FG-04-FP: 低电量报警但传感器仍正常工作

The cook surface was activated and left on for 15 minutes without confirmed supervision, resulting in a smoke alarm trigger, indicating an unattended cooking incident.

Explanation: Temporal Sequence Analysis: The logs show the kitchen cook surface turned ON at 14:04. Approximately 10 minutes later, at 14:14, the smoke alarm triggered (SmokeState=1). The cook surface was turned OFF at 14:19, and the smoke alarm cleared at 14:24.

Explanation: Causal Link: The tight temporal correlation between the appliance activation and the smoke event strongly suggests the smoke was generated by the cooking process (e.g., burning food or oil) rather than a random device fault.

Explanation: Supervision Gap: All occupancy sensors in the house report 'unoccupied' during the relevant window (14:04-14:24). While this does not definitively prove no one was present (sensors can be missed), the absence of any positive occupancy signal combined with the lack of immediate manual intervention until after the alarm suggests the cooking was unsupervised or poorly monitored.

Explanation: Risk Assessment: Leaving a heat source active for 15 minutes without visible supervision is a recognized safety hazard (unattended cooking). The fact that it resulted in smoke confirms the risk materialized into a minor fire/smoke event.

Explanation: Refutation of Alternative Hypotheses: While a low-battery false alarm is possible (noted in C00 from previous day), the specific timing relative to the stove being ON makes a coincidence less likely than a causal link. Furthermore, even if it were a false alarm, the actuator state (stove ON) remains a safety concern if unattended.

kitchen_cook_surface OnOff.OnOff = on (14:04)

kitchen_smoke_alarm SmokeCoAlarm.SmokeState = 1 (14:14)

kitchen_cook_surface OnOff.OnOff = off (14:19)

All room OccupancySensing.Occupancy = unoccupied (raw=0) during 14:04-14:24

Verify with the user if they were present in the kitchen during the event.

Check the battery status of the smoke alarm to rule out future false positives.

Advise on kitchen safety protocols regarding unattended cooking.

判断刚刚发生的事件（厨房烟雾报警器触发、灶具开启）是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

SmokeCoAlarm.SmokeState = 1 (Fire/Smoke detected)

OnOff.OnOff = on (Cooking appliance active)

BatteryAlert history (Potential false alarm or maintenance issue)

Temporal sequence: Cook surface turned ON at 14:04, SmokeState=1 at 14:14, Cook surface turned OFF at 14:19, SmokeState=0 at 14:24.

The short duration of the alarm (10 minutes) and immediate cessation of heat source suggest a localized, non-structural fire event typical of cooking accidents.

No evidence of persistent high temperatures in the kitchen sensor (remained ~24.5-24.8 C), indicating no sustained thermal escalation.

Does not fully explain why the alarm triggered only 10 minutes after ignition without earlier warning, unless the smoke density threshold was just crossed.

Relies on the assumption that 'cooking' is the sole cause of smoke, ignoring potential device faults.

The smoke alarm triggered a false positive due to low battery or sensor drift, unrelated to actual fire or cooking activity.

C00 shows a BatteryAlert on June 19. While not confirmed active at 14:14, low battery is a common cause of false alarms in smart smoke detectors.

The kitchen temperature did not rise significantly during the event, which might be inconsistent with a real fire but consistent with a false alarm triggered by non-combustible particulates or electrical noise.

The alarm cleared automatically shortly after the cook surface was turned off, which could coincidentally align with a false alarm clearing or settling.

Lacks direct confirmation that BatteryAlert was active at 14:14; it was recorded 24 hours prior.

The tight coupling between the cook surface state change and the alarm state makes a pure coincidence less likely than a causal link.

Unattended Cooking Risk: The cook surface was left on for an extended period (15 minutes) without supervision, leading to a smoke event. The lack of kitchen occupancy logs prevents confirming if anyone was present to monitor the cooking, creating a safety gap.

Cook surface remained ON from 14:04 to 14:19 (15 minutes).

Smoke alarm triggered at 14:14, while the cook surface was still ON.

No kitchen occupancy sensor data is available in the provided chunks to confirm human presence/supervision during this window.

Other rooms show 'unoccupied' status consistently, suggesting the house may have been empty or the occupant was elsewhere, increasing the risk profile of unattended appliances.

The supervisor noted that relying on the absence of occupancy data is speculative; the occupant might simply not have triggered the sensor or the sensor might be missing.

The event resolved itself when the user manually turned off the stove, implying someone was nearby to act, contradicting the 'completely unattended' narrative.

Device Fault / False Alarm: The smoke alarm triggered erroneously, possibly due to the previously reported low battery condition, causing unnecessary panic or resource usage.

History of BatteryAlert in C00 (June 19).

No corroborating evidence of fire (e.g., rapid temp spike, multiple alarms, lock failures) beyond the single smoke sensor reading.

The quick resolution suggests the system didn't escalate to emergency services or other safety protocols, which might happen in a verified fire scenario depending on configuration.

Cannot definitively prove the battery alert was active at the time of the event without C09/C10 data.

The temporal correlation with the cook surface being ON is strong, making a pure device fault less probable than a cooking-related trigger.

The precise timing of the SmokeState=1 (14:14) occurring while the cook surface was ON (14:04-14:19) strongly links the alarm to the appliance.

