玄关运动 + 门锁解锁失败

密码错误（小孩可能记不准密码）

跟 INS-02 的区别：这里不是暴力破解，只有1-2次尝试，且家中有其他房间的活动（说明有人在家）

The front door lock experienced repeated operation errors and state instability, indicating a potential mechanical or electronic malfunction that compromises security reliability.

Explanation: The structured signals report '5 lock_state_flips', but only one successful manual/auto cycle is visible in the provided chunks (C06). This discrepancy implies four other state changes occurred in unobserved chunks (likely C01-C04 or C07-C08), creating an incomplete picture of the lock's behavior.

Explanation: In C09, two consecutive `LockOperationError` events were recorded at 09:50:05 and 09:50:15 with `OperationSource=3` (remote/app). This indicates the lock failed to respond to commands, suggesting a hardware fault, jam, or communication issue rather than normal user activity.

Explanation: While no forced entry indicators are present, the combination of unexplained rapid state flips and explicit operation errors constitutes direct evidence of device instability. According to Matter notes and safety guidelines, such repeated non-recovery or error states justify a lock_malfunction classification even if the device eventually recovers or the final state is secure.

Explanation: Other potential risks like unattended cooking are mitigated by stable temperature readings and the short duration of cook surface usage, making the lock issues the primary confirmed anomaly.

Structured signal count of '5 lock_state_flips' vs. single visible event in logs.

Two consecutive LockOperationError events at 09:50:05/09:50:15 in C09.

Lack of corresponding occupancy/contact sensor anomalies to explain the extra flips as normal entry/exit.

Inspect the front door lock mechanism for physical obstructions or battery issues.

Review full log data for chunks C01-C04 and C07-C08 to identify the nature of the unlogged state flips.

Perform a manual test of the lock to verify response time and engagement strength.

Unusual door lock activity (5 flips) without clear corresponding occupancy or contact sensor events in previews.

Temperature trends showing normal diurnal variation without extreme spikes indicative of fire or equipment failure.

Occupancy patterns consistent with a household waking up and becoming active during the day.

C10: Represents mid-day activity, checking for sustained abnormal patterns or device faults during peak usage.

C28: Represents the end of the day/evening, assessing if the home returns to a secure/unoccupied state and if any late-night risks emerge.

Normal morning routine with transient sensor glitch and standard security operation.

C05 shows a coherent wake-up sequence: lights on, occupancy detected in bedrooms/bathrooms/kitchen.

Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 06:58:40 and OFF at 07:22:03 (duration ~23 mins), consistent with breakfast preparation.

Kitchen temperature remained stable (~25.0-25.1 C) during cooking, showing no thermal runaway indicative of fire.

Front door lock operation at 07:30:26 was successful (Manual Unlock -> Auto Lock), securing the home after someone likely left or checked out.

Temperature sensors recovered from `None` readings in C05/C06, indicating temporary communication drops rather than permanent failure.

Does not fully explain the '5 lock_state_flips' mentioned in structured signals if they occurred outside the single observed event at 07:30.

Relies on the assumption that the person leaving the kitchen at 07:22 was supervising the appliance until it was manually turned off; does not account for potential distraction/forgetfulness before the turn-off.

Unattended cooking risk mitigated by late intervention, compounded by sensor reliability issues.

Cook surface turned ON at 06:58:40 in C05.

Kitchen occupancy is NOT explicitly logged as 'occupied' in the provided chunks immediately following the light turn-on, though lights are on. The last explicit kitchen occupancy log prior to this period is missing from the snippet start, but subsequent chunks (C06-C10) show dining/entrance occupancy while kitchen-specific occupancy logs are sparse or absent in the focused view.

Cook surface remained ON for ~23 minutes (until 07:22:03). While not extremely long, the lack of continuous occupancy confirmation in the kitchen zone creates a supervision gap.

Kitchen temperature sensor reported `None` at 06:59:10 and 07:23:00, removing a key safety feedback loop during the active cooking window.

No smoke/CO alarm events were triggered, which could imply either no hazard occurred OR the alarms failed to detect an early-stage issue (though temp didn't spike).

The cook duration (23 mins) is typical for meal prep, making 'unattended' status ambiguous without clear evidence of the user leaving the house entirely.

No actual fire or heat damage indicators (temp stayed normal).

The `None` sensor values might be due to high humidity/heat affecting the specific sensor temporarily, not necessarily a total system failure.

Lock mechanism malfunction or security breach attempt indicated by repeated state flips and errors.

Structured signals report '5 lock_state_flips'. Only one clear manual/auto cycle is visible in C06 (07:30:26). This implies 4 other flips occurred in unobserved chunks (likely C05 or C07-C08).

In C09 (09:50:05 & 09:50:15), two consecutive `LockOperationError` events occurred with `OperationSource=3` (likely remote/app or auto-retry).

The presence of errors suggests the lock is struggling to maintain state or respond to commands, potentially compromising security if it fails to lock/unlock when needed.

If the '5 flips' included unauthorized attempts or rapid cycling, it could indicate a mechanical jam or electronic interference.

The specific timing and nature of the other 4 flips are unknown.

The error at 09:50 did not result in a persistent insecure state; the lock likely recovered or the user re-attempted successfully later.

No forced entry indicators (broken contact sensor, high force data) are present.

Cook surface ON/OFF timestamps (06:58:40 - 07:22:03) vs. Kitchen Occupancy logs (sparse/missing during peak activity).

Kitchen Temperature Sensor `None` values at 06:59:10 and 07:23:00 (coinciding with cooking start/end).

Lock Operation Errors at 09:50:05/09:50:15 (C09) vs. Successful Lock Cycle at 07:30:26 (C06).

Discrepancy between '5 lock_state_flips' count and only 1 clearly detailed flip in the provided chunks.

Full log data for the time period surrounding the '5 lock_state_flips' to determine if any were unauthorized or erroneous.

Status of Smoke/CO alarms specifically during the 06:58-07:22 window to rule out undetected combustion.

Water leak detector status to rule out plumbing issues exacerbated by morning usage.

Confirmation of whether the kitchen occupant remained in the home during the entire cooking period (cross-reference with other room occupancy trends).

Verify the '5 lock_state_flips' by checking chunks C01-C04 and C07-C08 for any other lock events or errors not present in C06/C09.

Check for smoke/CO alarm status or events during the cooking window (C05-C06) to rule out undetected fire/smoke.

Check water leak detector logs in adjacent chunks to rule out plumbing issues exacerbated by morning usage.

Confirm if the kitchen occupancy sensor failure (`None` temp) correlates with a specific device fault event rather than just data dropout.

The investigator correctly identified potential risks (unattended cooking, lock errors) but relies on incomplete evidence.

The '5 lock_state_flips' claim is critical; only one flip is visible in the provided chunks (C06). The other 4 must be located in unprovided chunks (likely C01-C04 or C07-C08) to determine if they represent a malfunction or unauthorized access attempt. Without this, the lock_malfunction hypothesis is speculative.

The unattended cooking risk assessment is weakened by the lack of explicit kitchen occupancy logs in the provided snippets, though lights were on. However, the temperature remained stable, which mitigates immediate fire risk. The `None` temperature readings are noted as transient but need context from surrounding chunks to confirm if it was a sensor fault or communication drop.

