SmokeCoAlarm 的 COState 变为 Warning 或 Critical

CO 报警是严重安全事件，不同于烟雾报警

紧急通知所有住户撤离，开窗通风，联系燃气公司

No confirmed safety anomaly; observed events are consistent with normal cooking and security routines despite minor sensor telemetry gaps.

Explanation: The investigator's primary hypothesis of 'unattended cooking hazard' relies heavily on the absence of explicit kitchen occupancy logs during the 11:51-12:51 window. However, the logs show continuous occupancy in adjacent rooms (living room, bedroom) throughout the day, making it highly probable that occupants were present in the house and likely supervising the kitchen, even if not detected by the specific kitchen motion sensor.

Explanation: The temperature spike to ~29.4°C is significant but did not reach critical fire thresholds (>40-50°C), and crucially, no smoke/CO alarm was triggered. This suggests the heat was contained or vented effectively, consistent with normal cooking rather than a hazardous fire event.

Explanation: The `kitchen_temp_sensor` returning `None` at 11:52:00 and 12:52:00 appears to be a transient telemetry dropout or sensor saturation issue rather than a permanent device fault. The sensor recovered immediately in subsequent intervals, and there is no evidence of persistent failure or dangerous state retention.

Explanation: The evening security routine (C16) shows a standard auto-lock sequence with the door contact sensor confirming closure before locking, indicating no intrusion risk.

Explanation: Given the supervisor's note that the investigation lacks intermediate chunks (C09-C14) to fully verify the post-cooking state and smoke alarm status, and considering the high risk of false alarms based on missing supervision logs alone, the most prudent conclusion is that no definitive anomaly occurred.

Cook surface turned off at 12:51 without triggering smoke/CO alarms.

Kitchen temperature returned to baseline (~25°C) after cooking stopped.

Front door auto-locked successfully with contact sensor confirming closure.

Temperature sensor `None` values were transient and recovered quickly.

Review intermediate log chunks (C09-C14) to confirm smoke alarm status and kitchen occupancy during the afternoon.

Investigate the root cause of the intermittent `kitchen_temp_sensor` `None` readings to ensure monitoring reliability for future events.

Unattended cooking hazard: Cook surface turned on in C05 with no subsequent turn-off or alarm trigger observed in preview.

Temperature anomaly in kitchen: Significant spike to ~29°C in C07, potentially linked to cooking activity.

Security event: Front door lock operation and contact sensor state change at night (C16).

Missing smoke alarm activation despite potential fire risk from unattended stove.

C16 covers the late-night security context (door lock/contact) and provides the end-of-day state, helping to assess if the cooking incident resolved safely before bedtime.

Normal cooking activity with temporary sensor saturation or blind spot. The cook surface was used for short durations (approx. 20 mins in C05, ~40 mins in C07). The temperature spike in C06/C07 is consistent with localized heat from the stove. The `None` readings and lack of alarm activation suggest the smoke/CO alarm did not detect hazardous levels, implying normal cooking fumes rather than fire.

C05: Cook surface turned on at 09:05:36 and off at 09:27:00 (~21 mins). Kitchen temp remained stable (~25.4°C).

C07: Cook surface turned on at 11:51:30 and off at 12:51:00 (~60 mins). Kitchen temp rose to ~29.4°C then cooled.

No `smoke_co_alarm` activation events in any chunk.

Kitchen occupancy shows intermittent presence (e.g., C05 has no explicit kitchen occupancy log, but C07 does not show prolonged absence either; however, living room/bedroom are occupied throughout, suggesting people are home).

Temperature returns to baseline (~25°C) after cooking stops in both instances.

Does not fully explain the `kitchen_temp_sensor` reading `None` at 11:52:00 immediately after turning on the stove, which could indicate a sensor fault or extreme local heating causing a read error.

Relies on the assumption that 'no alarm' equals 'safe', ignoring potential device failure.

Secure evening routine. The front door lock engaged automatically at 23:04:21 via `LockOperationType=Auto`. The contact sensor showed `true` (closed/latched) just before locking, indicating the door was physically closed before the lock engaged. This represents a standard security protocol execution.

C16: `front_door_contact` StateValue = true at 23:04:20.

C16: `front_door_lock` Event: LockOperation(Auto) at 23:04:21.

C16: `front_door_lock` LockState = locked at 23:04:21.

Living room AC and lights turned off shortly after, consistent with bedtime routine.

Does not account for the state of the door prior to 23:04 if it was left open for an extended period, though no evidence of this exists in the provided chunks.

Unattended Cooking Hazard with Potential Sensor Failure. In C07, the cook surface was left on for ~60 minutes while the kitchen temperature spiked significantly (to ~29.4°C). Crucially, the `kitchen_temp_sensor` returned `None` at 11:52:00, one minute after ignition. This suggests the sensor may have failed due to heat exposure or obstruction, creating a monitoring blind spot. The lack of smoke alarm activation despite high temps raises the risk of undetected smoldering or equipment failure, although no fire occurred by the end of the day.

C07: `kitchen_cook_surface` OnOff = on at 11:51:30.

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` MeasuredValue = None at 11:52:00 (immediate dropout upon activation).

C06-C07: Kitchen temperature rises steadily from ~25°C to ~29.4°C between 11:00 and 11:35, remaining elevated until the stove is turned off at 12:51.

No `kitchen_occupancy` logs explicitly confirming someone was in the kitchen during the entire 11:51-12:51 window (only living/bedroom occupancy confirmed).

No smoke/CO alarm trigger despite significant heat generation.

The occupant might have been in the kitchen without triggering the specific `kitchen_occupancy` sensor (if separate from general motion), or the system relies on other rooms' occupancy as a proxy.

The temperature rise, while notable, did not reach critical fire thresholds (>40-50°C) in the ambient sensor, suggesting the heat was contained or vented.

Sensor Malfunction / Data Integrity Issue. The `kitchen_temp_sensor` exhibits repeated `None` values (C05 at 09:06, C07 at 11:52, C08 at 12:52) coinciding with cook surface usage or immediate post-use periods. This pattern suggests a systematic failure mode where the sensor becomes unresponsive during thermal stress or cleaning/maintenance events, compromising safety monitoring reliability.

C05: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 09:06:06 (1 min after stove on).

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 11:52:00 (1 min after stove on).

C08: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 12:52:00 (1 min after stove off).

Sensor recovers to valid values in subsequent intervals, indicating non-permanent damage but recurring operational failure.

Recovery is consistent, so it's not a permanent hardware break, but rather a transient fault.

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reading `None` at 11:52:00, exactly 1 minute after `kitchen_cook_surface` turned on.

C07: Sustained elevation of kitchen temperature to ~29.4°C over 40+ minutes with no corresponding `kitchen_occupancy` confirmation.

C16: `front_door_contact` = true followed immediately by auto-lock, confirming secure closure sequence.

Direct `kitchen_occupancy` logs for the 11:51-12:51 window to confirm supervision.

Smoke/CO alarm status logs to definitively rule out device failure vs. benign cooking.

Context for why the kitchen temperature sensor drops to `None` specifically during stove operation (is it a known limitation of the device?).

Front door contact history prior to 23:04 to ensure the door wasn't left ajar for a long duration before auto-locking.

C05: Cook surface turned on at 09:05:36 and off at 09:27:00 (~21 mins). Kitchen temp remained stable (~25.4°C).

C07: Cook surface turned on at 11:51:30 and off at 12:51:00 (~60 mins). Kitchen temp rose to ~29.4°C then cooled.

No `smoke_co_alarm` activation events in any chunk.

Temperature returns to baseline (~25°C) after cooking stops in both instances.

C16: `front_door_contact` StateValue = true at 23:04:20.

C16: `front_door_lock` Event: LockOperation(Auto) at 23:04:21.

C16: `front_door_lock` LockState = locked at 23:04:21.

Living room AC and lights turned off shortly after, consistent with bedtime routine.

C07: `kitchen_cook_surface` OnOff = on at 11:51:30.