The absence of kitchen occupancy logs creates ambiguity regarding supervision, which is critical for assessing 'unattended cooking' risk.

The prior BatteryAlert (C00) provides a plausible alternative explanation (false alarm) but lacks temporal proximity to the event.

Kitchen occupancy status during 14:04-14:24 to determine if the cooking was supervised.

BatteryAlert status at 14:14 to rule out or confirm low-battery-induced false alarm.

Confirmation of whether the smoke alarm was manually acknowledged or if it auto-reset, which helps distinguish between a clearable nuisance alarm and a persistent hazard.

Verify if the 'BatteryAlert' in C00 (June 19) was still active or cleared by June 20 14:14.

Check for any manual acknowledgment or reset events of the smoke alarm between 14:14 and 14:24.

Confirm if the cook surface state change at 14:04 was a deliberate user action or an automated script/accidental touch, given the lack of occupancy logs.

Investigate if there are other sensors (e.g., CO sensor if available, or adjacent room temps) that show correlated anomalies during the event window.

The investigator correctly identified the core sequence (Cook ON -> Smoke Alarm -> Cook OFF -> Smoke Clear) in C11.

However, the investigation relies heavily on 'absence of evidence' (no occupancy logs) to construct the 'unattended cooking' risk hypothesis. This is speculative without corroborating context.

The 'BatteryAlert' in C00 is from June 19, over 24 hours prior. The investigator notes this but does not verify its status at the time of the event. A low-battery false positive is a strong alternative explanation that needs verification via adjacent chunks (C02-C07) covering the intervening day.

The temperature data in C11 shows no spike, which supports both 'cooking smoke' (localized particulate) and 'false alarm'. It does not rule out either. The lack of temp spike is not sufficient to dismiss a fire risk entirely, nor is it sufficient to confirm a fault.

The current chunks (C00, C11, C12) skip the entire period between June 19 14:04 and June 20 14:04. We need to see if the battery alert persisted, if there were other minor alarms, or if the system was in a maintenance mode.

Without verifying the battery status and checking for any other contextual events in the missing chunks, the conclusion remains ambiguous. Do not finalize yet.

The event was a false alarm triggered by the smoke detector's low battery status, coincidentally occurring while the cooktop was turned on. The user likely noticed the alarm or the battery alert (seen in C00) and manually cleared the sensor state.

C00 shows `kitchen_smoke_alarm.BatteryAlert = 1` at 14:04:00 on June 19, indicating a known maintenance issue with the device.

C11 shows `SmokeState` flipping to 1 at 14:14:00 and back to 0 at 14:24:00, a transient event consistent with a glitch or minor irritant rather than a sustained fire.

The cooktop (`OnOff`) was active from 14:04 to 14:19, which is a short duration for cooking, suggesting normal use or quick attention.

Temperature readings in the kitchen remained stable (~24-25°C), showing no thermal escalation indicative of a fire.

Does not fully explain why a low-battery alert would trigger a smoke detection state change unless the device has a specific fault mode linking the two, which is less common than actual smoke triggering the alarm.

Assumes manual intervention to clear the alarm without explicit 'acknowledge' logs.

The event was a genuine but minor cooking-related smoke event (e.g., oil splatter or steam) that triggered the alarm. The user responded by turning off the cooktop shortly after the alarm, mitigating the risk.

Temporal correlation: Cooktop turned ON at 14:04, SmokeState triggered at 14:14 (10 minutes later), and Cooktop turned OFF at 14:19 (5 minutes after alarm).

This sequence suggests a causal link between cooking activity and the smoke event.

The rapid resolution (alarm cleared within 10 minutes) indicates successful mitigation by an occupant.

No other safety devices (CO, water leak) were triggered, limiting the scope to local smoke.

Requires assuming an occupant was present and responsive, as occupancy sensors show 'unoccupied' in adjacent rooms during this time (though kitchen occupancy isn't explicitly logged as occupied in the snippet, the response implies presence).

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk: The cooktop was left unattended, leading to a smoke event. Although the cooktop was eventually turned off, the delay between the alarm and the action (or lack of immediate action before the alarm) poses a safety risk.

Smoke alarm triggered at 14:14, exactly 10 minutes after ignition.

Cooktop turned OFF at 14:19, 5 minutes after the alarm.

Occupancy sensors in surrounding rooms (Living Room, Dining Room, etc.) show 'unoccupied' (raw=0) throughout the period, raising questions about who was in the kitchen.

The combination of heat source activation followed by smoke detection is a classic precursor to fire incidents.

The cooktop was turned off relatively quickly after the alarm, suggesting some level of supervision or automated response.

No evidence of fire spread or temperature spike beyond normal ambient fluctuations.

Could be explained by N2 (minor cooking smoke) rather than a dangerous fire risk.

Device Malfunction / False Alarm due to Battery Alert: The smoke alarm triggered erroneously due to its low battery condition (noted in C00), creating a nuisance event and potential confusion for occupants.

Explicit `BatteryAlert = 1` recorded in C00 for the same device just one day prior.

Low battery can cause erratic behavior in smoke detectors, including false positives.

The smoke state cleared automatically or via brief interaction without visible fire evidence (stable temps).

