandings detected; Matter semantics were applied correctly.

The kitchen smoke alarm performed a scheduled or manual self-test, which is a normal maintenance operation. The brief COState fluctuation was part of the internal diagnostic routine, and the device returned to a safe state immediately.

At 18:40:00, `kitchen_smoke_alarm` set `SmokeCoAlarm.TestInProgress = true`.

At 18:40:05, `COState` briefly became 1, then at 18:40:30 reverted to 0.

At 18:40:30, `TestInProgress` became false and an explicit `Event: SelfTestComplete()` was logged.

Temperature readings in the kitchen remained stable (23.05 C - 23.19 C) with no spike indicative of fire or cooking heat.

All other rooms were unoccupied, suggesting no active cooking or emergency situation requiring human intervention.

Self-tests are typically user-initiated; without a user command log, it's possible this was an automated periodic test, but the lack of concurrent occupancy makes a 'false alarm' scenario less likely than a controlled test.

The smoke alarm detected a transient Carbon Monoxide (CO) event or sensor anomaly during the test window, potentially indicating a faulty sensor or environmental contamination, though it cleared quickly.

The `COState` changed from 0 to 1 at 18:40:05 while `TestInProgress` was true.

While `TestInProgress` suggests a diagnostic mode, some devices report intermediate states or trigger alarms if they detect gas during the test sequence.

The rapid return to 0 and completion of the test might indicate the sensor cleared the reading, but the initial detection warrants investigation into whether real CO was present or if the sensor is drifting/faulty.

The explicit `SelfTestComplete()` event strongly implies the system interpreted the sequence as a successful diagnostic rather than a failure or persistent hazard.

No sustained CO presence was recorded after the test window.

Temperatures did not rise, making combustion-related CO generation less likely unless ventilation was extremely effective.

The smoke alarm experienced a temporary fault or false positive during its self-test cycle, possibly due to dust, age, or electrical noise, triggering a momentary COState flag.

The `COState` flip occurred specifically during the `TestInProgress` phase.

If the device is designed to ignore CO readings during tests, this behavior indicates a logic error or sensor sensitivity issue.

The absence of any other safety events (fire, intrusion) isolates the issue to the alarm device itself.

Most smart home platforms handle self-tests by muting outputs or ignoring inputs; reporting a state change during test might be standard telemetry for 'checking the sensor', not necessarily an error.

The sequence `TestInProgress=true` -> `COState=1` -> `COState=0` -> `TestInProgress=false` -> `SelfTestComplete()` within a 30-second window.

Stable temperature readings (~23°C) in the kitchen and surrounding areas, ruling out thermal events like fire or active cooking.

All rooms unoccupied, reducing the likelihood of accidental activation by humans (e.g., steam from cooking) and supporting the theory of an automated test or isolated device event.

User logs confirming if a self-test was manually triggered via app or button.

Historical frequency of these `TestInProgress` events to determine if this is a routine periodic check.

Detailed internal diagnostics of the smoke alarm (e.g., battery level, sensor age) to assess hardware health.

Chunk C13 explicitly logs `SmokeCoAlarm.TestInProgress = true` at 18:40:00.

Verify if 'COState=1' during a self-test is standard behavior for this specific device model (often tests simulate gas detection).

Check for any explicit 'AlarmTriggered' or 'SirenActive' events in the logs to distinguish between internal diagnostic state and actual safety alarm.

Confirm if the query implies a need to investigate potential sensor drift beyond the immediate event.

The investigator correctly identified the event as a self-test sequence based on the `TestInProgress` and `SelfTestComplete` flags.

However, the risk of false alarm is HIGH because the core evidence for an anomaly (`COState=1`) occurred strictly within a known diagnostic window (`TestInProgress=true`). Without evidence that the device triggered an external alarm (siren/notification) or that the CO reading persisted outside the test, this is likely a normal telemetry artifact of the self-test routine rather than a fault or hazard.

The investigation should not conclude 'sensor malfunction' or 'threat' based solely on a transient state change during a documented test. The current evidence supports a 'Normal Operation' verdict, but requires confirmation that no external alarm was raised to fully dismiss the threat hypothesis.