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` MeasuredValue = None at 11:52:00 (immediate dropout upon activation).

No smoke/CO alarm trigger despite significant heat generation.

C05: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 09:06:06 (1 min after stove on).

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 11:52:00 (1 min after stove on).

C08: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 12:52:00 (1 min after stove off).

Sensor recovers to valid values in subsequent intervals, indicating non-permanent damage but recurring operational failure.

Smoke/CO alarm status logs for the entire day to confirm device functionality and absence of triggers.

Kitchen occupancy logs specifically during the 11:51-12:51 window to verify supervision.

Context for the `kitchen_temp_sensor` `None` readings (C05, C07, C08) to determine if this is a known sensor limitation or a fault.

Front door contact history prior to 23:04 to ensure the door was not left open for an extended period before auto-locking.

The investigator correctly identified potential risks but relies heavily on 'absence of evidence' (missing kitchen occupancy logs) and transient telemetry gaps (`None` values) to construct a safety hazard narrative.

The `unattended_cooking` hypothesis is weak because the temperature spike (~29°C) did not escalate to fire levels, and no smoke alarm triggered. The lack of kitchen occupancy logs could simply mean the sensor wasn't triggered by the user's position, not that the room was empty.

The `sensor_malfunction` hypothesis is plausible but currently based on isolated `None` events without corroborating fault codes or persistent failure patterns in the provided chunks.

Crucially, the investigation focuses on C05-C08 and C16 but ignores the large gap between noon (C08 ends ~14:07) and evening (C15 starts ~21:45). This gap likely contains critical context regarding whether the cooking incident resolved safely, if the smoke alarm was checked, or if other security events occurred.

Without the intermediate chunks (C09-C14), we cannot confirm the state of the home after the cooking event or verify the smoke alarm's operational status throughout the day.

False alarm risk is high because the conclusion of 'unsafe' rests on missing logs and transient data errors rather than confirmed hazardous states (fire, intrusion, or confirmed unattended appliance with active danger).

Normal cooking activity with temporary sensor interference. The cook surface was used for short durations (approx. 20 mins in C05, approx. 40 mins in C07) and turned off manually. The temperature spike in the kitchen (C07) is consistent with heat from cooking, and the subsequent drop indicates the source was removed. The `None` readings are likely due to thermal overload or temporary signal loss near the heat source, which recovered.

C05: Cook surface turned on at 09:05:36 and off at 09:27:00 (~21 mins). Kitchen temp remained stable (~25.4-25.5°C).

C07: Cook surface turned on at 11:51:30 and off at 12:51:00 (~60 mins). Kitchen temp rose from ~29.4°C to ~25.1°C after turn-off.

C07: Kitchen window contact state changed to 'false' (closed) at 12:51:30, shortly after the stove was turned off, suggesting a cleanup/ventilation routine.

No smoke/CO alarm events recorded in any chunk.

Occupancy sensors show continuous presence in adjacent rooms (Bedroom/Living Room) during cooking events, suggesting someone was home.

The duration of the second cooking event (C07) is longer than the first, increasing the risk of unattended cooking if the occupant left the immediate area.

The temperature spike in C07 (to 29.4°C) is significant enough to potentially trigger a smoke alarm if grease/smoke was generated, yet no alarm fired. This could imply the alarm is faulty or the cooking was very clean, but it leaves a gap in safety verification.

Normal evening security routine. The front door lock operation at 23:04 was an automatic re-locking event triggered by the door closing (contact sensor true) or a scheduled auto-lock. No forced entry indicators are present.

C16: At 23:04:20, `front_door_contact` becomes `true` (door closed/latched).

Immediately following, at 23:04:21, `front_door_lock` performs a `LockOperation` with `OperationSource=Auto` and state becomes `locked`.

This sequence (Contact True -> Auto Lock) is standard behavior for smart locks configured to auto-lock upon closure.

No break-in attempts, forced unlock, or repeated failed lock attempts observed.

Does not explain *why* the door was unlocked before 23:04. If the door was unlocked for an extended period prior to this, it represents a security vulnerability, even if resolved by auto-lock.

Unattended Cooking Hazard with Potential Safety Device Failure. In C07, the cook surface was active for ~60 minutes while the kitchen temperature spiked significantly. Although the stove was eventually turned off, there is no evidence of active supervision in the kitchen (kitchen occupancy is not explicitly logged as occupied in C07, only Bedroom/Living Room are). The lack of smoke/CO alarm activation despite a 4°C+ temperature rise suggests either the cooking produced no smoke (low risk) OR the smoke/CO alarm is malfunctioning/not responding to the hazard.

C07: Kitchen temp rises from 25.5°C (end of C05) to 29.44°C at 11:40, then slowly declines after stove turns off at 12:51.

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 11:52:00, right when the stove is turned on and temps are highest, indicating potential sensor stress or blind spot.

C07: No `kitchen_occupancy` logs are present in the provided chunks, unlike other rooms. We cannot confirm the user stayed in the kitchen.

Missing Smoke/CO Alarm Trigger: Despite high heat generation, no `COState` or smoke alarm events are recorded in Structured Signals or Chunks.

C05: Similar pattern where stove was on for 20 mins without alarm, though temp didn't spike.

The stove was eventually turned off, so no fire occurred.

It is possible the user was in the kitchen but the occupancy sensor failed to log, or the user moved between kitchen and living room frequently.

The temperature spike might be due to ambient conditions or oven use rather than open flame/grease fire, explaining the lack of smoke alarm.

Security Vulnerability: Extended Unsecured Entry Point. The front door was unlocked/open prior to 23:04. While it auto-locked at 23:04, the logs do not show when it was last locked or opened. If the door was unlocked for a long period during the day/evening, the home was vulnerable to intrusion. The `lock_state_flips: 1` in structured signals is low, but the specific event at 23:04 is an 'Auto' lock, implying a previous manual unlock or default open state that wasn't captured in the immediate pre-event logs.

C16: The first visible lock state change is an Auto-Lock at 23:04:21.

There is no preceding log showing the door being locked manually or via schedule before this auto-event.

If the door was unlocked since morning (not shown), the house was insecure for many hours.

The `BooleanState.StateValue = true` for contact at 23:04:20 confirms the door was physically closed just before locking, but doesn't prove it was secure immediately prior.

The auto-lock successfully secured the home at the end of the observed window.

Without logs prior to 23:02, we cannot determine the duration of the insecure state.

Auto-lock is a mitigating factor against intrusion.

C07 Temperature Spike vs. Missing Alarm: The kitchen temperature reached 29.44°C during active cooking, yet no smoke/CO alarm event was recorded. This is the strongest indicator of either a benign cooking event (clean burn) or a safety device failure.

C07 Occupancy Gap: Lack of explicit `kitchen_occupancy` logs during the 60-minute cooking event makes it impossible to verify supervision, raising the unattended cooking risk.

C16 Auto-Lock Sequence: The transition from Contact=True to Auto-Lock at 23:04 confirms the door was closed and then secured automatically, but hides the state of the door prior to closure.

Kitchen Occupancy Logs: Need to confirm if anyone was present in the kitchen during the C07 cooking event to rule out unattended cooking.

Smoke/CO Alarm Status: Need to check if the smoke/CO alarm is functional and why it did not trigger during the high-heat event in C07.

Pre-23:02 Door State: Need logs showing when the front door was last locked before the 23:04 auto-lock to assess the duration of the security vulnerability.

Cook Surface Type: Clarification on whether the 'cook_surface' is an induction hob (less fire risk) or gas/electric coil (higher fire/smoke risk) to contextualize the temperature spike.

C05: Cook surface turned on at 09:05:36 and off at 09:27:00 (~21 mins). Kitchen temp remained stable (~25.4-25.5°C).

C07: Cook surface turned on at 11:51:30 and off at 12:51:00 (~60 mins). Kitchen temp rose from ~29.4°C to ~25.1°C after turn-off.

No smoke/CO alarm events recorded in any chunk.

Occupancy sensors show continuous presence in adjacent rooms (Bedroom/Living Room) during cooking events, suggesting someone was home.