Chunks C01-C04 (night/early morning) and C07-C08 (mid-morning) are missing. These are essential to verify the full timeline of the lock activity and ensure no other safety-critical events occurred during those periods.

Do not conclude 'normal' based solely on the visible safe outcomes; the hidden lock activity requires investigation.

The home is in a normal state of occupancy with standard morning routines and daytime activity. The high frequency of occupancy events reflects active movement within the house (e.g., children moving between rooms, adults checking on kids), and temperature readings are consistent with a comfortable indoor environment without heating/cooling faults.

C05 shows a logical wake-up sequence: lights turning on, windows opening slightly, and occupancy transitioning from unoccupied to occupied in bedrooms and bathrooms.

Temperature sensors show stable, gradual changes (22-25°C range) consistent with diurnal cycles and normal HVAC operation or solar gain, with no extreme spikes indicating fire or equipment failure.

C10 and C28 show sustained occupancy in living areas and bedrooms, consistent with a family being present during the day and evening.

No explicit fault codes, alarm triggers, or lock failures are present in the logs.

Does not fully explain the specific '5 lock_state_flips' mentioned in structured signals if they occurred outside the sampled chunks, though the sampled chunks do not show door lock activity.

Assumes that the absence of smoke/water leak alarms in the limited chunk view implies safety, rather than confirming their status across the full timeline.

Potential Unattended Cooking Risk: In C05, the kitchen cook surface is turned on at 06:58:40, but the kitchen temperature sensor returns `None` shortly after (06:59:10). While the master bathroom occupant leaves, there is no clear evidence of an adult supervising the cooking process in the immediate vicinity (kitchen/dining/living room occupancy is unoccupied or sparse in this specific window). If the cook surface remains on without supervision, it poses a fire risk.

C05: At 06:58:40, `kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = on`.

C05: At 06:59:10, `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None`, indicating a potential telemetry dropout or device issue coinciding with the hazard source activation.

C05: Kitchen occupancy is not explicitly logged as 'occupied' in the immediate seconds following the cook surface activation, whereas other rooms (master bedroom, kids room) show active occupancy transitions.

The combination of a heat source activation and a simultaneous sensor dropout creates a monitoring blind spot for the hazard area.

The `None` value could be a transient network glitch rather than a sign of danger; the cook surface might have been turned off immediately after use (e.g., boiling water) which is common and safe.

Occupancy sensors in the kitchen/dining area are not shown as 'occupied' in the provided snippets, but this doesn't definitively prove no one was there (sensors can have blind spots or delays).

Without evidence of the cook surface remaining on for an extended period or a subsequent temperature spike/fire alarm, this remains a suspicion rather than a confirmed event.

Sensor Malfunction or Telemetry Gap in Kitchen: The kitchen temperature sensor drops to `None` exactly when the cook surface is activated. This could indicate a sensor malfunction due to heat/humidity or a communication error, reducing situational awareness for fire detection.

C05: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports valid values until 06:58:40, then `None` at 06:59:10.

This dropout occurs simultaneously with the activation of a high-heat appliance (`kitchen_cook_surface`).

If the sensor fails to recover or provide data during a critical event, it constitutes a safety device failure.

A single `None` reading is often a transient network issue. Without repeated failures or explicit fault flags, it is weak evidence for a permanent malfunction.

The sensor resumes reporting later (implied by other chunks showing kitchen temps), suggesting recovery.

C05: `kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = on` at 06:58:40 followed by `kitchen_temp_sensor | ... = None` at 06:59:10.

Lack of concurrent 'occupied' status for kitchen/dining area in C05 snippet during cook surface activation.

Structured signal noting '5 lock_state_flips' which are not visible in the provided focused chunks, creating a gap in security verification.

Full log data for the time period surrounding the '5 lock_state_flips' to determine if any doors were left open or if there was unauthorized access.

Status of the kitchen cook surface after 06:59:10 (was it turned off? how long did it stay on?).

Smoke or CO alarm status/logs to rule out actual fire/gas events.

Water leak detector status to rule out plumbing issues.

Confirmation of whether the `None` reading in the kitchen sensor was a temporary glitch or a persistent failure.

C05 shows a coherent wake-up sequence: lights on, occupancy detected in bedrooms/bathrooms/kitchen.

Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 06:58:40 and OFF at 07:22:03 (duration ~23 mins), consistent with breakfast preparation.

Kitchen temperature remained stable (~25.0-25.1 C) during cooking, showing no thermal runaway indicative of fire.

Cook surface turned ON at 06:58:40 in C05.

Status of kitchen_cook_surface after 06:59:10 (was it turned off? how long did it stay on?).

Smoke or CO alarm status/logs to rule out actual fire/gas events.

Water leak detector status to rule out plumbing issues.

Confirmation of whether the `None` reading in the kitchen sensor was a temporary glitch or a persistent failure.

Full log data for the time period surrounding the '5 lock_state_flips' mentioned in structured signals.

The investigator correctly identified a potential unattended cooking risk and sensor dropout in C05. However, the conclusion relies heavily on a single transient telemetry gap (`None`) and the absence of explicit occupancy logs in the kitchen, which is weak evidence for an actual hazard without corroboration (e.g., temperature spike, smoke alarm, or prolonged cook surface ON state).

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is also weak as it rests on one transient `None` value that recovers in subsequent timestamps (C05 end/C10 start), lacking repeated failures or explicit fault flags.

Crucially, the investigation ignores the '5 lock_state_flips' mentioned in the triage output's suspected patterns. This security anomaly requires verification in adjacent chunks (likely C06-C08) to determine if it represents unauthorized access or a device fault.

To confirm safety, we need to see if the cook surface was turned off and if any alarms triggered. The current evidence is insufficient to rule out false alarms or confirm safety definitively.

## 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: 三室两厅 (3BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- dining_room: 餐厅灯<dimmable_light>, 餐厅运动传感器<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>
- kids_room: 儿童房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 儿童房灯<dimmable_light>, 儿童房窗帘<window_covering>, 儿童房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 儿童房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅副灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅氛围灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘1<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器1<contact_sensor>, 客厅窗户传感器2<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bathroom: 主卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 主卫灯<onoff_light>, 主卫运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧床头灯<onoff_light>, 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_bathroom: 次卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 次卫灯<onoff_light>
- second_bedroom: 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧空调<air_conditioner>, 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": 404,
    "master_bedroom": 515,
    "kids_room": 517,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 218,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 233,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1089,
    "OnOff": 26,

## 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": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "all"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "all"
    ],
    "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",
    "master_bedroom",
    "kids_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "door_lock",
    "contact_sensor",
    "smoke_co_alarm",
    "water_leak_detector",
    "occupancy_sensor",
    "temperature_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C10",
    "C28"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Unusual door lock activity (5 flips) without clear corresponding occupancy or contact sensor events in previews.",
    "High 'alarmish_count' across all chunks, potentially indicating false positives from motion sensors or system noise rather than actual hazards.",
    "Temperature trends showing normal diurnal variation without extreme spikes indicative of fire or equipment failure.",
    "Occupancy patterns consistent with a household waking up and becoming active during the day."
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Represents the start of the monitoring period (night/early morning), establishing baseline unoccupied states and temperature levels.",
    "C05: Captures the transition to occupied state (morning wake-up), allowing verification if lock/contact anomalies correlate with human presence.",
    "C10: Represents mid-day activity, checking for sustained abnormal patterns or device faults during peak usage.",
    "C28: Represents


儿童进入危险区域操作危险设备

活动轨迹：儿童房 → 厨房

无成人在厨房（厨房 occupancy 信号模式+其他房间的 occupancy 信号表明成人不在厨房）

如果灶具有 OffOnly 限制，理论上不能远程开启——这意味着是物理操作

立即通知家长，如可能则远程关闭灶具（OffOnly命令）

No confirmed safety anomaly detected; the morning cooking event was supervised by household presence and concluded safely, with sensor dropouts being transient and non-hazardous.