If the device is failing, it may not function correctly in a real emergency, constituting a latent safety threat.

Does not account for the temporal proximity to the cooktop being on; coincidence is possible but less explanatory than a direct causal link.

Requires assuming the battery alert directly caused the smoke state, which is a specific failure mode not universally documented.

The precise timing: Cooktop ON (14:04) -> Smoke Alarm (14:14) -> Cooktop OFF (14:19).

The presence of `BatteryAlert = 1` in C00 for the kitchen smoke alarm.

The stability of temperature readings (~24-25°C) ruling out a large thermal event like a house fire.

The 'unoccupied' status of adjacent rooms, which contrasts with the active cooking/smoke event in the kitchen.

Direct occupancy status of the kitchen itself (is there a motion sensor or occupancy sensor in the kitchen? The query mentions `kitchen_occupancy` in signals but the chunks only show `living_room_occupancy`, etc.).

Whether the smoke alarm was manually acknowledged/cleared or if it reset automatically.

Audio logs or camera footage to confirm if an occupant was present and reacting.

History of previous false alarms from this specific device.

Cook surface remained ON from 14:04 to 14:19 (15 minutes).

Smoke alarm triggered at 14:14, while the cook surface was still ON.

No kitchen occupancy sensor data is available in the provided chunks to confirm human presence/supervision during this window.

History of BatteryAlert in C00 (June 19).

Direct occupancy status of the kitchen (kitchen_occupancy) during the event window.

Confirmation of manual acknowledgment or auto-reset mechanism for the smoke alarm.

Contextual logs immediately preceding C11 to verify if 'BatteryAlert' was active at the exact moment of SmokeState=1.

The investigator correctly identified the temporal sequence (Cook ON -> Smoke -> Cook OFF) and noted the BatteryAlert in C00. However, C00 only shows a BatteryAlert on June 19, while the event is on June 20. The investigator assumes this alert persisted without verifying its state in the immediate pre-event context (likely in C09/C10).

Crucially, the investigation relies heavily on the absence of kitchen occupancy data to infer 'unattended cooking' risk, but no kitchen occupancy sensor logs are present in the provided chunks. This makes the 'unattended' hypothesis speculative rather than evidence-based.

The distinction between a genuine fire/smoke event and a device fault/false alarm due to low battery requires checking if the BatteryAlert was still active at 14:14. If it was, the false-alarm risk increases significantly. If not, the causal link to cooking is stronger.

Requesting adjacent chunks (C09, C10) to check the state of the smoke alarm and battery status immediately before the event is necessary to resolve the ambiguity between device health issues and actual safety threats.

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "kitchen_smoke_alarm",
      "kitchen_cook_surface"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断刚刚发生的事件（厨房烟雾报警器触发、灶具开启）是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_alarm",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C11",
    "C00"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "SmokeCoAlarm.SmokeState = 1 (Fire/Smoke detected)",
    "OnOff.OnOff = on (Cooking appliance active)",
    "BatteryAlert history (Potential false alarm or maintenance issue)"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C11 contains the critical event sequence: cook surface turned ON followed immediately by SmokeState=1, which is the primary evidence for a potential fire or cooking-related smoke threat.",
    "C00 provides context for the 'BatteryAlert' seen in C11's attribute frequency and preview, helping to distinguish between a genuine smoke event and a device fault/false alarm due to low battery."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The event was a transient cooking-related smoke incident (e.g., burning food or oil) that was quickly mitigated by turning off the cook surface, resulting in a self-resolving alarm.",
      "evidence": [
        "Temporal sequence: Cook surface turned ON at 14:04, SmokeState=1 at 14:14, Cook surface turned OFF at 14:19, SmokeState


开窗前住户先在同一房间活动并开灯，是主动行为

The events constitute a normal morning routine with no evidence of security threats or safety hazards.

Explanation: The Investigator's primary hypothesis for intrusion (A1) relies on data from C06 (07:11 lock event) but incorrectly attributed it to C00-C02. Reviewing the actual C06 logs reveals a standard entry sequence: Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Occupancy Detected -> Door Close -> Auto Lock. The 3-second delay between door close and occupancy detection is consistent with PIR sensor latency and does not indicate unauthorized access or tailgating.

Explanation: The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis (A2) is unsupported. The cook surface was active for only 15 minutes (06:35-06:51), which is a typical duration for breakfast preparation. The subsequent activation of dining room occupancy at 06:51 confirms supervision resumed immediately after cooking stopped. The single temperature sensor dropout ('None') is a transient telemetry issue, not evidence of fire risk or device failure requiring escalation.

Explanation: No forced entry indicators, repeated failed lock attempts, or hazardous environmental spikes were observed. The system behavior aligns with expected normal operation.

C06: Front door lock manual unlock at 07:11:34 followed by auto-lock at 07:11:41, with contact sensor showing open/closed transition and entrance occupancy detected shortly after.

C05: Kitchen cook surface activated at 06:35:37 and deactivated at 06:51:00, coinciding with dining room occupancy activation at 06:51:09.

No action required; continue monitoring.

Investigate intermittent kitchen temperature sensor dropout if it recurs frequently.

MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.

enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code

These logs follow Matter-style smart-home event semantics.

OccupancySensing.Occupancy uses 0=unoccupied and 1=occupied.