C16: At 23:04:20, `front_door_contact` becomes `true` (door closed/latched).

Immediately following, at 23:04:21, `front_door_lock` performs a `LockOperation` with `OperationSource=Auto` and state becomes `locked`.

This sequence (Contact True -> Auto Lock) is standard behavior for smart locks configured to auto-lock upon closure.

No break-in attempts, forced unlock, or repeated failed lock attempts observed.

C07: Kitchen temp rises from 25.5°C (end of C05) to 29.44°C at 11:40, then slowly declines after stove turns off at 12:51.

C07: No `kitchen_occupancy` logs are present in the provided chunks, unlike other rooms. We cannot confirm the user stayed in the kitchen.

C05: Similar pattern where stove was on for 20 mins without alarm, though temp didn't spike.

C16: The first visible lock state change is an Auto-Lock at 23:04:21.

There is no preceding log showing the door being locked manually or via schedule before this auto-event.

If the door was unlocked since morning (not shown), the house was insecure for many hours.

C05: Cook surface turned on at 09:05:36 and off at 09:27:00 (~21 mins). Kitchen temp remained stable (~25.4°C).

C07: Cook surface turned on at 11:51:30 and off at 12:51:00 (~60 mins). Kitchen temp rose to ~29.4°C then cooled.

No `smoke_co_alarm` activation events in any chunk.

Temperature returns to baseline (~25°C) after cooking stops in both instances.

C16: `front_door_contact` StateValue = true at 23:04:20.

C16: `front_door_lock` Event: LockOperation(Auto) at 23:04:21.

C16: `front_door_lock` LockState = locked at 23:04:21.

Living room AC and lights turned off shortly after, consistent with bedtime routine.

C07: `kitchen_cook_surface` OnOff = on at 11:51:30.

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` MeasuredValue = None at 11:52:00 (immediate dropout upon activation).

No smoke/CO alarm trigger despite significant heat generation.

C05: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 09:06:06 (1 min after stove on).

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 11:52:00 (1 min after stove on).

C08: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 12:52:00 (1 min after stove off).

Sensor recovers to valid values in subsequent intervals, indicating non-permanent damage but recurring operational failure.

C05: Cook surface turned on at 09:05:36 and off at 09:27:00 (~21 mins). Kitchen temp remained stable (~25.4°C).

C07: Cook surface turned on at 11:51:30 and off at 12:51:00 (~60 mins). Kitchen temp rose to ~29.4°C then cooled.

No `smoke_co_alarm` activation events in any chunk.

Temperature returns to baseline (~25°C) after cooking stops in both instances.

C16: `front_door_contact` StateValue = true at 23:04:20.

C16: `front_door_lock` Event: LockOperation(Auto) at 23:04:21.

C16: `front_door_lock` LockState = locked at 23:04:21.

Living room AC and lights turned off shortly after, consistent with bedtime routine.

C07: `kitchen_cook_surface` OnOff = on at 11:51:30.

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` MeasuredValue = None at 11:52:00 (immediate dropout upon activation).

No smoke/CO alarm trigger despite significant heat generation.

C05: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 09:06:06 (1 min after stove on).

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 11:52:00 (1 min after stove on).

C08: `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 12:52:00 (1 min after stove off).

Sensor recovers to valid values in subsequent intervals, indicating non-permanent damage but recurring operational failure.

Verify kitchen occupancy status during the C07 cooking event (11:51-12:51) to confirm supervision.

Check for smoke/CO alarm activation logs in C06 and C07 to rule out device failure or benign cooking.

Investigate the cause of the `kitchen_temp_sensor` reading `None` at 11:52:00 (potential sensor fault vs. valid data gap).

Confirm front door lock state prior to 23:04 to assess duration of security vulnerability.

The investigator correctly identified key events but relies heavily on 'missing' evidence (lack of kitchen occupancy logs) to construct a high-risk unattended cooking hypothesis. This is a weak basis for a safety verdict without corroborating evidence of hazard (e.g., smoke alarm trigger, extreme temperature escalation beyond normal cooking variance).

The temperature spike in C07 (to ~29°C) is noted, but the lack of subsequent alarm activation suggests either no fire/smoke was generated or the alarm failed. The investigator does not sufficiently distinguish between these two possibilities or check adjacent chunks (like C06) for pre-cooking context or post-cooking resolution details that might clarify the sensor dropout.

The security analysis in C16 is superficial; it accepts the auto-lock as sufficient mitigation without investigating the preceding state of the door, which is critical for a 'security vulnerability' claim.

False-alarm risk is high because the primary 'danger' signal (unattended stove) is inferred from absence of data rather than presence of hazardous indicators. A single round of refinement focusing on the missing occupancy context and alarm status is needed before concluding.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 一室一厅 (Studio/1BR)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅台灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 481,
    "bedroom": 494,
    "kitchen": 311,
    "bathroom": 55,
    "entrance": 3
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "Occupancy": 442,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 3,
    "COState": 1,
    "ExpressedState": 1,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "LockState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 1,
  "occupancy_events": 442,
  "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": "2026-06-06T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-06T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_de

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "living_room",
      "bedroom",
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "kitchen_cook_surface",
      "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
      "front_door_lock",
      "kitchen_temp_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety status and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "front_door_lock",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C05",
    "C07",
    "C16"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Unattended cooking hazard: Cook surface turned on in C05 with no subsequent turn-off or alarm trigger observed in preview.",
    "Temperature anomaly in kitchen: Significant spike to ~29°C in C07, potentially linked to cooking activity.",
    "Security event: Front door lock operation and contact sensor state change at night (C16).",
    "Missing smoke alarm activation despite potential fire risk from unattended stove."
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C05 captures the initial activation of the cook surface and the start of occupancy, crucial for establishing if the appliance was left on.",
    "C07 shows a significant temperature rise in the kitchen (~29°C), which may indicate ongoing heat generation from the stove, warranting investigation into whether the smoke alarm should have triggered.",
    "C16 covers the late-night security context (door lo


假期/出差模式中出现活动

住户已知不在家（连续多天无活动模式） 突然出现活动信号 无门锁操作记录——不是通过正门合法进入 极高可能性是入侵

No confirmed safety anomaly; the observed events are consistent with a normal evening routine despite minor telemetry gaps.

Explanation: The investigator's primary hypothesis of 'unattended cooking' relies heavily on the absence of kitchen occupancy logs and a single transient sensor dropout ('None'). However, the logs explicitly show 'living_room_occupancy = occupied' throughout the evening (C10-C13), confirming that someone was present in the home. This contradicts the 'abandonment' aspect of unattended cooking risks.

Explanation: The cook surface was active for 47 minutes but was turned off at 19:45 without triggering any smoke/CO alarms or showing extreme temperature spikes that would indicate a fire hazard. The subsequent dishwasher operation (19:57) suggests a standard post-dinner cleanup sequence, implying the occupant returned to the kitchen area shortly after cooking ended.

Explanation: The transient 'None' value from the kitchen temp sensor at 18:59 is a brief telemetry glitch that recovered immediately. Per Matter Notes and Supervisor guidelines, a single isolated dropout does not constitute a device fault or sufficient evidence of a hidden hazard, especially when corroborating data (living room presence) exists.

Explanation: The supervisor noted high risk of false alarm due to missing intermediate context (C05-C07) and lack of direct kitchen occupancy proof. Without explicit evidence of unsupervised hazard (e.g., alarm trigger, smoke detection, or prolonged lock/unlock anomalies indicating intrusion), the most probable explanation remains a normal routine where the occupant was in an adjacent area (living room) or the kitchen sensor placement did not detect them.

Explanation: Therefore, no concrete safety anomaly can be concluded.

Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' continuously from 18:29 to end of logs, refuting total abandonment.

Cook surface turned OFF at 19:45 with no associated fire/smoke alarms.

Kitchen temp sensor reported 'None' only once at 18:59, then recovered immediately.

Dishwasher started at 19:57, consistent with post-cooking routine.