No additional chunks are needed as the relevant event is fully contained in C13, but the interpretation needs refinement to avoid over-diagnosing a diagnostic routine.

## 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: 两室一厅 (2BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- 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>
- 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>, 客厅落地灯<onoff_light>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bedroom: 次卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 336,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "kitchen": 293,
    "bathroom": 48,
    "entrance": 48
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1152,
    "Occupancy": 240,
    "TestInProgress": 2,
    "COState": 2
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 0,
  "occupancy_events": 240,
  "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": "2026-06-13T01:20:00",
    "e

## 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_smoke_alarm",
      "kitchen_temp_sensor",
      "kitchen_cook_surface"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_alarm",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C13"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Smoke/CO alarm activation without corresponding temperature spike or occupancy",
    "Potential false positive due to device fault or non-emergency event"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "Chunk C13 is the only chunk with a high 'alarmish_count' (19) and explicitly lists 'kitchen_smoke_alarm' in top_devices, indicating the specific event triggering the safety query.",
    "Other chunks show normal temperature fluctuations and unoccupied states, providing context that no fire (high temp) or intrusion (occupancy) is occurring simultaneously."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The event was a scheduled or manual self-test of the kitchen smoke/CO alarm. The transient COState=1 is a diagnostic artifact, not a real hazard.",
      "evidence": [
        "Chunk C13 explicitly logs `SmokeCoAlarm.TestInProgress = true` at 18:40:00.",
        "The `COState` transitioned to 1 only during this test window (18:40:05) and returned to 0 immediately after (18:40:30).",
        "A `SelfTestComplete()` event was logged at 18:40:30, c


INS-05-FP: 住户换了新手机/手表解锁

虽然用了不常用的RFID方式解锁，但进门后最终开灯、正常活动，行为模式与住户一致

No safety threat detected; the event is best explained as a sensor placement or calibration issue (device health) rather than an active fire or unattended cooking hazard.

Explanation: The kitchen temperature sensor shows a significant drift (rising from ~25.4°C to ~29.4°C) between 10:35 and 11:35 while the cook surface was OFF. This pre-existing elevation suggests the sensor is either placed near a heat source (e.g., oven exhaust, sunlight) or has a calibration offset, rather than indicating an active fire which would likely trigger smoke/CO alarms or show more erratic escalation.

Explanation: When the cook surface was turned ON at 11:56, the temperature was already high (~29°C) and subsequently dropped rapidly after being turned OFF at 12:25. The lack of sustained high temperatures or alarm triggers during the actual cooking window makes a 'fire risk' or 'unattended cooking' conclusion unsupported by the evidence.

Explanation: The supervisor correctly identified that the evidence is insufficient to distinguish definitively between a hidden heat source and sensor error, but noted the high risk of false alarm for safety threats given the transient nature and lack of combustion indicators.

Explanation: According to Matter notes and rules, scaled temperature values alone are not sufficient to conclude a device fault without direct fault evidence, but they also do not constitute a safety threat in the absence of corroborating hazardous events (smoke, CO, persistent high heat). The sequence is consistent with normal cooking activity combined with a biased sensor reading.

Explanation: Therefore, no safety anomaly is declared. The primary finding is a potential device health issue (sensor drift/placement), which does not meet the threshold for a safety threat classification.

Kitchen temp rose to 29.43°C at 11:35 while cook_surface was OFF (last state change 09:41).

Cook surface turned ON at 11:56 and OFF at 12:25; temperature normalized to ~25°C by 12:30.

No smoke/CO alarm activations recorded during the event window.

Living room occupancy confirmed user presence, reducing likelihood of completely unattended hazard, though kitchen occupancy is unknown.

Investigate kitchen_temp_sensor placement for proximity to heat sources or HVAC vents.

Calibrate or replace the kitchen temperature sensor if drift persists compared to other room sensors.

Monitor future cooking events to verify if temperature spikes correlate with actual appliance usage or remain anomalous.