DoorLock.LockState is an enumerated state; formatted logs may show both the label and the raw code.

判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

Door lock state flips without corresponding occupancy or contact sensor changes indicating entry/exit

Potential unauthorized access attempt or malfunctioning lock mechanism

C00 covers the start of the period (00:00) where initial lock states and occupancy baselines are established.

判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

Normal morning routine with authorized entry and standard appliance usage.

At 07:11:34, the front door lock is manually unlocked (LockOperationType=1, Manual).

Immediately after unlocking, the contact sensor shows 'false' (open) at 07:11:36, then 'true' (closed) at 07:11:40.

The lock auto-locks (LockOperationType=0, Auto) at 07:11:41, consistent with a resident entering and closing the door behind them.

Occupancy sensors in the master bedroom, kids room, and dining room transition to 'occupied' shortly after (05:56 onwards), indicating normal waking activity.

Kitchen lights and cook surface activate at 06:35, followed by deactivation at 06:51, suggesting a short, supervised cooking event.

Does not fully explain the brief telemetry dropout of the kitchen temperature sensor at 06:36 and 06:52, though this is likely minor device noise rather than a safety threat.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating due to rapid lock state changes without clear occupancy correlation at the entrance initially.

The lock unlocks manually at 07:11:34 but re-locks automatically just 7 seconds later at 07:11:41.

The entrance occupancy sensor only transitions to 'occupied' at 07:11:37, which is *after* the door was already closed (contact=true at 07:11:40) and nearly simultaneous with the auto-lock.

This tight sequence (Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Occupied -> Lock) leaves a very narrow window for human presence detection, raising questions about whether the occupant was detected reliably or if the auto-lock triggered prematurely before full entry confirmation.

Previous chunks (C00-C02) showed no lock events, making this single event the primary data point for security analysis.

The manual unlock followed by an immediate close and auto-lock is a common pattern for residents entering quickly. The 3-second gap between door close and occupancy detection is within typical PIR sensor latency ranges.

No forced entry indicators (e.g., multiple failed attempts, break-in alarms) are present.

Subsequent occupancy patterns show normal household activity, contradicting a sustained intrusion scenario.

Unattended cooking risk due to cook surface activation and subsequent sensor dropout.

Kitchen cook surface turns on at 06:35:37.

Kitchen temperature sensor reports 'None' at 06:36:07, just 30 seconds after the cook surface activates.

The cook surface turns off at 06:51:00, implying a 15-minute duration.

While the dining room becomes occupied at 06:51, there is a gap where the specific kitchen occupancy is not explicitly logged as 'occupied' during the peak heat generation phase (06:35-06:51), relying instead on inference from other rooms.

The cook surface was turned off relatively quickly (15 mins), which is a typical duration for breakfast preparation.

Dining room occupancy became active at 06:51, coinciding with the cook surface turning off, suggesting supervision was present or resumed.

The temperature sensor dropout ('None') is isolated and does not indicate a fire (no sustained high-temp spike recorded before the dropout).

The precise timestamp sequence of the front door lock operations (Manual Unlock 07:11:34 -> Contact Open/Close 07:11:36/40 -> Auto Lock 07:11:41) vs. Entrance Occupancy (07:11:37).

The activation and deactivation timestamps of the kitchen_cook_surface (06:35:37 - 06:51:00) relative to the kitchen_temp_sensor dropouts (06:36:07, 06:52:00).

Direct confirmation of who performed the manual unlock at 07:11:34 (e.g., via app log or biometric data).

Clarification on why the kitchen temperature sensor dropped out exactly when the cook surface was active (hardware fault vs. environmental interference).

Audio or video logs from the entrance or kitchen to verify the nature of the entry and cooking activity.

The Investigator Output references events at 07:11 (unlock/lock sequence) which are located in C06, but the 'why_these_chunks' justification incorrectly claims C00-C02 cover these events. This indicates a significant protocol-format misunderstanding or data retrieval error.

The investigation relies heavily on 'missing' kitchen occupancy logs to infer unattended cooking risk, which is weak evidence without corroborating hazardous escalation (fire/smoke alarms) or explicit device faults.

The temperature sensor dropout ('None') is treated as a potential fault indicator, but no direct fault evidence (repeated failures, stuck values) is present in the provided chunks to confirm malfunction versus transient noise.

The lock auto-lock behavior is analyzed for security threat, but the analysis fails to check if this is a standard configuration by looking for consistent patterns across other entries or explicit user settings/logs.

CRITICAL ERROR: The Investigator's 'why_these_chunks' section states that C01 and C02 cover 'lock_state_flips', but the actual log data for the relevant door lock event (07:11) is in C06. C00-C02 contain only nighttime temperature and occupancy baselines with no lock activity. This suggests the investigator is hallucinating data locations or misinterpreting the chunk boundaries.

The 'unattended_cooking' hypothesis is speculative. It rests on a single telemetry dropout and inferred lack of supervision, lacking direct evidence of hazard (e.g., high temp spike, smoke alarm). Per rules, this is a high false-alarm risk scenario.

The 'intrusion' hypothesis is also weak, relying on timing gaps between contact sensors and PIR occupancy, which are known to have latency differences. No forced entry indicators were found.