Monitor future cooking sessions to see if kitchen occupancy sensors consistently fail to detect presence.

Verify smoke/CO alarm functionality periodically to ensure they are operational during cooking 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.

Entrance access activity (lock/unlock cycles) indicating occupancy changes.

General occupancy patterns vs. security device states.

C11 follows up on the kitchen activity, showing dishwasher operation and a missing temperature value, helping to contextualize the earlier heat spike and check for device health issues that might impact safety monitoring.

Normal Evening Routine with Standard Cooking and Appliance Use

C09 shows kitchen temperature rising from ~23.4°C to ~27.0°C between 18:00 and 18:30, consistent with ambient warming or pre-heating.

C10 records the cook surface turning ON at 18:58 and OFF at 19:45 (47 minutes duration), a typical cooking timeframe.

C10 shows a single transient 'None' value for the kitchen temp sensor at 18:59:00, immediately followed by a valid reading of 25.28°C at 19:00:00, indicating a brief telemetry glitch rather than failure.

C11 shows the dishwasher starting at 19:57, shortly after the cook surface was turned off, which is a common post-dinner routine.

Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout the evening (C10-C13), suggesting someone is present in the home, mitigating the 'unattended' risk.

Does not fully explain why the occupant was not detected in the kitchen during the active cooking window (18:58-19:45) if they were actively cooking, though this could be due to sensor placement or the occupant being in an adjacent area.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk Due to Lack of Kitchen Supervision

The cook surface was active for 47 minutes (18:58-19:45).

No kitchen occupancy events were recorded during this entire period (C10/C11). The last kitchen-related activity before this was lights on at 18:58.

While living room occupancy was high, there is no evidence of movement *into* or *within* the kitchen zone during the cooking window.

The transient sensor dropout ('None') at 18:59 coincides exactly with the start of cooking, potentially masking initial conditions or early signs of overheating/smoke if sensors are heat-sensitive.

The dishwasher started automatically/manualy at 19:57, implying the user returned to the kitchen only after the stove was off, leaving the cooking process unsupervised for nearly an hour.

The cook surface was eventually turned off, preventing a confirmed fire outcome.

Living room occupancy confirms presence in the house, so it's not a total abandonment scenario, but rather a lack of direct supervision of the hazard source.

The sensor dropout was brief and recovered, making it hard to prove it hid a critical event.

Kitchen Temperature Sensor Telemetry Glitch During High Heat Load

At 18:59:00, exactly one minute after the cook surface turned on, the kitchen_temp_sensor reported 'None'.

This occurred while temperatures were already elevated (~27°C) and likely rising rapidly due to the active cook surface.

The immediate return to a plausible value (25.28°C) suggests a temporary communication drop or sensor saturation/reset rather than permanent failure, but it represents a blind spot during a high-risk thermal event.

Single isolated incident without repetition does not meet the strict definition of a persistent device fault.

Recovery was immediate, so functional integrity was maintained.

Cook surface OnOff state transition from ON (18:58) to OFF (19:45) in C10.

Absence of any kitchen_occupancy or motion events between 18:58 and 19:45.

Transient 'None' value for kitchen_temp_sensor at 18:59:00 in C10.

Living room occupancy remaining 'occupied' throughout the evening, confirming presence but not location.

Direct motion/occupancy data specifically for the kitchen zone to confirm if anyone entered/exited.

Smoke/CO alarm status logs to rule out detection of combustion products.

Detailed power consumption of the cook surface to verify continuous operation vs. intermittent cycling.

Smoke/CO alarm status logs during the cooking window (18:58-19:45) to rule out actual fire/hazard.

Detailed power consumption or current draw of the cook surface to verify if it was actively heating or just in standby/idle mode.

Kitchen occupancy sensor data specifically for the 18:58-19:45 window to confirm presence vs. absence.

Contextual chunks (C05-C07) covering the period between the temperature rise start and the cook surface activation to establish baseline behavior.

The investigator correctly identified the 'unattended cooking' hypothesis but relies heavily on the absence of kitchen occupancy logs and a single transient telemetry glitch ('None') as primary evidence.

Per protocol, a 'device-fault' conclusion requires direct fault evidence; the transient 'None' is insufficient for a persistent malfunction claim without repetition or alarms.

For 'composite-safety', the risk of false alarm is high because the 'unattended cooking' verdict rests on missing data (occupancy) and a brief telemetry gap, rather than positive confirmation of a hazard (e.g., smoke alarm trigger, extreme temperature spike, or power surge).

The investigation lacks the intermediate context chunks (C05-C07) that bridge the initial temperature rise and the final cooking event, making it difficult to distinguish between normal pre-heating/cooking activity and an anomaly.

Without smoke/CO logs or power data, the 'fire risk' remains speculative. The current evidence supports a 'sensor glitch' or 'normal routine with blind spot' more strongly than a confirmed safety incident.

Requesting C05-C07 to fill the temporal gap and checking for explicit alarm events is necessary before concluding a safety risk exists.

The kitchen temperature spike and subsequent sensor dropout are normal consequences of cooking activity. The cook surface was turned on, causing a local heat rise to ~27°C, which triggered a temporary sensor glitch or saturation (None), followed by recovery as the appliance was turned off.

C10: Kitchen temp rises from 25.02°C to 27.13°C between 18:30 and 18:40.

C10: `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON at 18:58:30.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports None at 18:59:00, shortly after the cook surface activation.

C10/C11: Temperature recovers to baseline (~22-23°C) by 19:05 and stabilizes.

C11: Dishwasher runs later in the evening, consistent with post-dinner cleanup.

The sensor goes 'None' exactly when the heat source is active, which could indicate a safety cutoff or failure rather than just a glitch.

There is no explicit evidence of human supervision in the kitchen during the critical window (18:58-19:05).

Home security is intact. The front door lock/unlock cycles correspond to normal entry/exit behavior, and the auto-lock function works correctly.

C04: Door unlocked manually at 07:12:21, then auto-locked at 07:12:32.

C10: Door unlocked manually at 18:29:00 upon return.

No unauthorized access attempts or lock failures observed.

Occupancy sensors show consistent patterns (Living Room occupied in evening, Bedroom/Bathroom unoccupied).

Does not account for potential unattended hazards inside the home.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk: The cook surface was activated, but the kitchen temperature sensor failed (reported None) immediately after, potentially masking rising temperatures. The living room occupancy remains high while the kitchen shows no specific presence confirmation, suggesting the user may have left the kitchen area without turning off the stove.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 18:59:00, just 30 seconds after activation.

C10: Living room occupancy is confirmed 'occupied' (raw=1) continuously from 18:29 onwards, implying someone is in the house but not necessarily in the kitchen.

C10: No other kitchen devices (lights, exhaust) show activity that would confirm active monitoring.

C10: The temperature sensor does not recover until 19:00:00, leaving a 1-minute blind spot during initial heating.

The sensor eventually recovers, and the cook surface is turned OFF at 19:45:00, indicating the event ended safely.

The 'None' value could be a transient telemetry error rather than a safety-critical failure.

We lack direct evidence of the user's physical location relative to the kitchen (e.g., did they walk away?).

Sensor Malfunction / Monitoring Blind Spot: The kitchen temperature sensor exhibits intermittent failures (reporting None) correlated with high-heat events, compromising the reliability of thermal safety monitoring in the kitchen.

C11: Sensor reports `None` again at 19:46:00, shortly after the dishwasher starts (another heat source).

These dropouts occur specifically when thermal load increases, suggesting the sensor may be overheating or failing under stress.

Only two isolated instances of 'None' are recorded; this might be within acceptable noise margins for some IoT sensors.

Recovery is immediate, so continuous monitoring wasn't permanently lost.

C10: `kitchen_cook_surface` ON at 18:58:30 followed immediately by `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 18:59:00.

C10: Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' while kitchen status is ambiguous (no motion/light/activity logged in kitchen except the cook surface itself).

C11: Second `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 19:46:00 coinciding with `kitchen_dishwasher` ON.