Normal cooking activity with pre-existing sensor bias. The kitchen temperature was already elevated (~26-29°C) before the cook surface turned on, indicating the sensor is likely placed near a heat source (e.g., oven exhaust, sunlight, or appliance) or has calibration drift. The subsequent rise to ~29.4°C upon turning on the stove is consistent with normal heat addition to an already warm environment, followed by rapid cooling after the stove was turned off.

C08 shows kitchen_temp_sensor rising from 25.57°C (10:35) to 29.43°C (11:35) while the cook_surface remained OFF (last seen OFF at 09:41).

At 11:56:30, when the cook_surface turns ON, the temperature is already high (28.99°C in C09), not spiking from baseline.

After the cook_surface turns OFF at 12:25, temperatures drop rapidly back to baseline (~25°C) by 12:30.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered; no other rooms showed temperature anomalies.

Does not explain why the sensor drifted so significantly (4°C above ambient) without an active heat source, suggesting potential placement issues rather than just 'normal' operation.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk due to delayed supervision. Although the cook surface was only on for ~30 minutes, the kitchen temperature rose steadily for over an hour *before* the stove was even turned on, reaching nearly 30°C. This suggests a hidden heat source or severe sensor malfunction. If the sensor is accurate, there may have been an unattended heat source (e.g., left-on oven, toaster) prior to the stove usage. If the sensor is faulty, the high reading during stove use creates a false sense of security or masks actual conditions. Crucially, the user was detected in the living room throughout this period, and no one entered the kitchen to monitor the appliance or investigate the rising temperature.

Kitchen temperature rose from ~25.5°C to ~29.4°C between 10:35 and 11:35 with NO cook surface activity (C08).

Cook surface turned ON at 11:56:30 while temp was already 28.99°C (C09).

Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' continuously from 09:48 to 15:08, but no 'kitchen_occupancy' logs exist to confirm presence in the kitchen.

Cook surface turned OFF at 12:25, only ~30 minutes after being turned on, but the preceding hour of unexplained heating is suspicious.

Temperature normalized quickly after shutdown, suggesting the heat source was localized and removed, but the pre-event heating remains unexplained.

Lack of direct evidence that the user was unaware of the kitchen state; they were home and could have checked.

The temperature spike could be entirely explained by sensor placement error (e.g., near a vent), making it a device fault rather than a safety hazard.

No alarm activation or dangerous escalation occurred.

Sensor Malfunction / Placement Error. The kitchen sensor reports values consistently 3-4°C higher than all other sensors in the house, even when no appliances are running. This persistent offset indicates a hardware fault or improper installation (e.g., inside a cabinet, near a window with sun exposure, or near an HVAC vent). While not an immediate fire risk, it represents a failure in environmental monitoring.

All other sensors (living_room, master_bedroom, etc.) stay within 24.3-25.6°C range.

Kitchen sensor reads 29.43°C at 11:35 while other rooms are ~25.3°C, despite no active cooking.

Kitchen sensor drops to 25.05°C by 12:45 after stove is off, showing it can return to baseline, ruling out permanent stuck value.

Intermittent `None` readings (11:57, 12:26) suggest connectivity or power instability.

Recovery to baseline makes it less likely to be a catastrophic failure, more likely a calibration/placement issue.

The kitchen temperature rose to ~29.4°C between 11:00 and 11:35 while the cook_surface was confirmed OFF (last state change 09:41). This proves the heat source was not the cook surface itself, pointing either to another unmonitored heat source (safety risk) or a faulty sensor (device health).

Absence of any 'kitchen_occupancy' log prevents confirming if the user was present to mitigate the situation, relying instead on the assumption that 'living room occupied' implies 'not in kitchen'.

Rapid normalization of temperature after cook_surface OFF (12:25) supports the idea that the heat was transient and localized, consistent with either brief unattended cooking or a sensor reacting to local airflow changes.

Logs for 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor to determine if anyone was actually in the kitchen during the heating event.

Status of other kitchen appliances (oven, microwave, toaster) to rule out alternative heat sources causing the pre-stove temperature rise.

Smoke/CO alarm status specifically for the kitchen zone to rule out combustion events that might have been logged but not highlighted in the summary.

Verify if the temperature spike in C08/C09 correlates with any other heat sources (oven, microwave) or HVAC changes not logged in the provided chunks.