The investigation needs to verify the actual content of C06 (which contains the lock event) and potentially C07 (post-event context) to properly assess the lock behavior and any subsequent safety implications. The current focus on C00-C02 is irrelevant to the specific security question about the morning entry.

The system is in a normal 'night mode' or unoccupied state. The house is empty, and the door lock is simply maintaining its locked state with occasional status reports (the 5 flips). No security threat exists because there is no evidence of entry or forced access.

All occupancy sensors across all rooms (living_room, master_bedroom, kids_room, kitchen, dining_room, second_bedroom, bathrooms, entrance) consistently report 'unoccupied' (raw=0) throughout the entire period from 00:00 to 03:45.

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

The 'lock_state_flips' count of 5 is low and could represent routine status polling or minor mechanical settling rather than active tampering, especially given the complete lack of corresponding occupancy or contact sensor triggers.

Does not fully explain why the lock state would flip 5 times without any human presence or external trigger if the lock is functioning perfectly and undisturbed.

Relies on the assumption that 'unoccupied' sensors are accurate and not bypassed, which cannot be verified solely from these logs.

Potential unauthorized access attempt or lock malfunction at the entrance. The 5 lock state flips occurred while the entrance was confirmed unoccupied by motion/occupancy sensors. This discrepancy suggests either an automated lock cycle failing to register a user (malfunction) or an attempt to manipulate the lock without triggering the occupancy sensor (intrusion/tailgating via blind spot).

Structured signals indicate exactly 5 'lock_state_flips' for the door_lock device.

Focused chunks C00-C02 show continuous 'unoccupied' status for 'entrance_occupancy' (raw=0) throughout the monitoring window.

There is a temporal disconnect: Lock activity (flips) is present, but the expected corroboration (human presence in the entrance room or a contact sensor opening/closing) is absent.

The query specifically targets the entrance door_lock and contact_sensor, highlighting this as the area of concern.

The logs provided do not explicitly show the timestamps of the 5 lock flips relative to the occupancy checks, making it hard to prove they happened simultaneously vs. just during the same general night period.

Without explicit 'contact_sensor' open/close events in the focused chunks, we cannot confirm if the door physically opened. The absence of contact data might mean the sensor wasn't triggered, or the data wasn't logged.

Could be a false positive due to a glitchy lock reporting state changes incorrectly.

The combination of 'lock_state_flips: 5' in structured signals versus 'entrance_occupancy: unoccupied (raw=0)' continuously in the raw logs.

The specific focus on 'door_lock' and 'contact_sensor' in the triage output implies these devices showed anomalous behavior compared to the rest of the static household telemetry.

Timestamps of the specific 5 lock state flips to correlate them precisely with any potential micro-movements or contact sensor states.

Raw logs for the 'contact_sensor' at the entrance to see if the door was physically opened/closed even if occupancy wasn't detected.

History of the lock's state before 00:00 to determine if the flips were part of a recurring pattern or a new event.

Confirmation of whether the 'contact_sensor' is functional and logging correctly, as its absence in the detailed chunks is notable.

At 07:11:34, the front door lock is manually unlocked (LockOperationType=1, Manual).

Immediately after unlocking, the contact sensor shows 'false' (open) at 07:11:36, then 'true' (closed) at 07:11:40.

The lock unlocks manually at 07:11:34 but re-locks automatically just 7 seconds later at 07:11:41.

Kitchen cook surface turns on at 06:35:37.

Kitchen temperature sensor reports 'None' at 06:36:07, just 30 seconds after the cook surface activates.

The cook surface turns off at 06:51:00, implying a 15-minute duration.

Direct logs for 'door_lock' (LockState) are completely missing from the provided chunks C00-C02.

Direct logs for 'contact_sensor' at the entrance are missing.

The investigator relies on a summary metric ('5 lock_state_flips') not present in the raw text of the focused chunks, creating a disconnect between evidence and analysis.

No evidence of forced entry, alarm triggers, or abnormal temperature spikes is present in the current data.

CRITICAL: The Investigator's output claims there were '5 lock_state_flips' and focuses heavily on this anomaly. However, the provided Focused Chunks (C00-C02) contain ONLY TemperatureMeasurement and OccupancySensing events. There are NO DoorLock or ContactSensor logs in these chunks.

The Investigator appears to be hallucinating or referencing external metadata not included in the context window, or misinterpreting the 'suspected_patterns' from the Triage Output as observed facts.

Without the actual DoorLock logs, it is impossible to verify if the lock flipped, if it was stuck, or if it malfunctioned. The current evidence only shows a normal, unoccupied house with stable temperatures.

Concluding a security threat or device fault based solely on occupancy/temperature data while ignoring the absence of the primary target device's logs is a severe protocol error.

Risk of false alarm is high because the 'anomaly' (lock flips) is unsubstantiated by the provided text, and the 'normalcy' (unoccupied) is consistent with no threat.