Direct confirmation of human presence in the kitchen during 18:58-19:45 (e.g., kitchen motion sensor data, which is not provided in the focused chunks).

Smoke or CO alarm status/logs to rule out fire/smoke generation.

Detailed operational state of the cook surface (was it left on high heat?).

Reason for the sensor 'None' values (hardware fault vs. software timeout).

The cook surface was active for 47 minutes (18:58-19:45).

At 18:59:00, exactly one minute after the cook surface turned on, the kitchen_temp_sensor reported 'None'.

Verify kitchen_cook_surface state in C09 (pre-activation) to confirm it was OFF before 18:58.

Verify kitchen_cook_surface state in C12 (post-19:45) to confirm it remained OFF and no re-activation occurred.

Check for explicit smoke/CO alarm triggers or fault events in the full log set.

Corroborate 'unattended' status with kitchen-specific occupancy/motion data if available, rather than relying solely on living_room occupancy.

The investigator correctly identifies the temporal correlation between cook surface activation and sensor dropout ('None').

However, the conclusion of 'Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk' relies heavily on the absence of kitchen occupancy logs and a single transient telemetry gap. The logs provided (C10/C11) show the cook surface turned OFF at 19:45, but we lack the immediate pre-context (C09) to ensure it wasn't already on, and post-context (C12) to ensure it didn't turn back on.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is plausible but marked as high false-alarm risk because the recovery was immediate and no other devices reported faults. A single 'None' value is insufficient for a definitive device-health fault label without more repetition or explicit error codes.

Crucially, the investigation misses the critical boundary chunks (C09 and C12). Without C09, we don't know the baseline state of the stove. Without C12, we don't confirm the safety resolution beyond the last logged timestamp in C11. The current evidence supports a 'potential risk' but not a confirmed hazard or fault.

Recommendation: Request C09 and C12 to close the loop on the cook surface lifecycle and check for any subsequent alarms or state changes.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 一室一厅 (Studio/1BR)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅台灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 397,
    "bedroom": 358,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 54,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 219,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 219,
  "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": [
      "li

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance",
      "kitchen",
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact",
      "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
      "kitchen_cook_surface",
      "kitchen_dishwasher"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety condition and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "kitchen",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "kitchen_dishwasher",
    "living_room_ac"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C10",
    "C11"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Entrance access activity (lock/unlock cycles) indicating occupancy changes.",
    "Kitchen temperature anomaly in C10 (27.02 C) which may indicate cooking or appliance heat, requiring correlation with cook_surface/dishwasher state.",
    "Dishwasher operation in C11 while kitchen temp sensor shows transient None, potentially masking a fault or indicating high load.",
    "General occupancy patterns vs. security device states."
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 captures the morning entrance lock/unlock sequence and initial temperature readings, establishing baseline security behavior.",
    "C10 captures the evening arrival (lock/unlock), AC activation, and notably high kitchen temperature (27.02 C), which is a key data point for assessing thermal safety/cooking activity.",
    "C11 follows up on the kitchen activity, s


温度异常上升但无合理热源（空调关闭/制冷模式，灶具关闭） 上升速度超过正常烹饪或日照导致的范围

火灾风险警报，建议住户检查该区域电器

The cook surface was activated for approximately 50 minutes while no occupancy was detected in the kitchen, creating a potential unattended cooking fire risk despite the eventual manual shutoff.

Explanation: The investigator identified a sequence where the kitchen cook surface turned ON at 19:04 and remained ON until 19:55 (approx. 50 minutes).

Explanation: During this entire window, the only confirmed occupancy was in the living room; the kitchen occupancy sensor never reported 'occupied'.

Explanation: While the supervisor noted that chunks C05-C07 were missing to verify if the user entered the kitchen earlier or if the PIR failed, the available evidence (C10/C11) shows a distinct gap in supervision relative to the appliance state.

Explanation: The temperature rise in the kitchen (from ~23°C to ~26.8°C) correlates with the cook surface usage, confirming heat generation, but did not reach critical fire thresholds (>40-50°C), suggesting the event was contained before catastrophic failure.

Explanation: According to the rules, for composite-safety queries, we should not return 'none' solely because telemetry is incomplete if the human/device sequence supports a concrete anomaly better than a normal routine. Here, the lack of presence logs during active heating constitutes an unsafe/unattended condition, even if mitigated by later manual intervention.

Explanation: We cannot confirm 'sensor_malfunction' as the primary threat because the dropout was transient and recovered, and the safety risk (unattended cooking) is the more significant concern given the duration of the active state without presence confirmation.

Kitchen Occupancy remains unlogged/absent throughout the 19:04-19:55 window, while Living Room is occupied.

Kitchen temperature rose from 23.13°C to 26.85°C during the active period, indicating heat source proximity.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered, implying the situation was resolved manually before alarm thresholds were breached.

Review camera footage (if available) for the kitchen between 19:04 and 19:55 to confirm if the occupant was present but missed by the PIR sensor.

Check if the cook surface has automatic shut-off timers enabled to prevent future unattended operation.

Verify the health of the kitchen occupancy sensor to ensure it is not failing to detect presence.

Door lock state flips (potential unauthorized access or mechanical issue)

Kitchen activity during evening hours (cooking/dishwasher usage vs. fire/gas risk)

Occupancy patterns indicating presence/absence for security context

Missing explicit smoke/water leak alarms but need to verify silence is normal

C10: Captures the start of evening occupancy in the living room, crucial for contextualizing kitchen appliance usage.

C11: Contains dishwasher operation and high kitchen temperature readings; critical for assessing fire/cooking risks and verifying if 'alarmish' counts are false positives or real warnings.

C12: Late evening activity with high alarmish count; necessary to check if any actual safety thresholds were breached or if it's just noise, and to confirm no water leaks occurred in the bathroom.

Normal evening routine with supervised cooking and dishwasher operation. The cook surface was turned off manually at 19:55, well before any hazardous temperature escalation could occur, and the kitchen temperature returned to baseline shortly after.

C09 shows resident arrival at 18:05 (lock unlock, lights on).

C10 shows cook surface turned ON at 19:04:30.

C11 shows cook surface turned OFF at 19:55:00 (approx. 50 minutes later).

Kitchen temperature peaked at 26.85°C at 19:30 and dropped to 22.57°C by 20:35, indicating no sustained heat source or fire.

Dishwasher started at 19:45 in C11, consistent with post-dinner cleanup.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered in any chunk.

The 'supervision' aspect relies on the assumption that the occupant in the living room (who remained occupied throughout) was aware of the kitchen activity. While likely, there is no direct sensor data confirming the person entered the kitchen during the cooking window.

Unattended Cooking Risk / Potential Fire Hazard. The cook surface was left active for ~50 minutes while the only detected occupancy was in the living room. Although the device was eventually turned off, the lack of kitchen occupancy logs during this period creates a gap in supervision verification, and the initial temperature spike (26.85°C) suggests significant heat generation near the sensor.

C10-C11: Kitchen Occupancy is never logged as 'occupied' between 19:04 and 19:55. Only Living Room occupancy is confirmed.

C10: Kitchen temperature rises from 23.13°C (18:40) to 26.85°C (19:30), a +3.7°C increase over 50 minutes, correlating with cook surface usage.

C11: Cook surface turns OFF at 19:55:00.

C11: Kitchen temperature drops rapidly after shutoff, returning to ambient levels (~22.5°C) by 20:35.

C11: A telemetry dropout ('None') occurred at 19:05:00, immediately after the cook surface was turned on, potentially masking early hazard indicators or sensor interference.

The cook surface was manually turned off, preventing catastrophic failure.

The temperature rise, while notable, did not reach critical fire thresholds (>40-50°C local spikes are typical for fires; 26°C is warm but safe).

It is plausible the user was in the kitchen but the PIR sensor failed to detect them (false negative), which would make this 'attended' rather than 'unattended'. However, without evidence of presence, we must treat the absence as a risk factor.

Sensor Telemetry Instability. The kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' twice (19:05 and 19:56) around high-activity periods. While these recovered, they indicate potential network jitter or sensor instability that could compromise safety monitoring reliability.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 19:05:00, one minute after cook surface activation.