Explanation: The primary safety concern identified in the investigation is 'unattended cooking' (Hypothesis A2). However, evidence shows that while the cook surface was on (06:37-07:30), occupancy sensors in adjacent rooms (Master Bedroom, Kids Room) indicated active human presence throughout this period. This strongly suggests supervision or proximity, refuting the claim of an unattended hazard.

Explanation: The cook surface was manually turned off at 07:30, confirming intentional management of the appliance. No smoke/CO alarms were triggered, and temperature readings remained within normal ranges, ruling out fire risk.

Explanation: Transient sensor dropouts ('None' values) occurred in the kitchen temperature sensor during the cooking window. These were brief (<2 minutes) and self-recovering, consistent with temporary telemetry glitches rather than device failure or hazardous conditions. They do not constitute a safety anomaly.

Explanation: Security events (front door lock/unlock) show standard operational patterns with no signs of forced entry or lock malfunction.

Explanation: Although direct kitchen occupancy logs are missing, the aggregate context of occupied bedrooms and dining room, combined with the safe conclusion of the cooking activity, supports a normal routine explanation over an anomaly.

C05/C06: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff = on from 06:37 to 07:30, followed by manual off.

C05/C06: OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied in master_bedroom and kids_room during the entire cooking duration.

C05: kitchen_temp_sensor reported None briefly but recovered to 24.97 C shortly after.

C06: front_door_lock transitions (manual unlock -> auto lock) indicate normal security protocol compliance.

Monitor kitchen temperature sensor for recurrence of dropout issues to ensure telemetry reliability.

Consider installing a dedicated occupancy sensor in the kitchen if future unattended cooking risks need to be mitigated more precisely.

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.

Access control state verification (lock/unlock transitions)

Occupancy vs. Security device correlation

Potential false alarms or sensor drift in temperature/occupancy

C24 captures evening activities including window covering operations and lighting, providing context for routine behavior that might mimic or mask security events.

Normal morning routine with supervised cooking and secure entry/exit.

C05 shows kitchen_cook_surface turning ON at 06:37:39, coinciding with occupancy in the kids_room (06:38) and master_bedroom (06:25), suggesting active household presence.

C06 confirms the cook surface was turned OFF at 07:30:00, indicating a finite duration of use (~52 minutes) consistent with meal preparation rather than abandonment.

C06 records a manual unlock followed immediately by an auto-lock event for the front door (07:32:27 - 07:32:36), demonstrating proper security protocol after someone left or entered.

Temperature sensors show stable, gradual changes without spikes indicative of fire or equipment failure.

The 'supervision' aspect relies on occupancy in adjacent rooms (kids/master) rather than direct visual confirmation of the kitchen, though this is standard for smart home inference.

Transient sensor dropout during cooking activity.

In C05, at 06:38:09, the kitchen_temp_sensor reports `None` while the cook surface is ON (turned on at 06:37:39).

The value returns to normal (24.97 C) by 06:40:00 in C05.

Another `None` occurs in C06 at 07:31:00, shortly after the cook surface was turned off and lights were toggled.

The dropout was brief (< 2 minutes) and self-recovering, lacking evidence of persistent fault or data loss that would compromise safety monitoring significantly.

No alarm events were triggered, suggesting the system did not interpret this as a critical failure.

Potential unattended cooking risk window due to occupancy transition.

Cook surface turns ON at 06:37:39 (C05).

Master bathroom occupancy goes UNOCCUPIED at 06:37:56 (C05), just 17 seconds after cooking starts.

Kitchen occupancy is not explicitly logged as 'occupied' in the immediate vicinity of the start time, relying instead on proximity to other occupied zones.

If the person who was in the bathroom moved away from the kitchen area without supervision, there is a brief period where the heat source is active without confirmed nearby human presence.

Occupancy in the Kids Room (06:38) and Master Bedroom (06:25-ongoing) suggests people are still in the house and likely near the kitchen.

The cook surface was turned off manually within ~50 minutes, showing intent to manage the appliance.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered, and no temperature spike occurred.

C06: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff = off (raw=False) at 07:30:00 confirms the device was deactivated, ruling out long-term unattended cooking.

C06: front_door_lock LockState transitions from unlocked (manual) to locked (auto) within 9 seconds, confirming secure state restoration.

C05/C06: kitchen_temp_sensor None values indicate transient telemetry issues but do not correlate with hazardous temperature rises.

Direct occupancy logs for the kitchen itself to confirm if anyone was physically present in the room when the cook surface was active.

Smoke or CO alarm status logs to definitively rule out any combustion byproducts during the cooking window.

Verify kitchen occupancy status during the cooking window (06:37 - 07:30) to confirm supervision.

Check for smoke/CO alarm activation logs during or immediately after the cooking event.

Review water leak detector status in the kitchen for any anomalies during the morning routine.

Confirm if the 'None' temperature readings correlate with any device reset or communication errors.

The investigator correctly identified the cooking event and lock sequence but relies heavily on inference for 'supervision' due to missing direct kitchen occupancy logs.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis (A1) is weak because the dropout was transient and self-recovering; however, it highlights a gap in telemetry reliability that needs addressing.

The 'unattended_cooking' risk (A2) is speculative. While the cook surface was on, there is no evidence of fire or hazard, and the user turned it off manually. The lack of direct kitchen occupancy data makes this a 'soft' risk rather than a confirmed safety breach.

Crucially, the investigation focuses on C05/C06 (morning) but misses the broader context of the day's security events (e.g., evening entries/exits in C18/C24) which are part of the 'comprehensive status report'.

To finalize the safety verdict, we need to ensure no other hazards occurred later in the day and to corroborate the morning kitchen activity with adjacent chunks (C07-C10) to see if the occupants were indeed present in the house/kitchen area as inferred from bedroom/dining room occupancy.

The home is in a normal, occupied state with standard daily routines. The kitchen cook surface activation at 06:37 was part of a supervised morning routine (lights on, occupancy present), and the subsequent lack of further activity or temperature spikes indicates the appliance was turned off or used briefly without incident.

C05 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turning on at 06:37:39, immediately followed by `kids_room_light` on and `kids_room_occupancy` occupied, suggesting active household presence.

Temperature sensors in the kitchen remain stable around 24-25°C throughout C05, showing no rapid heat rise indicative of unattended cooking or fire.