Check for explicit smoke/CO alarm triggers in the full log stream, as their absence is a key negative indicator but needs to be confirmed against the specific kitchen zone.

Assess the 'kitchen_occupancy' gap: Is there a sensor that failed to report, or was it simply not installed? The lack of direct occupancy data makes the 'unattended' hypothesis speculative.

The investigator correctly identifies the anomalous temperature rise and the cook surface activity. However, the conclusion leans heavily on 'sensor malfunction' vs 'unattended cooking' without sufficient evidence to distinguish them definitively.

Risk of False Alarm is HIGH: The temperature spike is transient (returns to baseline quickly), no alarms were triggered, and the cook surface was used for a normal duration (~30 mins). The pre-stove heating could be due to solar gain, oven residual heat, or sensor placement, none of which constitute an immediate fire hazard requiring intervention beyond device maintenance.

The investigation drifts slightly into device health (calibration/placement) rather than strictly answering the safety threat question. While device health is relevant, the primary query is about safety threats. The current evidence does not support a 'fire risk' verdict because the hazard did not escalate, and no combustion indicators (smoke/CO) were present.

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis is weak because the user was home (living room occupied) and the event resolved itself without incident. A safety threat usually implies a need for intervention or a realized danger. Here, the danger was likely non-existent or mitigated by the transient nature of the heat.

Recommendation: Do not issue a final safety verdict yet. The case is better classified as a 'Device Health / Calibration Issue' with low/no immediate safety risk. Further refinement should focus on confirming the sensor's accuracy via cross-referencing with other sensors or manual checks, rather than treating it as a security/safety incident.

Normal cooking activity with transient thermal impact. The user turned on the cook surface, causing a localized temperature spike in the kitchen sensor (28.99°C) which then dissipated as the appliance was turned off and ambient conditions normalized.

kitchen_cook_surface turned ON at 11:56:30 and OFF at 12:25:00 (approx. 30 mins).

Kitchen temperature rose from ~25.2°C to 28.99°C during this period, consistent with heat radiation from a stove.

Kitchen temperature returned to baseline (~25.0°C) by 12:45:00 after the cook surface was turned off.

Living room occupancy remained constant (occupied), suggesting someone is home, though not necessarily in the kitchen.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered; no other rooms showed abnormal heating.

The query specifically asks about safety threats, and 'unattended cooking' is a potential risk if the occupant left the kitchen while the stove was on. However, the logs do not explicitly show the person leaving the house or becoming incapacitated, only that they were detected in the living room.

The gap in kitchen temperature data (None) at 11:57:00 coincides with the start of cooking, which could indicate sensor saturation or temporary failure, but it doesn't prove negligence.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk. The cook surface was activated for an extended period (approx. 30 minutes) while the only detected human presence was in the living room, far from the kitchen. This creates a scenario where the cooking activity may have been unmonitored, posing a fire hazard if food burned or grease ignited.

kitchen_cook_surface ON from 11:56:30 to 12:25:00.

living_room_occupancy = occupied continuously from 11:43:00 through 12:45:00.

No occupancy events recorded in the kitchen itself during the cooking window (only bathroom/master/second bedroom/entrance/living room sensors are present/relevant).

Temperature spike in kitchen (28.99°C) confirms heat generation, but no mitigation (like turning off the stove) occurred until 12:25:00.

The duration of 30 minutes is significant for unattended stovetop use.

Occupancy sensors are room-specific; absence of 'kitchen_occupancy' does not definitively prove the person wasn't in the kitchen (sensors might be missing or blind spots exist), though the focus on living_room suggests the primary inhabitant was there.

No explicit alarm (smoke/CO) was triggered, which would strongly corroborate a fire event.

The temperature drop was gradual, not explosive, suggesting no rapid combustion event occurred within the sensor's range.

Sensor Malfunction / Data Integrity Issue. The kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' immediately after the cook surface was turned on, potentially indicating sensor damage from heat or a communication fault, which compromises the ability to monitor for fire risks.

At 11:57:00, exactly 30 seconds after kitchen_cook_surface turned ON, kitchen_temp_sensor reports MeasuredValue = None.