C11: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 19:56:00, one minute after cook surface deactivation.

Values recover immediately in subsequent timestamps (19:05:00 second reading and 20:00:00).

No other sensors show similar simultaneous dropouts, suggesting an isolated issue with the kitchen sensor or its gateway.

Recovery was immediate; no persistent stuck values or repeated failures observed.

Isolated dropouts are common in Zigbee/Matter networks due to interference or sleep cycles and do not necessarily constitute a hardware fault requiring replacement.

Cook Surface OnOff state transitions: ON at 19:04:30 (C10), OFF at 19:55:00 (C11).

Absence of Kitchen Occupancy events during the 19:04-19:55 window, contrasted with continuous Living Room Occupancy.

Kitchen Temperature trend: Rise from 23.13°C to 26.85°C during cook surface ON, followed by rapid cooling after OFF.

Telemetry gaps (`None`) at 19:05 and 19:56 coinciding with appliance state changes.

Direct confirmation of human presence in the kitchen during the cooking window (e.g., motion sensor data if available, or voice assistant interaction logs).

Detailed operational state of the dishwasher (error codes) to rule out water leak risks during the same timeframe.

Smoke/CO alarm status logs specifically for the kitchen zone to confirm silence was normal and not a device failure.

Verify kitchen occupancy status during the cooking window (19:04-19:55) in chunks C05-C07 to confirm if PIR sensor failure or absence is the cause.

Check for smoke/CO alarm activation logs in C05-C07 to rule out fire events that might have been suppressed or missed.

Confirm dishwasher operational state and error codes in C05-C07 to ensure no water leak occurred alongside the cooking event.

Investigate the 'None' telemetry gaps in kitchen_temp_sensor (19:05, 19:56) to determine if they indicate a device fault rather than transient network jitter.

The investigator correctly identified the unattended cooking scenario but relies heavily on the *absence* of kitchen occupancy logs as primary evidence. This is a weak indicator without corroborating data from adjacent chunks (C05-C07) which likely contain the critical transition periods or additional sensor readings.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis regarding temperature dropouts is flagged as high false-alarm risk because the values recovered immediately. However, the safety conclusion ('unattended_cooking') also rests on this same gap in visibility. If the sensor was faulty, the temperature trend analysis is compromised.

The investigation lacks the immediate context of the evening routine start (likely in C05/C06) to verify if the user entered the kitchen before moving to the living room, or if the PIR simply failed.

Do not conclude 'safe' based solely on the lack of alarms; the silence could be due to device failure or delayed response. More chunks are needed to establish a complete timeline of human presence vs. device state.

Normal evening routine with supervised cooking and dishwasher usage. The kitchen temperature rise is consistent with appliance operation in a small space, and the subsequent drop indicates normal cooling after use. No safety thresholds were breached.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 19:04:30 while living room occupancy was active (18:10-19:40), indicating presence/supervision.

C11: Cook surface turned off at 19:55, followed by a steady decline in kitchen temperature from ~26.8°C to ~22.5°C by 21:00, showing no runaway heat.

C11: Dishwasher started at 19:45 and ran through the evening; no water leak alarms or abnormal operational states observed.

C12: Front door locked automatically at 21:53:36 after contact sensor closed, consistent with standard auto-lock behavior for security.

No smoke CO alarm events or water leak detector triggers occurred throughout the logs.

Relies on the assumption that 'living room occupied' implies supervision of the kitchen, which may not be strictly true if occupants are in an adjacent area without direct line-of-sight.

Does not account for potential gas leaks if the cook surface is gas-powered, as no gas sensors are reported.

Door lock state flips represent normal entry/exit cycles during morning hours. The morning activity shows a manual unlock followed by an auto-lock, which is a standard pattern for leaving the house.

C04: At 07:28:16, front door lock event shows Manual Unlock. Immediately after, at 07:28:27, Auto Lock occurs.

The sequence of Contact Sensor Open -> Manual Unlock -> Contact Sensor Closed -> Auto Lock is logically consistent with a resident leaving the home.

No other unauthorized access attempts or contradictory lock states are present in the rest of the day.

If the resident did not leave, the auto-lock might indicate a failure to detect presence, but this is less likely given the subsequent unoccupied status in other rooms.

Potential Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk. The cook surface was activated in the evening, but the primary occupancy signal (Living Room) showed continuous presence until 19:40. However, there is a gap in explicit kitchen occupancy data, and the cook surface remained on for over 50 minutes. While the temperature eventually dropped, the lack of direct kitchen occupancy confirmation combined with the duration raises a low-level risk of unattended heating if occupants moved to other rooms (e.g., bedroom) without turning off the stove.

C10: Cook surface turned ON at 19:04:30.

C10/C11: Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' until 19:40, then drops out of frequent polling or becomes ambiguous in later chunks, though C11 shows 'occupied' at 19:45:09. Crucially, there is NO `kitchen_occupancy` sensor data in any chunk to confirm someone was *in* the kitchen.

C11: Cook surface turned OFF at 19:55:00. Duration: ~50 minutes.

C11: Kitchen temperature peaked at 26.85°C at 19:30 and stayed elevated (~26°C) until 19:55, then cooled. This confirms heat generation but doesn't prove supervision.

C12: Bedroom occupancy becomes active at 21:53, suggesting occupants may have retreated to the bedroom earlier, potentially leaving the kitchen unattended during the cooking window.

The temperature profile (rise then fall) suggests the cooking event concluded normally rather than escalating into a fire.

Living room occupancy was logged as 'occupied' at 19:45:09, only 5 minutes before the stove was turned off, suggesting someone was nearby.

No smoke alarm or high-temperature fault was triggered.

Sensor Telemetry Dropout / Monitoring Gap. The kitchen temperature sensor reports `None` at 19:05:00 and 20:06:00. While isolated, these dropouts coincide with critical safety events (cooking start and dishwasher run). If the sensor is intermittent, it compromises the ability to monitor thermal hazards in real-time.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:05:00, immediately after cook surface turned on.

C11: `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 20:06:00.

The values return to normal ranges afterwards, so it's not a permanent failure, but the timing near hazard sources is notable.

Single isolated `None` values are often due to network jitter or scheduled reporting gaps, not necessarily hardware malfunction.

The sensor recovers quickly, providing valid data points before and after.

Absence of `kitchen_occupancy` data during the 50-minute cook surface activation window (19:04-19:55).

Kitchen temperature peak of 26.85°C and subsequent cooling curve, confirming heat source activity but lacking direct human verification in the kitchen.

Morning door lock sequence (Manual Unlock -> Auto Lock) which is normal, contrasting with the ambiguity of the evening cooking supervision.

Direct `kitchen_occupancy` sensor logs to verify if anyone was physically present in the kitchen during cooking.

Gas sensor readings if the cook surface is gas-powered, to rule out carbon monoxide risks.

Detailed `OperationalState` logs for the dishwasher to ensure no overflow or leak errors occurred.

Clarification on whether 'Living Room Occupied' implies proximity to the kitchen or just general home presence.

C09 shows resident arrival at 18:05 (lock unlock, lights on).

C10 shows cook surface turned ON at 19:04:30.

C11 shows cook surface turned OFF at 19:55:00 (approx. 50 minutes later).

Dishwasher started at 19:45 in C11, consistent with post-dinner cleanup.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered in any chunk.

C11: Cook surface turns OFF at 19:55:00.

C11: Kitchen temperature drops rapidly after shutoff, returning to ambient levels (~22.5°C) by 20:35.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 19:05:00, one minute after cook surface activation.

C11: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 19:56:00, one minute after cook surface deactivation.

Values recover immediately in subsequent timestamps (19:05:00 second reading and 20:00:00).

No other sensors show similar simultaneous dropouts, suggesting an isolated issue with the kitchen sensor or its gateway.

Verify if the cook surface was manually turned off or if there is an automated safety cutoff event in C09/C10 boundary.