Need to retrieve chunks containing the door_lock and contact_sensor events to perform a valid correlation analysis.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 521,
    "kids_room": 514,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 223,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 53,
    "entrance": 231,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1089,
    "OnOff": 28,
    "StateValue":

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "door_lock",
    "contact_sensor",
    "entrance_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C01",
    "C02"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Door lock state flips without corresponding occupancy or contact sensor changes indicating entry/exit",
    "Potential unauthorized access attempt or malfunctioning lock mechanism"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00 covers the start of the period (00:00) where initial lock states and occupancy baselines are established.",
    "C01 and C02 cover the subsequent hours where 'lock_state_flips' (5 total in deterministic signals) likely occur, allowing inspection of whether these flips correlate with human presence (occupancy) or door opening (contact sensor).",
    "These chunks allow distinguishing between a security threat (unauthorized entry attempts) and normal operation or device fault."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal morning routine with authorized entry and standard appliance usage.",
      "evidence": [
        "At 07:11:34, the front door lock is manually unlocked (LockOperationType=1, Manual).",
        "Immediately after unlocking, the contact sensor shows 'false' (open) at 07:11:36, then 'true' (c


开窗前住户先在同一房间活动并开灯，是主动行为

No security threat detected; the smart home environment is in a normal, unoccupied state with stable environmental readings and no unauthorized access indicators.

Explanation: Analysis of focused chunks C00 (midnight) and C18 (late night) shows all occupancy sensors consistently reporting 'unoccupied' (raw=0), indicating no presence in any room.

Explanation: Temperature sensors report stable values within a normal residential range (~22.5°C - 23.1°C) with gradual fluctuations typical of an unoccupied home, ruling out fire or equipment overheating.

Explanation: There are no lock state flips, contact sensor activations, or OnOff command anomalies, which eliminates evidence of forced entry, stealth intrusion, or device tampering.

Explanation: The investigator's hypotheses for stealth intrusion or sensor malfunction were correctly identified as speculative due to the complete lack of corroborating evidence (e.g., no contradictory sensor data or fault codes).

Explanation: Based on the absence of any hazardous sequences or abnormal transitions, the system concludes there is no security threat.

All occupancy sensors consistently report 'unoccupied' across all rooms in both C00 and C18.

Zero lock state flips and no contact sensor triggers at the entrance.

Stable temperature readings (~22-23°C) with no extreme spikes indicating fire or failure.

Continue standard monitoring.
No immediate action required.

The smart home environment is in a normal, unoccupied state with no security threats. All sensors are functioning within expected parameters for an empty house.

OccupancySensing.Occupancy is consistently 0 (unoccupied) across all rooms (living_room, master_bedroom, kids_room, kitchen, entrance, etc.) throughout the entire observation period (C00 and C18).

Temperature measurements show stable, gradual fluctuations typical of passive environmental changes in an unoccupied home (e.g., living room ranging from ~22.6°C to ~23.1°C), with no sudden spikes indicating fire or equipment failure.

Lock state flips are recorded as 0 in structured signals, and no door lock events appear in the focused chunks, indicating no unauthorized entry attempts.

No OnOff commands or StateValue changes were detected, suggesting no active device manipulation or automation triggers occurred.

Relies on the assumption that occupancy sensors are accurate and not bypassed; however, the consistency across multiple sensor types (temperature stability + lack of motion/occupancy) supports this.

Potential stealth intrusion or sensor bypass where an intruder has disabled or avoided detection by occupancy sensors, though no direct evidence of breach exists yet.

The query specifically asks about security threats, prompting a check for anomalies even in quiet logs.

If an intruder were present but avoiding detection, they might disable motion sensors or remain perfectly still, resulting in 'unoccupied' readings despite physical presence.

There is zero corroborating evidence: no lock state changes, no contact sensor activations at the entrance, no temperature anomalies (which would occur if bodies were present in enclosed spaces over time), and no device faults indicating tampering.

The hypothesis relies entirely on speculation rather than observed data patterns.

Structured signals confirm 'lock_state_flips: 0', directly contradicting a forced entry scenario.

Sensor malfunction causing false 'unoccupied' reports, potentially masking a real event.

All occupancy sensors report 'unoccupied' for long durations without any transition to 'occupied'.

If the sensors were stuck in the 'unoccupied' state due to a fault, it could hide a safety issue (e.g., a person collapsed in a room).

Matter notes explicitly state that boolean states should be interpreted using transitions; the absence of transitions here is consistent with an unoccupied home, not necessarily a fault.

Temperature sensors are reporting valid, fluctuating values, suggesting the network and other sensors are working, making a total occupancy sensor failure less likely without other signs.

No explicit fault codes or alarm events are present.

Consistent 'unoccupied' (raw=0) status across all rooms in both C00 and C18 chunks.

Zero lock state flips in structured signals.

Stable, non-extreme temperature readings across all sensors, ruling out fire or extreme environmental hazards.

Absence of any OnOff commands or actuator activity.

Audio or video feed analysis to confirm visual absence of persons (though not available in text logs).

Historical baseline of occupancy patterns to confirm if 'always unoccupied' is unusual for this time of day (though midnight/late night makes unoccupied highly probable).

Status of external perimeter sensors (windows, garage) which are not detailed in the focused chunks beyond the entrance contact/occupancy.

The investigator correctly interpreted Matter-scaled temperature values (centi-degrees) and occupancy states.

The analysis appropriately distinguishes between 'normal unoccupied state' and 'security threat', concluding no threat exists based on the absence of intrusion indicators (lock flips, contact sensor triggers) and lack of fault evidence.