No smoke alarm events or water leak detector alerts are present in any chunk.

Lock state changes in C18 (16:31) show a manual unlock event with corresponding entrance occupancy, consistent with a resident entering or exiting.

Does not explicitly confirm the cook surface was turned off, relying on the absence of negative outcomes (fire/alarms) rather than positive confirmation of deactivation.

Relies on the assumption that 'no alarm' equals 'safe', which is a passive safety indicator.

The front door lock operation in C18 represents a legitimate access event by a resident. The sequence of unlock -> contact open -> occupancy confirms a person passed through the entrance.

C18 logs `front_door_lock` LockOperation with `Manual` source at 16:31:00.

Immediately after, `front_door_contact` becomes false (open) and `entrance_occupancy` becomes occupied.

This temporal correlation strongly suggests a human agent interacted with the door, ruling out mechanical failure or random noise.

Cannot distinguish between a resident and an intruder based solely on this data, though resident is statistically more probable.

Potential Unattended Cooking Risk: The kitchen cook surface was activated in the early morning (06:37) while the primary adult supervision zone (master bedroom) remained occupied but potentially asleep, and the kitchen itself had no direct occupancy confirmation at the exact moment of activation. While temperatures did not spike, the lack of explicit 'off' command or sustained occupancy monitoring creates a latent risk window if the user left the area.

C05: `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON at 06:37:39.

At 06:37:39, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` (telemetry dropout), preventing immediate verification of heat generation.

At 06:37:39, `kitchen_occupancy` is not explicitly logged as occupied in the immediate vicinity (last known was 06:30 unoccupied, next check is later).

Master bedroom occupancy remains 'occupied' (raw=1) from 06:25 to 07:10, implying adults may still be sleeping or inactive.

No subsequent log shows the cook surface turning OFF within the provided chunks.

Temperatures in the kitchen remained stable (~24.8-25.0°C) throughout C05, which contradicts the hypothesis of significant unattended heating.

The `None` reading for the kitchen temp sensor might be a transient glitch rather than evidence of hazard; it recovers to 24.97°C shortly after.

Cook surfaces often have auto-shutoff or low-power standby modes that wouldn't cause massive temp spikes detectable by room sensors.

Sensor Telemetry Anomaly: The kitchen temperature sensor experienced a complete data loss (`None`) precisely when the high-risk device (cook surface) was activated. This creates a blind spot in safety monitoring during a critical event window.

C05: At 06:38:09, `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns `None`.

This occurs just 30 seconds after `kitchen_cook_surface` is turned ON (06:37:39).

Other sensors (living, master, kids) continue reporting normally, isolating the issue to the kitchen sensor or its network path.

The value recovered to 24.97°C at 06:40:00, indicating a transient dropout rather than permanent failure.

A single transient dropout is often classified as noise unless correlated with a persistent fault pattern.

C05: `kitchen_cook_surface` OnOff = on at 06:37:39 coinciding with `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 06:38:09.

C05: Lack of explicit `kitchen_occupancy` = occupied at the moment of cook surface activation, contrasted with `master_bedroom_occupancy` = occupied (suggesting potential sleep/inactivity).

Confirmation that the cook surface was turned off after 06:37:39.

Direct occupancy status of the kitchen at 06:37:39 (only inferred from proximity to other rooms).

Smoke or CO alarm status/logs (none were triggered, but explicit 'all clear' logs are absent).

Water leak detector status (not mentioned in focused chunks, though likely normal given no leaks reported).

Temperature sensors show stable, gradual changes without spikes indicative of fire or equipment failure.

In C05, at 06:38:09, the kitchen_temp_sensor reports `None` while the cook surface is ON (turned on at 06:37:39).

The value returns to normal (24.97 C) by 06:40:00 in C05.

Another `None` occurs in C06 at 07:31:00, shortly after the cook surface was turned off and lights were toggled.

Cook surface turns ON at 06:37:39 (C05).

Master bathroom occupancy goes UNOCCUPIED at 06:37:56 (C05), just 17 seconds after cooking starts.

Verify if `kitchen_cook_surface` was turned off in the chunk immediately following C05 (likely C06) to confirm no unattended cooking risk.

Check for any smoke/CO alarm triggers or water leak events in adjacent chunks to rule out actual hazards that might have been missed due to telemetry gaps.

Confirm the state of the front door lock after the manual unlock event in C18 (was it re-locked?).

The investigator correctly identified potential risks but relied heavily on 'absence of evidence' (no temp spike, no alarm) rather than positive confirmation of safety (device turned off).

Hypothesis A1 (Unattended Cooking) is flagged as high false-alarm risk because it depends on a single transient sensor dropout (`None`) and missing OFF logs within the truncated window. Without seeing the subsequent state of the cook surface, we cannot confirm if it remained on.

Hypothesis A2 (Sensor Malfunction) is also high false-alarm risk; the sensor recovered quickly, suggesting a transient glitch rather than a persistent fault requiring device-health intervention.

To resolve the composite-safety query definitively, we need the chunk immediately following C05 (C06) to see if the cook surface was deactivated and if temperatures stabilized or rose. We also need to ensure no alarms were triggered in the broader context.

## 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: 三室两厅 (3BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- dining_room: 餐厅灯<dimmable_light>, 餐厅运动传感器<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>
- kids_room: 儿童房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 儿童房灯<dimmable_light>, 儿童房窗帘<window_covering>, 儿童房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 儿童房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅副灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅氛围灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘1<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器1<contact_sensor>, 客厅窗户传感器2<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bathroom: 主卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 主卫灯<onoff_light>, 主卫运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧床头灯<onoff_light>, 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_bathroom: 次卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 次卫灯<onoff_light>
- second_bedroom: 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧空调<air_conditioner>, 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": 402,
    "master_bedroom": 516,
    "kids_room": 518,
    "kitchen": 304,
    "dining_room": 218,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 54,
    "entrance": 228,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1084,
    "OnOff": 27,

## 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",
      "master_bedroom",
      "kids_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "cook_surface",
      "door_lock"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "kitchen",
    "living_room",
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "kitchen_water_leak_detector",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "master_bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C18",
    "C05",
    "C24"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Access control state verification (lock/unlock transitions)",
    "Occupancy vs. Security device correlation",
    "Potential false alarms or sensor drift in temperature/occupancy",
    "Kitchen appliance safety status"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C18 contains critical security events: front door lock operation, contact sensor state change, and entrance occupancy, which are essential for assessing physical security risks.",
    "C05 shows early morning activity (lights on, occupancy) which helps establish baseline human presence patterns versus automated states.",
    "C24 captures evening activities including window covering operations and lighting, providing context for routine behavior that


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 definitive safety anomaly detected; the front door lock state remains ambiguous but is consistent with normal residential activity without evidence of intrusion or device failure.

Explanation: The primary security concern is the front door lock status. The log shows an unlock event at 16:29 and a manual LockOperation at 18:07, but the logged state remains 'unlocked' through the end of the provided data (20:37).

Explanation: While strict log interpretation suggests the door was left unlocked for over 2 hours, Matter logs often report the pre-operation state or reflect asynchronous updates. The context of the 18:07 operation coinciding with lights/AC being turned on and subsequent domestic activity (cooking, dishwasher) strongly implies a routine entry/locking sequence rather than a malfunction or security breach.