Check for any smoke/CO alarm triggers or high-temperature fault events that might have been suppressed or missed in the current chunks.

Confirm dishwasher operational state (error codes) to rule out water leak risks during the evening cycle.

The investigator correctly identifies the unattended cooking risk but relies heavily on the *absence* of kitchen occupancy data and a single transient temperature dropout ('None') as primary evidence. This constitutes a weak signal for a 'device-health' or 'safety' fault conclusion without corroborating hazardous escalation (e.g., fire alarms, extreme temps).

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis (A2) is flagged as high false-alarm risk because it rests on isolated `None` values that recover immediately, which is typical network jitter rather than hardware failure.

The investigation misses the critical transition period between the end of normal morning activity and the start of evening activity. Chunk C09 (likely covering late afternoon/pre-evening) is needed to establish the baseline occupancy and device states before the cooking event starts in C10.

Without C09, we cannot confirm if the 'unoccupied' status in the living room at 19:40 was a sensor lag or actual absence, nor can we see if the cook surface was left on from a previous session or just started. The current analysis assumes a start time based on C10 logs, but the context of *why* it remained on is missing.

Recommendation: Retrieve C09 to bridge the gap between morning departure and evening arrival/cooking. Also, explicitly check for any implicit safety interventions (auto-shutoff) that might explain the safe outcome despite the lack of direct supervision logs.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 一室一厅 (Studio/1BR)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅台灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 402,
    "bedroom": 357,
    "kitchen": 299,
    "bathroom": 57,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 868,
    "Occupancy": 224,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SmokeState": 1,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 224,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-01T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-01T01:45:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 28,
      "bedroom": 26,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "entrance",
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "door_lock",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "cook_surface",
      "dishwasher"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "entrance_door_lock",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "kitchen_dishwasher",
    "bathroom_water_leak_detector"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C10",
    "C11",
    "C12"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Door lock state flips (potential unauthorized access or mechanical issue)",
    "Kitchen activity during evening hours (cooking/dishwasher usage vs. fire/gas risk)",
    "Occupancy patterns indicating presence/absence for security context",
    "Missing explicit smoke/water leak alarms but need to verify silence is normal"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04: Shows morning door lock activity (6 flips in total day, this chunk has entrance events) and rising temperatures, establishing baseline security and thermal state.",
    "C10: Captures the start of evening occupancy in the living room, crucial for contextualizing kitchen appliance usage.",
    "C11: Contains dishwasher operation and high kitchen temperature readings; critical for assessing fire/cooking risks and verifying if 'alarmish' counts are false posit


CO 报警是严重安全事件，不同于烟雾报警

紧急通知所有住户撤离，开窗通风，联系燃气公司

A carbon monoxide alarm was triggered in the kitchen following a prolonged cooking session, indicating a hazardous accumulation of CO gas.

Explanation: The logs show a clear sequence of events: the resident returns home (18:01), followed by a significant cooking event where the cook surface is active for 47 minutes (18:53-19:40).

Explanation: During and after this period, there is evidence of ventilation attempts (kitchen window opened at 19:40), but the primary hazard source (cooking) had already generated fumes.

Explanation: At 23:08, the kitchen smoke/CO alarm explicitly triggers a COAlarm() event with ExpressedState=2 (Alarm Active), confirming the presence of Carbon Monoxide.

Explanation: While the exact cause of the delay between cooking (ended 19:40) and the alarm (23:08) is not fully detailed (e.g., whether windows were closed during that interval), the correlation with the earlier high-heat cooking activity makes 'unattended cooking' or 'poor ventilation during cooking' the most plausible root cause.

Explanation: The sensor dropout ('None') observed at 18:54 and 19:41 is transient and recovers immediately, which does not constitute a device malfunction sufficient to dismiss the alarm; rather, it may be correlated with the heat/stress of the cooking event.

Explanation: The supervisor noted missing post-alarm mitigation data (C14), preventing a 'high' confidence assessment of the current resolution status, but the occurrence of the alarm itself is a confirmed safety anomaly.

C10: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff = on from 18:53 to 19:40.

C11: kitchen_window_contact state change to false (open) at 19:40:30.

C13: kitchen_smoke_alarm Event: COAlarm() at 23:08:00 with ExpressedState = 2.

Verify immediate safety: Ensure the area is ventilated and no one is currently suffering from CO exposure symptoms.

Investigate the delay: Determine why the alarm triggered 4 hours after cooking stopped (e.g., check if windows were closed, HVAC settings, or if there was a secondary source).

Check device health: Verify the CO alarm battery and sensor status to ensure future reliability.

Review habits: Assess if cooking practices need adjustment (e.g., using exhaust fans, keeping windows open during cooking) to prevent recurrence.

Potential security breach or unauthorized entry at entrance (lock state flips)

Possible fire/gas hazard in kitchen (temperature spike + window contact change)

Device telemetry anomaly (kitchen temp sensor returning None)

C11: Contains the most critical safety signals: a change in kitchen window contact state (potentially opening during heat), a null value from the kitchen temperature sensor (possible device failure or disconnection), and high alarmish counts, suggesting active monitoring events or alarms.

Normal evening routine with cooking activity and subsequent CO alarm triggered by cooking fumes.

C09: Resident returns home at 18:01, turns on lights/AC.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turns on at 18:53, temperature rises to ~27.1°C (consistent with cooking heat).

C11: Dishwasher starts at 20:03, window opens briefly at 19:40 (likely for ventilation after cooking).

C13: CO alarm triggers at 23:08, likely due to residual fumes or delayed sensor response from the earlier cooking event.

Does not fully explain the transient 'None' values in the kitchen temp sensor during peak cooking, though this could be telemetry noise.

The gap between cooking end (19:40) and CO alarm (23:08) is long, suggesting either slow accumulation or a false positive, but doesn't rule out normal cooking as the root cause.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk leading to Carbon Monoxide Alarm.

C10: Kitchen cook surface activated at 18:53 and remained active until 19:40 (47 minutes).

C10: Living room occupancy shows 'occupied' continuously from 18:01 onwards, but no specific 'kitchen_occupancy' events are logged during the cooking period (only bathroom/bedroom/living_room sensors active). This implies the resident may have been in the living room while cooking, potentially leaving the kitchen unattended or only intermittently checked.

C11: Kitchen window contact state changes to 'false' (open) at 19:40:30, immediately after the cook surface turns off. This suggests an attempt to ventilate the area after cooking.

C13: Kitchen smoke/CO alarm triggers a COAlarm() event at 23:08 with ExpressedState=2 (Alarm Active). The presence of CO indicates incomplete combustion or fume buildup, corroborating that the cooking activity generated hazardous byproducts.

The resident was present in the house (living room occupied), so 'unattended' refers to lack of direct supervision in the kitchen, not absence from the home.

The CO alarm occurred nearly 4 hours after cooking stopped; it's unclear if the alarm was immediate or delayed, or if there was another source of CO later (though none is evident).

Kitchen Temperature Sensor Telemetry Failure.

C10: At 18:54:00, kitchen_temp_sensor reports MeasuredValue = None.

C11: At 19:41:00, kitchen_temp_sensor reports MeasuredValue = None again.

These dropouts occur during/after high-heat cooking events, potentially indicating sensor stress or communication failure under load.

The sensor recovers immediately after each dropout (e.g., 18:55:00 value is valid), which is typical of transient network issues rather than permanent hardware failure.

Only two isolated instances of 'None' are observed, which does not meet the threshold for definitive 'sensor_malfunction' without more frequent failures.

C13: kitchen_smoke_alarm | Event: COAlarm() at 23:08:00. This is the strongest safety signal, confirming a hazardous condition (CO presence) occurred.

C10: kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = on from 18:53 to 19:40. This provides the source for the CO.

C10/C11: Lack of explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' logs during the cooking window, contrasted with continuous 'living_room_occupancy', supports the 'unattended' aspect of the risk.

Direct 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor data to confirm if anyone was actually in the kitchen during the 47-minute cooking session.

Smoke alarm status (if separate from CO) to determine if particulate matter was also detected.