Hypotheses regarding stealth intrusion or sensor malfunction are correctly identified as speculative due to lack of corroborating evidence (e.g., no lock tampering, stable temperatures ruling out fire/overheating).

The focus on C00 and C18 is justified for boundary checks, and the data within these chunks supports a 'no threat' conclusion. No further chunks are needed to resolve this specific safety query.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 341,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "kids_room": 336,
    "kitchen": 288,
    "dining_room": 48,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 48,
    "entrance": 48
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1152,
    "Occupancy": 338,
    "OnOff": 2,
    "StateValue": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips":

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "all"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "all"
    ],
    "target_question": "Determine if the recent smart-home log events constitute a security threat."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "master_bedroom",
    "kids_room",
    "kitchen"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "door_lock",
    "contact_sensor (entrance)",
    "occupancy_sensor",
    "temperature_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C18"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Unauthorized access via door lock or contact sensor",
    "Intrusion detection via occupancy sensors in unoccupied zones",
    "Device fault masquerading as security event"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00 covers the start of the observation period (midnight) to check for initial intrusion attempts or device faults at the entrance and throughout the home.",
    "C18 covers the end of the observation period (late night) to check for any late-night activity, unauthorized entry, or lingering security issues before the logs conclude.",
    "These chunks provide the temporal boundaries to assess the overall 'security posture' implied by the query, while the deterministic signals indicate no lock state flips and normal temperature patterns, suggesting these chunks will primarily serve to confirm the absence of threats rather than identify specific ones."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The smart hom


INS-05-FP: 住户换了新手机/手表解锁

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

The observed lock activity corresponds to a normal user exit sequence (manual unlock, door open, auto-lock) with no evidence of forced entry or malfunction.

Explanation: The primary security-relevant event occurs in C06 at 07:24:32, where the front door is manually unlocked, followed by the contact sensor indicating the door is open (false), and then an automatic re-lock 10 seconds later.

Explanation: This sequence (Unlock -> Open -> Lock) is consistent with a standard user leaving the house. The 'auto-lock' feature is a common configuration that engages after a delay or when the door closes/is detected as closed, which aligns with the contact sensor state change at 07:24:41.

Explanation: The discrepancy between the structured signal count of '5 lock_state_flips' and the single detailed log entry in C06 is likely due to telemetry artifacts, state polls, or internal software reconciliations not captured as distinct physical operations in the sparse log view, rather than multiple physical tampering attempts.

Explanation: There are no explicit fault codes, alarm events, repeated failed lock attempts, or contradictory states (e.g., locked while contact is open for a prolonged period without auto-lock) to suggest a malfunction or intrusion.

Explanation: Occupancy sensors show normal morning activity patterns starting around 06:11, supporting the hypothesis that a resident is active and performing routine actions.

Absence of explicit fault/alarm events in logs.

Normal occupancy transitions in the morning hours.

Monitor future lock events to see if the '5 flips' signal correlates with other anomalies or if it remains a telemetry artifact.

判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

The lock state flips reported in structured signals were telemetry artifacts or software-level state reconciliations that did not correspond to physical actuations, or the physical events occurred outside the sampled log window. The logs show a single, coherent entry/exit sequence at 07:24 involving manual unlock followed by auto-lock, with no evidence of forced entry or malfunction.

C06 shows a clear sequence: Manual Unlock (07:24:32) -> Contact Open (07:24:34) -> Auto Lock (07:24:42). This is a normal user behavior pattern.

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or repeated failed lock attempts are present in C06.

Occupancy sensors in the entrance and other rooms transition logically with the user activity starting around 06:11.

The '5 lock_state_flips' signal may include state polls or non-physical transitions not captured as distinct 'LockOperation' events in the sparse log view.

Does not fully explain why the structured signal counted 5 flips if only one physical operation is visible in the detailed logs, unless the sampling missed intermediate states.

Relies on the assumption that the visible event is representative of the entire period.

Intrusion Attempt or Unauthorized Access: The discrepancy between the high number of lock state flips (5) and the limited visible physical operations suggests potential unauthorized access attempts or tailgating that were partially obscured or involved rapid successive interactions. The auto-lock occurring shortly after manual unlock might indicate a system trying to secure the door against an intruder who bypassed the initial check, or a confused user experience.

Structured signals indicate 5 lock state flips, but C06 only explicitly details one full cycle (Unlock->Open->Lock).

If the other 4 flips occurred without corresponding occupancy changes or contact sensor triggers (which would be expected for normal entry), it implies activity at the door without successful entry logging or with entry being logged elsewhere.

The time gap between 01:10 (end of C01) and 07:24 (start of relevant activity in C06) covers the night; if flips occurred then, they would be highly suspicious.

Contact sensor `false` (open) at 07:24:34 confirms the door was physically open during the unlock event.

Lacks direct log entries for the other 4 flips in the provided chunks.

Could be explained by software noise or telemetry updates rather than physical tampering.

No explicit 'forced entry' or 'wrong code' alarms are present.

Lock Malfunction / Actuator Instability: The door lock mechanism is experiencing instability, causing multiple state reports (flips) without consistent physical outcomes. The rapid transition from unlocked to locked via auto-lock might be a safety feature reacting to a perceived fault or prolonged open state, but the root cause is the erratic state reporting.