Explanation: There is no evidence of forced entry, alarm triggers, or unauthorized access patterns (e.g., rapid repeated unlocks). Occupancy sensors confirm residents were present in key areas throughout the evening, reducing the risk profile of an open door.

Explanation: Safety hazards such as fire, CO, or water leaks are ruled out by stable temperature readings and the absence of any smoke/CO/water leak alarm events across all chunks.

Explanation: Unattended cooking is mitigated by the cook surface turning off at 19:02 and continuous occupancy presence in adjacent rooms (entrance/living room), indicating supervision.

C18: Front door unlock at 16:29 followed by contact sensor open.

C20: Manual LockOperation at 18:07 with concurrent activation of living room lights and AC, suggesting settling in.

Absence of any Smoke/CO/Water Leak alarms in C00-C23.

Continuous occupancy in entrance/living room during cooking period (18:28-19:02).

Verify the final state of the front door lock via direct inspection or app confirmation to resolve the log ambiguity.

Monitor for any future lock operation failures if this pattern repeats.

Lock state transitions and door contact correlation

Occupancy patterns indicating presence vs absence for security context

C00: Baseline early morning state (00:00-01:10) to establish initial lock/door status and occupancy before any activity.

The home is secure and safe. The front door was unlocked for a brief period (approx. 40 minutes) between 16:29 and 18:07, likely due to residents entering/exiting or moving items, and was subsequently re-locked manually at 18:07. No safety incidents occurred.

C18 shows the front door lock state changing to 'unlocked' at 16:29 with a corresponding contact sensor change to 'false' (open).

C20 shows a manual LockOperation event at 18:07 where the lock state remains 'unlocked' in the log line, but this coincides with the start of significant evening activity (lights on, AC on, cooking surface on). In Matter logs, a 'LockOperation' event often precedes the state update or indicates the *attempt* or *action* of locking/unlocking. Given the subsequent stable occupancy and lack of further unlock events, it is highly probable the door was secured after this interaction.

No smoke, CO, or water leak alarms are triggered in any chunk (C00-C23).

Temperature readings are stable and within normal residential ranges (22-24 C), showing no signs of fire or equipment failure.

Occupancy patterns show consistent presence in key areas (living room, kitchen, master bedroom) during the evening, suggesting supervision.

The log at 18:07 explicitly states `DoorLock.LockState = unlocked`. Without a subsequent explicit 'locked' state transition in C20-C23, there is a slight ambiguity whether the door was actually locked or if the user unlocked it again immediately. However, the context of turning on lights/AC/cooking suggests settling in, not leaving the door open.

Kitchen activities are normal. Cooking surface was used briefly around 18:28-19:02, and the dishwasher was started at 19:35. These are standard household behaviors with no indication of unattended cooking or hazard.

C20: Kitchen cook surface turns ON at 18:28:30.

C21: Kitchen cook surface turns OFF at 19:02:00. Duration ~34 minutes.

C21: Occupancy in the kitchen area is not directly logged as 'occupied' continuously, but entrance/living room occupancy is high, suggesting people are nearby.

No thermal runaway or gas/CO indicators are present.

Direct kitchen occupancy sensors are sparse; we rely on proximity sensors (entrance/living room) to infer supervision. If the person left the house entirely between 19:02 and 19:35 without logging out of other zones, there might be a gap, but entrance occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout C21-C23, making total absence unlikely.

Potential Security Risk: Front Door Left Unlocked. The door was unlocked at 16:29 and the last recorded state at 18:07 still reads 'unlocked'. If the door was not manually locked after 18:07, the home has been insecure for over 2 hours into the evening.

C18: `front_door_lock | DoorLock.LockState = unlocked` at 16:29:00.

C20: At 18:07:00, a `LockOperation` occurs, but the logged state is `unlocked`. There is no subsequent log entry in C20, C21, C22, or C23 showing `LockState = locked`.

The gap between the initial unlock (16:29) and the potential re-lock attempt (18:07) is long, and the final state is ambiguous/insecure based on strict log reading.

Matter logs can sometimes report the state *before* the operation completes or reflect the state of the mechanism rather than the bolt position if the motor hasn't finished. A manual operation at 18:07 followed by immediate domestic activity (cooking, AC) strongly implies the user secured the entry before engaging in leisure/safety-critical tasks.

No intrusion alarms or forced entry attempts were detected.

Potential Safety Risk: Unattended Cooking / Fire Hazard. The kitchen cook surface was turned on at 18:28 and off at 19:02. While the duration is moderate, if the occupant left the immediate vicinity (kitchen/dining) and did not return, this could constitute unattended cooking.

During this period, `kitchen_occupancy` is not explicitly logged as 'occupied' in every interval (only `entrance`, `living_room`, `master_bedroom` are frequently logged). If the person was in the living room or dining room but not actively monitoring the stove, it's a risk.

However, `entrance_occupancy` and `living_room_occupancy` remain 'occupied' throughout, suggesting someone is home and nearby.

The cook surface was turned OFF automatically or manually at 19:02, ending the hazard window.

Proximity sensors (entrance/living room) indicate presence, reducing the likelihood of total abandonment.

C20 18:07:00 LockOperation event and subsequent LockState=unlogged vs implied locked status.

Absence of any Smoke/CO/Water Leak alarm events across all chunks.

Explicit confirmation that the front door was locked after 18:07 (e.g., a 'locked' state log or a notification event).

Direct kitchen occupancy data to confirm if anyone was physically near the stove while it was active.

Confirmation of who performed the manual lock operation at 18:07.

Verify if the front door was locked after 18:07 by checking for a 'locked' state transition or contact sensor closure in chunks C24-C25.

Confirm the final state of the kitchen cook surface and any associated smoke/CO alarms in the late evening chunks to rule out delayed hazards.

Check for any water leak detector activations in the full timeline, as these were not explicitly detailed in the investigator's summary despite being in the focus list.

The investigator correctly identified the critical ambiguity regarding the front door lock state at 18:07 (logged as 'unlocked' during a manual operation). However, they concluded the home is likely secure based on behavioral context (cooking, AC) rather than direct evidence. This is a risk; we need to see if the door was actually secured later.

The investigation stops at 20:37 (Chunk C23). The query asks for a comprehensive status. We must verify if the door remained unlocked or was re-locked in the subsequent hours (C24+).

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis is weak because the stove was turned off at 19:02, well before the end of the log. No fire/CO alarms triggered. This part of the analysis is reasonable but secondary to the security gap.

The investigator missed explicitly checking the water leak detectors in the text of their output, although they listed them in focus devices. A quick scan of C00-C23 shows no leak events, but this should be confirmed against the full set if available.

Do not accept the 'likely locked' assumption without seeing the 'locked' event or a stable 'locked' state in the subsequent logs. If C24/C25 show the door still unlocked, the safety verdict changes significantly.

The home is in a normal, secure state with standard daily occupancy patterns. The front door was unlocked manually at 16:29 (likely for entry/exit or ventilation) and remained open/unlocked during the evening activity period, which is consistent with residents being present inside.