Context for why the CO alarm triggered 4 hours post-cooking (e.g., was the window closed? Was the HVAC recirculating air?).

Verification of whether the 'None' readings were correlated with any other device errors.

Verification of CO alarm resolution status (acknowledgment, ventilation, or reset) in the post-alarm period.

Confirmation of whether the 'None' telemetry gaps were correlated with specific network events or device resets.

Assessment of the causal link between the cooking event and the delayed CO alarm (e.g., was the window closed during the delay?).

The investigator correctly identified the critical safety signal: a CO alarm triggered at 23:08 following a cooking session. This is a valid composite-safety finding.

However, the investigation relies heavily on 'anomaly hypotheses' regarding sensor malfunction ('None' values) and unattended cooking based on missing occupancy logs. While plausible, these are secondary to the confirmed CO alarm.

Crucially, the provided chunks end at 23:45. The CO alarm occurred at 23:08. We lack evidence of how this emergency was handled (mitigation). Did the user ventilate? Did they reset the alarm? Was there a fire? Without C14 (post-23:45), we cannot determine if the home is currently safe or if the hazard persists.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is weak because the sensor recovered immediately; treating it as a primary risk distracts from the actual CO hazard.

Action: Request C14 to close the loop on the safety incident.

Normal evening routine with cooking activity and standard security operations.

C04 shows a standard morning departure: manual unlock, exit (door contact open), followed by auto-lock. This is a secure, expected sequence.

C10 shows kitchen temperature rising to ~27.1°C coincident with the activation of `kitchen_cook_surface` and `kitchen_light`. This is consistent with normal cooking heat generation.

C10 shows the cook surface turning off at 19:40, followed by a gradual temperature decline in C10 and C11, indicating the heat source was removed and the room cooled down normally.

Occupancy logs show the living room occupied during the evening (C10-C11), suggesting someone was present in the home, likely supervising or nearby the kitchen.

Does not fully explain the transient `None` value from the kitchen temp sensor at 18:54 and 19:41, although brief telemetry dropouts can occur due to network congestion or sensor polling cycles.

Assumes the occupant in the living room was actively monitoring the kitchen, which is an inference rather than direct evidence.

Kitchen window opened for ventilation after cooking.

In C11, at 19:40:30, shortly after the cook surface turned off, the `kitchen_window_contact` changed to `false` (open).

Opening a window after cooking is a common behavior to clear odors or heat.

The temperature continued to drop steadily after this point (from ~22.7°C to ~22.5°C), consistent with ventilation and ambient cooling.

The window opening occurred while the cook surface was already off, reducing the immediate fire risk but leaving the physical security of the entrance/kitchen area temporarily compromised if the window is near an entry point.

Potential unattended cooking or minor thermal event with temporary sensor failure.

In C10, the kitchen temperature rose significantly from 25.68°C to 27.12°C between 18:15 and 18:30 while the cook surface was active.

At 18:54, exactly when the cook surface was still on (turned off later at 19:40), the kitchen temp sensor returned `None`, indicating a potential device fault or environmental interference (heat/humidity) affecting the sensor.

The sensor recovered quickly (18:55), but the gap coincides with peak cooking activity.

Although the cook surface was eventually turned off, the combination of rising heat, a sensor dropout during high-heat activity, and the lack of explicit 'smoke' or 'CO' alarms leaves a small residual uncertainty about whether the heat spike was within safe limits or triggered a latent hazard that wasn't captured by the primary sensors.

The cook surface was turned off at 19:40, and temperatures dropped immediately, showing no sustained escalation typical of a fire.

The `None` reading was isolated and recovered instantly, which is more indicative of a transient glitch than a catastrophic failure.

Occupancy was detected in the living room, making prolonged unattended cooking less likely than supervised cooking.

Sensor malfunction in kitchen temperature monitor.

The kitchen temp sensor returned `None` twice in close proximity: once at 18:54 (during cooking) and again at 19:41 (after cooking, just as the window opened).

This pattern suggests the sensor may be sensitive to environmental changes (humidity/heat from cooking, or airflow from the window) causing intermittent connectivity or measurement errors.

While it recovered both times, the recurrence indicates a reliability issue with this specific device.

The values before and after the `None` readings are consistent with the rest of the house's temperature trends, suggesting the sensor wasn't 'stuck' or drifting wildly, just intermittently unavailable.

Two instances might be considered too few to definitively label as a chronic malfunction without more historical data.

C10: Kitchen temp rise to 27.12°C concurrent with cook surface ON.

C10: Kitchen temp sensor returning `None` at 18:54 while cook surface is ON.

C10: Cook surface turning OFF at 19:40, followed by temperature decline.

C11: Kitchen window contact changing to OPEN (false) at 19:40:30, shortly after cook surface OFF.

C04: Standard lock/unlock sequence at 07:13, confirming normal security operation earlier in the day.

Smoke detector or CO alarm status/logs during the cooking period (C10) to rule out hazardous gas/particulate levels.

Confirmation of who was in the living room and their activity level (e.g., sleeping vs. watching TV) to assess supervision capability.

Historical baseline for kitchen temperature to determine if 27.12°C is an abnormal spike or typical for this appliance.

Network stability logs to correlate the `None` sensor readings with potential Wi-Fi/Zigbee drops.

C09: Resident returns home at 18:01, turns on lights/AC.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turns on at 18:53, temperature rises to ~27.1°C (consistent with cooking heat).

C11: Dishwasher starts at 20:03, window opens briefly at 19:40 (likely for ventilation after cooking).

C10: Kitchen cook surface activated at 18:53 and remained active until 19:40 (47 minutes).

C10: At 18:54:00, kitchen_temp_sensor reports MeasuredValue = None.

C11: At 19:41:00, kitchen_temp_sensor reports MeasuredValue = None again.

Verify smoke_co_alarm status/logs during the cooking period (C10) to rule out fire/gas hazards.

Check for explicit fault or alarm events from the kitchen_temp_sensor or other devices.

Confirm if the 'None' readings constitute a protocol-level fault or just data gaps.

Review C09 and C12 to ensure no critical pre-cooking setup or post-cooking cleanup events were missed.

The investigator correctly identified the temperature rise and sensor dropout but relies heavily on inference for safety risks (fire) without direct evidence from smoke/CO alarms.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is plausible but based on only two transient 'None' values; this does not yet meet the threshold for a definitive device-health fault conclusion without more context or repeated failures.

The investigation misses the specific 'smoke_co_alarm' logs mentioned in the query anchor, which are critical for a composite-safety verdict.

Chunks C09 and C12 likely contain the immediate pre- and post-cooking context needed to fully assess the sequence logic and any potential alarms that might have been triggered but not explicitly logged in the provided snippets.

False-alarm risk is medium because the anomaly story (unattended cooking/fire) rests on a transient telemetry gap and inferred behavior rather than confirmed hazardous conditions.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 一室一厅 (Studio/1BR)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅台灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 402,
    "bedroom": 353,
    "kitchen": 301,
    "bathroom": 58,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 223,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1,
    "COState": 1,
    "ExpressedState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 223,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-17T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-17T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroo

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "entrance",
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "front_door_lock",
      "kitchen_window_contact",
      "kitchen_temp_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety status and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "smoke_co_alarm",
    "front_door_lock",
    "kitchen_window_contact",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C10",
    "C11"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Potential security breach or unauthorized entry at entrance (lock state flips)",
    "Possible fire/gas hazard in kitchen (temperature spike + window contact change)",
    "Device telemetry anomaly (kitchen temp sensor returning None)"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04: Shows the entrance lock operation sequence (manual unlock followed by auto-lock) and door contact changes, which is critical for assessing physical security.",
    "C10: Captures a significant temperature rise in the kitchen (up to 27.11 C) while occupancy is present, potentially indicating cooking activity or a heating fault.",
    "C11: Contains the most critical safety signals: a change in kitchen window contact state (potentially opening during heat), a null value from the kitchen temperature sensor (possible device failure or disconnection), and high alarmish counts, suggestin