This dropout occurs during the highest heat generation phase.

The sensor recovers later, but the gap coincides with the peak thermal event.

A single 'None' reading is often a transient telemetry glitch rather than permanent malfunction.

The sensor recovered and provided valid readings shortly after, so it did not fail completely.

The correlation between kitchen_cook_surface ON (11:56:30) and the subsequent temperature spike (28.99°C) followed by a data gap (None) at 11:57:00.

The continuous 'occupied' status in the living_room (11:43-12:45) without any corresponding 'kitchen_occupancy' events during the 30-minute cooking window.

The lack of any smoke or CO alarm triggers despite the significant temperature rise and duration of stove use.

Direct evidence of human location relative to the kitchen (e.g., was the person actually in the kitchen preparing food, or just in the adjacent living room?).

Status of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors (were they active? did they trigger silently?).

Whether the 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor exists and why it didn't log anything, or if its absence implies the person was indeed elsewhere.

Context on what was being cooked (high-risk items like oil/frying vs. low-risk like boiling water).

After the cook_surface turns OFF at 12:25, temperatures drop rapidly back to baseline (~25°C) by 12:30.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered; no other rooms showed temperature anomalies.

Kitchen temperature rose from ~25.5°C to ~29.4°C between 10:35 and 11:35 with NO cook surface activity (C08).

Cook surface turned ON at 11:56:30 while temp was already 28.99°C (C09).

All other sensors (living_room, master_bedroom, etc.) stay within 24.3-25.6°C range.

Kitchen sensor reads 29.43°C at 11:35 while other rooms are ~25.3°C, despite no active cooking.

Intermittent `None` readings (11:57, 12:26) suggest connectivity or power instability.

Verify if the kitchen temperature spike (28.99 C) was present *before* the cook surface turned on at 11:56:30. If it was already high, the device is likely mislocated or faulty, not a fire hazard.

Check for smoke/CO alarm logs in adjacent chunks to rule out actual combustion events that might have been logged but missed in the current view.

Confirm if 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor exists; if not, the absence of occupancy data cannot be used as evidence of unattended cooking.

The investigator correctly identified the temporal correlation between the cook surface and temperature rise, but failed to check the baseline state of the kitchen temperature *prior* to the event (likely in C08). A reading of ~29°C in a kitchen ambient sensor is often indicative of sensor placement near heat sources or calibration drift, rather than an active fire, especially since no alarms triggered and temperatures normalized quickly.

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis relies heavily on the assumption that the person was *not* in the kitchen because they were detected in the living room. However, without a specific 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor log, this is speculative. The primary safety risk here is actually a potential device fault (sensor reporting high temps while appliance is off or before it turns on), which requires checking pre-event data.

Risk of false alarm is high because the conclusion of 'fire risk' is built on a single transient temperature anomaly that resolved without escalation, combined with an inference about human location that isn't directly supported by a kitchen-specific occupancy sensor.

## 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: 两室一厅 (2BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- 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>
- 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>, 客厅落地灯<onoff_light>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bedroom: 次卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 486,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "kitchen": 308,
    "bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 55
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1158,
    "Occupancy": 390,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "LockState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 1,
  "occupancy_events": 390,
  "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
[
  {

## 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": [
      "kitchen"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "kitchen_temp_sensor",
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "cook_surface"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C09",
    "C10"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "anomalous_temperature_spike",
    "potential_fire_hazard",
    "cooking_activity_correlation"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C09 contains the critical event: a sudden temperature spike in the kitchen sensor (28.99 C) while other rooms remain stable, coinciding with occupancy in the living room (suggesting someone is home but potentially unaware or away from the kitchen). This is the primary trigger for safety assessment.",
    "C10 follows immediately to check if the temperature normalized (indicating a transient error or brief cooking event) or persisted/escalated (indicating a sustained hazard like a fire or unattended stove). It also provides context on whether alarms were triggered or further actions taken."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal cooking activity with pre-existing sensor bias. The kitchen temperature was already elevated (~26-29°C) before the cook surface turned on, indicating the sensor is likely placed near a heat source (e.g., oven exhaust, su