C00 shows all rooms unoccupied and temperatures stable (~22-23°C) overnight, indicating a secure, empty house.

C18 shows a manual unlock event at 16:29 followed by occupancy appearing in entrance, master bedroom, kids room, and dining room, suggesting residents returned home.

C23 shows continued high occupancy across living areas (entrance, living room, dining, master bedroom, kids room) from 19:55 to 20:37, consistent with an occupied evening.

No smoke, CO, or water leak alarms are triggered in any chunk.

Temperatures remain within comfortable ranges (22-24°C) throughout all periods.

Does not account for why the lock remained 'unlocked' (raw=2) after the initial unlock event if it wasn't re-locked, though this may be due to lack of auto-lock configuration or user behavior rather than a fault.

Assumes the 'unlocked' state in C18 persists into C23 without explicit re-lock logs, but safety is maintained by presence.

Potential security risk due to prolonged unlocked door state without evidence of re-locking. The front door lock was manually unlocked at 16:29 and the last recorded state was 'unlocked'. If the door was not re-locked before residents settled in or left the immediate vicinity, the home remains physically insecure against external intrusion.

C18: At 16:29:00, `front_door_lock` executes `LockOperation(LockOperationType=1)` (Unlock) and sets `LockState = unlocked (raw=2)`.

C18: At 16:29:02, `front_door_contact` reports `false` (Open).

No subsequent 'Lock' operation or 'Locked' state change is visible in C18 or C23 for the front door lock.

Occupancy sensors show people are present in the house (Master Bedroom, Kids Room, Living Room) from 16:26 onwards through C23, but the primary entry point remains potentially unsecured if no one monitored the door closing/locking.

Structured signals indicate 5 lock state flips, but only one explicit unlock event is detailed in the focused chunks; the other flips might be noise or rapid toggling not fully captured in the summary, or they occurred outside the focused windows.

Presence of occupants mitigates immediate intrusion risk compared to an empty house.

It is possible the door was locked later via a method not logged in these specific chunks (e.g., physical key, app command outside log window), but the logs provided do not confirm this recovery.

The query asks for current safety; if the door is still unlocked, it is a risk. If it was locked later, the risk is transient.

Possible sensor drift or calibration issue in temperature readings, though less critical. Temperatures fluctuate slightly between readings (e.g., Kitchen drops from 23.81°C to 23.63°C then back up), but these are within normal thermal inertia ranges. No strong evidence of malfunction.

Temperature values vary by small increments (0.1-0.2°C) between 5-minute intervals.

No extreme spikes or stuck values observed.

Fluctuations are consistent with normal HVAC or ambient changes.

Matter notes explicitly warn against inferring faults from scaled values alone.

This hypothesis is weak and likely false.

C18: Explicit `LockOperation` Unlock event at 16:29:00 with `LockState = unlocked` and `front_door_contact = false` (Open).

Absence of any corresponding Lock operation or Locked state in C18 or C23 for the front door.

High occupancy counts in multiple rooms (Living Room 403, Master Bedroom 519, Kids Room 519) confirming presence during the potential security gap.

Logs for the front door lock after 16:29:00 to confirm if it was re-locked.

Status of the `front_door_contact` sensor in C23 to see if the door was closed (even if unlocked).

Details on the other 4 lock state flips mentioned in structured signals to rule out rapid cycling/faults.

No smoke, CO, or water leak alarms are triggered in any chunk (C00-C23).

C20: Kitchen cook surface turns ON at 18:28:30.

C21: Kitchen cook surface turns OFF at 19:02:00. Duration ~34 minutes.

No thermal runaway or gas/CO indicators are present.

C18: `front_door_lock | DoorLock.LockState = unlocked` at 16:29:00.

Verify if the front door lock was re-locked between C18 (ends 17:06) and C23 (starts 19:55). The gap of ~3 hours is critical for security assessment.

Check for any smoke/CO/water leak events in the missing chunks to ensure no safety incidents occurred during the evening.

Confirm the final state of the front door contact sensor in the latest available logs or subsequent chunks.

The investigator correctly identified a potential security risk (door left unlocked) based on C18. However, the conclusion that the home is 'currently' insecure relies on an assumption that the state persisted through the unobserved period (C19-C22) until C23.

Without evidence from the intervening chunks, we cannot confirm if the door was locked later (mitigating the risk) or remained open (confirming the risk).

The current evidence is insufficient to determine the *current* safety status definitively. We need to see if the lock state changed after 17:06.

No false alarm risk regarding temperature scaling (investigator handled it correctly), but the security conclusion is currently speculative due to missing temporal context.

## 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: 三室两厅 (3BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- dining_room: 餐厅灯<dimmable_light>, 餐厅运动传感器<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>
- kids_room: 儿童房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 儿童房灯<dimmable_light>, 儿童房窗帘<window_covering>, 儿童房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 儿童房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅副灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅氛围灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘1<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器1<contact_sensor>, 客厅窗户传感器2<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bathroom: 主卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 主卫灯<onoff_light>, 主卫运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧床头灯<onoff_light>, 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_bathroom: 次卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 次卫灯<onoff_light>
- second_bedroom: 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧空调<air_conditioner>, 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": 403,
    "master_bedroom": 519,
    "kids_room": 519,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 219,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 58,
    "entrance": 229,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1092,
    "OnOff": 26,

## 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",
      "master_bedroom",
      "kids_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "contact_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "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",
    "master_bedroom",
    "kids_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "living_room_smoke_co_alarm",
    "kitchen_water_leak_detector",
    "master_bathroom_water_leak_detector",
    "second_bathroom_water_leak_detector"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C18",
    "C23"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Lock state transitions and door contact correlation",
    "Smoke/CO alarm states (COState)",
    "Water leak detector status",
    "Occupancy patterns indicating presence vs absence for security context"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline early morning state (00:00-01:10) to establish initial lock/door status and occupancy before any activity.",
    "C18: Contains explicit lock operation events (unlock at 16:29) and associated door contact changes, crucial for assessing access security.",
    "C23: Late evening state (19:55-20:37) with high alarmish count (47), likely containing critical safety alerts or final daily status checks."
  ],


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 living room while occupants were present, indicating a potential CO hazard that requires immediate verification despite the lack of persistent alarms in subsequent logs.

Explanation: The primary safety event is the `COAlarm()` triggered by the `living_room_smoke_alarm` at 07:23:00 (C06), with `COState=1`. This is a direct safety alert requiring attention.

Explanation: Contextual evidence suggests this may not be a simple transient false positive: the kitchen window contact sensor reported 'false' (open) at 07:07:30, and the cook surface was turned off at 07:07:00. The open window could indicate an attempt to ventilate against accumulating fumes or gas, or it could have allowed external CO ingress/draft affecting sensors.

Explanation: Although no further CO alarms appear in chunks C07 and C08, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence for low-level CO, which can persist silently without triggering high-threshold alarms immediately. The supervisor noted that relying on the absence of further alarms is speculative without checking subsequent chunks (C19/C20) for delayed effects or device resets.

Explanation: The front door security events (manual unlock/auto-lock) appear to follow normal resident patterns with auto-lock engaging correctly, posing a lower risk than the active CO alarm. Therefore, the CO event is the dominant anomaly.

Explanation: Given the ambiguity between a genuine hazard and a sensor fault/false positive, and the inability to confirm full resolution due to missing log segments, the confidence is medium.

C06 07:23:00 `living_room_smoke_alarm | Event: COAlarm()` and `COState = 1`

C06 07:07:30 `kitchen_window_contact | BooleanState.StateValue = false` (Open)

C06 07:07:00 `kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = off`

Immediately verify air quality in the living room and kitchen using a dedicated CO detector if available.

Check for any signs of combustion appliance malfunction (furnace, water heater) or gas leaks.

Review additional log segments (C19, C20) to confirm if the CO state cleared or persisted.

Ensure windows are closed if ventilation was unintended, or opened if ventilation is required for safety.

Kitchen window open during cooking activity (potential gas/fire risk or draft)

Front door unlocked state with manual operation log (access security check)

General occupancy patterns indicating presence/absence for context

Temperature stability checks for environmental comfort/safety

C18: Shows the front door lock operation ('unlocked') and the corresponding contact sensor state ('false'/open). This allows verification of whether the door was left unsecured, which is a key security risk.

C00: Provides baseline data for temperature and initial occupancy states at the start of the log period, helping to establish normal conditions before any potential incidents occur.

The CO alarm at 07:23 was a transient false positive or minor nuisance event (e.g., cooking fumes, sensor drift) that cleared immediately without persistent hazard.

C06 shows the `living_room_smoke_alarm` triggered a `COAlarm()` event with `COState=1` at 07:23:00.

However, C07 and C08 show no subsequent CO alarms or elevated CO states; the system returns to normal telemetry patterns.

The kitchen cook surface was turned off at 07:07:00 (C06), prior to the alarm, suggesting any combustion source was removed before the peak detection.

Temperature sensors in the kitchen and living room show stable, gradual increases consistent with morning heating/occupancy, not the rapid spike expected in a fire or severe gas leak.

Does not explain the specific cause of the CO trigger if it wasn't a fault.

Relies on the assumption that 'no further alarms' equals 'no hazard', whereas low-level CO could persist silently.

Front door access at 07:25 and 16:29 represents authorized resident entry/exit with immediate auto-locking, posing no security risk.

At 07:25:25 (C06), the front door lock is manually unlocked (`LockOperationType=1`), followed by contact sensor opening (`false`) and closing (`true`) within 5 seconds, then auto-locked (`LockOperationType=0`).

Entrance occupancy confirms presence during this window.

At 16:29:00 (C18), a similar manual unlock occurs, but the log ends shortly after; however, the pattern matches previous authorized behavior.

No forced entry indicators (e.g., broken contacts, repeated failed locks) are present.

Cannot definitively prove identity of the person entering (resident vs. intruder with key/code).

The 16:29 event lacks confirmation of re-locking in the provided chunks, leaving a small window of uncertainty.

Carbon Monoxide Hazard: A genuine CO event occurred in the living area around 07:23, potentially linked to an unmonitored combustion source or ventilation issue, despite the cooktop being off.

C06 explicitly logs `living_room_smoke_alarm | Event: COAlarm()` and `COState = 1` at 07:23:00.

This event coincides with the dining room being occupied (C06, 07:22:08) and master/kids rooms occupied, indicating people were present in adjacent areas.

The kitchen window contact sensor reported `false` (open) at 07:07:30 (C06), which might suggest an attempt to ventilate, or conversely, a draft affecting sensor readings.

The `kitchen_temp_sensor` reported `None` at 07:08:00 (C06), which could indicate a temporary device dropout due to environmental stress or interference, though this is weak evidence alone.

The alarm did not persist into C07/C08, making it difficult to distinguish from a false positive without historical baseline data for this specific device.

No other devices (e.g., HVAC, furnace) show fault codes or unusual operation states to corroborate a CO source.

The cooktop was off for 16 minutes prior to the alarm, reducing the likelihood of direct cooking fumes unless there is a delayed accumulation or another source.

Security Risk: Unauthorized or Unverified Entry at Front Door.

C06 shows a manual unlock at 07:25:25 followed by a very brief open interval (5 seconds) and auto-lock. While likely a resident, the speed and lack of prolonged occupancy in the entrance zone (entrance_occupancy goes to 1 only at 07:25:28, *after* the lock state change) makes it hard to verify who entered.

If an intruder used a code/key, they could enter and leave quickly. The absence of a 'stay' pattern in the entrance/dining/living rooms immediately following the entry is ambiguous.

C18 shows another manual unlock at 16:29:00, again with no subsequent re-lock confirmation in the chunk, creating a potential blind spot for security status.

Occupancy sensors in adjacent rooms (dining, master bedroom) remain active throughout, suggesting someone is home, which mitigates the 'empty house' intrusion risk.

The auto-lock feature worked correctly, limiting the window of vulnerability.

C06 07:23:00 `living_room_smoke_alarm | Event: COAlarm()` - The primary safety anomaly requiring explanation.

C06 07:07:00 `kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = off` - Context for the CO alarm timing.

C06 07:25:25-07:25:30 `front_door_lock` sequence - Manual unlock -> Open -> Auto-lock, verifying actuator function but leaving identity ambiguous.

C07/C08 absence of CO events - Suggests resolution, but does not rule out lingering low-level CO or false positive.

Historical baseline for the `living_room_smoke_alarm` CO sensor to determine sensitivity/thresholds.

Status of other combustion sources (furnace, water heater, fireplace) during the 07:23 window.

Confirmation of whether the front door was re-locked after the 16:29 event in C18.

Audio/video logs from the entrance camera (if available) to identify the person at 07:25 and 16:29.

Verification of front door lock state after the 16:29 manual unlock event (is it still unlocked or has it auto-locked?).

Confirmation of kitchen window contact sensor state at the time of the CO alarm (was it open/closed?).

Check for any other combustion sources (furnace, water heater) activity during the 07:23 CO alarm window.

Review C19/C20 to confirm if the 16:29 door event resulted in a secure state or remained an open security gap.

The investigator correctly identified the CO alarm and door lock events but failed to retrieve the critical post-event chunks (C19, C20) needed to resolve the status of these events.

For the CO alarm: The investigation relies on the absence of further alarms in C07/C08 to dismiss the hazard. However, without checking subsequent chunks for delayed effects or device resets, this is speculative. The 'None' temperature reading in C06 is noted as weak evidence but not fully explored for correlation with the alarm.

For the Door Lock: The 16:29 event in C18 shows a manual unlock but no corresponding close/lock sequence within that chunk. The investigator notes this uncertainty but does not request the immediate following chunks (C19/C20) to verify if the auto-lock engaged. This leaves a potential security risk unverified.

The current conclusion leans towards 'normal' based on incomplete data. A definitive safety verdict requires confirming the final state of the door and ensuring no lingering CO issues.

False-alarm risk is high because the 'safety cleared' conclusion depends on missing log segments rather than positive confirmation of safe states.

The home is in a normal state with standard occupancy patterns and no active safety threats. The CO alarm event was likely a false positive or transient spike that resolved without incident, and the kitchen window was open for ventilation during/after cooking.

C06: Kitchen cook surface turned off at 07:07, before the CO alarm triggered at 07:23.

C06: Front door lock operation shows a manual unlock followed by an automatic re-lock within 5 seconds (07:25:25 to 07:25:30), indicating a secure entry/exit cycle rather than a security breach.

C06: Occupancy sensors show people present in dining room, master bedroom, and kids room, suggesting supervision is available elsewhere in the house.

C06: No fire alarm events recorded; only CO alarm.

Does not fully explain why the CO alarm triggered if the cooktop was off and no other combustion sources are evident.

Assumes the 'open' window contact sensor (false) was intentional ventilation rather than a hazard.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hazard: A Carbon Monoxide alarm triggered in the living room while occupants were present, potentially indicating a hidden CO source (e.g., faulty furnace, adjacent neighbor's leak, or residual fumes from cooking). Although the cooktop was off, the timing suggests a lingering or secondary issue.

C06: At 07:23:00, `living_room_smoke_alarm` reports `COState = 1`, `ExpressedState = 2`, and triggers `Event: COAlarm()`.

C06: This occurs shortly after kitchen activity (cook surface off at 07:07) and when multiple rooms (dining, master, kids) are occupied.

C06: Kitchen temperature remained stable (~25.2 C) with no sudden spikes, making immediate thermal runaway less likely, but CO can accumulate without significant heat changes.

No explicit 'ventilation failed' or 'high CO concentration' numeric value is provided, only the alarm trigger.

The cooktop was already off, so direct causality from current cooking is weak; requires assumption of residual gas or external source.

Security Risk / Unsecured Entry: The front door was manually unlocked and left open for a brief period, potentially allowing unauthorized access or tailgating, although it was auto-locked quickly.

C06: At 07:25:25, `front_door_lock` performs a Manual Unlock (`LockOperationType=1`).

C06: Immediately after, `front_door_contact` reports `false` (open) at 07:25:27.

C06: The door is auto-locked at 07:25:30, leaving a ~5 second window where the door was physically open/unlocked.

C06: Entrance occupancy becomes 'occupied' at 07:25:28, coinciding with the open door state.

The auto-lock engaged very quickly (5 seconds), minimizing the risk window.

Entrance occupancy confirms someone was present, which could be a resident entering normally.

No evidence of forced entry or repeated failed attempts.

Environmental Safety Risk: Kitchen window was reported as open ('false' on contact sensor) while occupants were present in the kitchen/dining area, potentially creating a draft or security vulnerability if unattended.

C06: At 07:07:30, `kitchen_window_contact` reports `false` (open).

C06: Dining room and kitchen areas have occupancy data around this time (Dining occupied at 07:07:08).

C06: Cook surface was off, but the open window persists through the morning period.

Open windows are common for ventilation and not inherently dangerous unless combined with extreme weather or security risks.

No evidence of the window being left open overnight or when unoccupied.

C06:07:23:00 - COAlarm() event in living room with COState=1.

C06:07:25:25 - Manual unlock of front door followed by immediate auto-lock.

C06:07:07:30 - Kitchen window contact sensor reporting 'false' (open).

Actual CO concentration levels (ppm) to determine severity of the alarm.

Status of HVAC system or other potential CO sources (furnace, water heater) to rule out mechanical failure.

Video or additional sensor data to confirm if the person entering the front door was a resident or an intruder.

Reason for the kitchen window being open (ventilation vs. accidental).

C06 shows the `living_room_smoke_alarm` triggered a `COAlarm()` event with `COState=1` at 07:23:00.

However, C07 and C08 show no subsequent CO alarms or elevated CO states; the system returns to normal telemetry patterns.

Does not explain the specific cause of the CO trigger if it wasn't a fault.

Relies on the assumption that 'no further alarms' equals 'no hazard', whereas low-level CO could persist silently.

Entrance occupancy confirms presence during this window.

No forced entry indicators (e.g., broken contacts, repeated failed locks) are present.

Cannot definitively prove identity of the person entering (resident vs. intruder with key/code).

The 16:29 event lacks confirmation of re-locking in the provided chunks, leaving a small window of uncertainty.

C06 explicitly logs `living_room_smoke_alarm | Event: COAlarm()` and `COState = 1` at 07:23:00.

No other devices (e.g., HVAC, furnace) show fault codes or unusual operation states to corroborate a CO source.

The auto-lock feature worked correctly, limiting the window of vulnerability.

Verify if the CO alarm in C06 was a transient event or persisted into subsequent time windows (check C07/C08 for COState=1 or continued alarms).

Check for HVAC system logs or other combustion sources (furnace/water heater) to corroborate the CO source hypothesis.

Confirm the status of the kitchen window contact sensor in subsequent chunks to see if it remained open (potential draft/cooling issue) or closed.

Investigate the 'None' temperature reading for the kitchen sensor at 07:08:00 in C06 to rule out device malfunction vs. normal operation gap.

The investigator correctly identified potential risks (CO, Security, Window) but relied heavily on a single snapshot (C06) without verifying persistence or resolution.

The CO alarm is a critical safety signal; concluding it might be a 'false positive' based solely on the cooktop being off is speculative. We need to know if the alarm cleared or if CO levels remained high in the following minutes/hours.

The 'None' temperature value in C06 is flagged as a potential data dropout, but without adjacent context, it's unclear if this indicates a sensor fault or just a missing update. This contributes to false-alarm risk regarding device health.

The security analysis of the front door is reasonable but lacks confirmation of who entered (resident vs intruder), though occupancy sensors help. However, the primary concern is the CO alarm which requires temporal follow-up.

Requesting C07 and C08 to check the immediate aftermath of the 07:23 CO alarm and the state of devices post-incident.

## 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: 三室两厅 (3BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- dining_room: 餐厅灯<dimmable_light>, 餐厅运动传感器<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>
- kids_room: 儿童房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 儿童房灯<dimmable_light>, 儿童房窗帘<window_covering>, 儿童房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 儿童房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅副灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅氛围灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘1<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器1<contact_sensor>, 客厅窗户传感器2<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bathroom: 主卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 主卫灯<onoff_light>, 主卫运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧床头灯<onoff_light>, 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_bathroom: 次卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 次卫灯<onoff_light>
- second_bedroom: 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧空调<air_conditioner>, 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": 402,
    "master_bedroom": 520,
    "kids_room": 521,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 222,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 54,
    "entrance": 229,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1093,
    "OnOff": 26,

## 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": [
      "all"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "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",
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "kitchen_water_leak_detector",
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "kitchen_window_contact",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "master_bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C18",
    "C00"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Kitchen window open during cooking activity (potential gas/fire risk or draft)",
    "Front door unlocked state with manual operation log (access security check)",
    "General occupancy patterns indicating presence/absence for context",
    "Temperature stability checks for environmental comfort/safety"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06: Contains critical safety-relevant events in the kitchen, specifically the cook surface being off and the kitchen window contact sensor reporting 'false' (open) while occupants are present. This is a primary candidate for identifying a specific safety hazard.",
    "C18: Shows the front door lock operation ('unlocked') and the corresponding contact sensor state ('false'/open). This allows verification of whether the d