High frequency of lock state changes (5 flips) relative to the low number of explicit operational events in the logs.

Auto-lock triggered immediately after manual unlock (10 seconds later), which is fast and might indicate a system default or reaction to a sensor glitch.

No explicit fault codes yet, but the behavior is inconsistent with typical stable smart lock operation.

Single instance of auto-lock is common in many smart locks and not inherently faulty.

Requires more evidence of repeated failure or stuck states to confirm malfunction.

The count of '5 lock_state_flips' in structured signals vs. the single detailed 'LockOperation' sequence in C06.

Presence of 'front_door_contact' state change (false/true) correlating with the visible lock operation.

Absence of explicit fault/alarm events in the logs despite the high flip count.

Log entries for the specific timestamps where the other 4 lock state flips occurred.

Correlation of these flips with any motion/occupancy data in the entrance area during the nighttime hours (if flips happened then).

Detailed error logs or diagnostic status from the front_door_lock device itself.

Verify if the '5 lock_state_flips' signal includes the C06 event or if it refers to events in C07 (post-07:24).

Check for any lock state changes or contact sensor triggers between 01:10 and 07:24 to rule out unlogged nighttime activity.

Confirm if the 'auto-lock' at 07:24:42 was a standard configuration or a reaction to the door remaining open too long (contact sensor stayed false/open until 07:24:41).

The investigator correctly identified the primary security-relevant event in C06 (manual unlock -> open -> auto-lock) and noted the discrepancy with the structured signal count of 5 flips.

However, the investigation is currently stuck debating whether the other 4 flips are 'telemetry artifacts' or 'unobserved physical events' without checking the subsequent logs (C07+). The query asks about a 'recently occurred event', and the log window provided ends at 07:50. If the 5th flip occurred after 07:24, it is critical evidence.

The current conclusion relies on assuming the visible C06 sequence is representative. We need to see if there were additional lock operations immediately following the first one (e.g., failed attempts, re-unlocks) which would change the threat profile from 'normal exit' to 'potential forced entry/fault'.

No direct fault codes or explicit alarms were found, but the high flip count requires explanation. Checking C07 is necessary to close the loop on the '5 flips' signal.

The system is operating normally with no security threat. The '5 lock state flips' detected in the structured signals are likely background telemetry updates, status polls, or minor state reconciliations that do not represent physical door operations (open/close). Since the focused chunks C00-C02 show a continuous period of unoccupied rooms and stable temperatures without any corresponding occupancy events at the entrance, there is no evidence of unauthorized access or mechanical failure.

Structured signal `lock_state_flips: 5` exists, but raw logs in C00-C02 do not show explicit LockState transitions correlated with time.

All occupancy sensors across all rooms, including `entrance_occupancy`, report `unoccupied (raw=0)` continuously from 00:00 to 03:45.

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

No contact sensor triggers or motion events are recorded for the entrance during this period.

Relies on the assumption that 'lock state flips' in aggregated signals might be non-actionable software events rather than physical actuations, which cannot be fully verified without the specific log lines for those 5 flips.

Does not account for potential blind spots if the lock mechanism failed silently while remaining in a locked state (though this is less likely to cause 'flips').

Potential unauthorized access attempt or lock malfunction. The structured signal indicates 5 distinct lock state changes (`lock_state_flips: 5`) during a period when the house is completely unoccupied. If these flips correspond to physical locking/unlocking actions, they represent an impossible event sequence (someone entering/leaving without triggering occupancy sensors) or a device fault (lock cycling/stuck). Given the target query focuses on the entrance door lock, this discrepancy between actuator activity and environmental sensors is a primary safety indicator.

Structured signal explicitly reports `lock_state_flips: 5`.

Timeframe covers nighttime hours (00:00 - 03:45) when the home should be secure and empty.

Complete absence of `OccupancySensing.Occupancy = 1` in the entrance or any other room during the entire window.

No `ContactSensor` open/close events are visible in the provided chunks to corroborate entry/exit.

Triage output highlights 'Door lock state flips without corresponding occupancy... indicative of normal entry/exit' as a suspected pattern.

The raw logs for C00-C02 do not explicitly list the 5 lock events, making it difficult to confirm their exact timing and nature (e.g., were they rapid retries?).

Could be explained by a software glitch or network reconnection causing false state reports rather than physical movement.

Lack of direct evidence of forced entry (e.g., broken glass, alarm triggers) or successful breach (items missing, further interior movement).

Lock device malfunction or sensor drift. The lock may be experiencing internal errors, such as a stuck motor or faulty position sensor, causing it to report state changes ('flips') without actual mechanical movement. This is a safety risk because the user might believe the door is locked when it is not, or vice versa.

Discrepancy between reported lock state changes and lack of corroborating physical evidence (occupancy/contact).

Repetitive nature of 'flips' (5 times) suggests a recurring issue rather than a single transient error.

No other devices show anomalous behavior (temperatures are stable), isolating the issue potentially to the lock subsystem.

Requires assuming the lock hardware is faulty; could equally be a valid intrusion attempt.

No explicit fault codes or error messages are present in the logs.

The presence of `lock_state_flips: 5` in the structured signals versus the complete absence of any `LockState` transition logs or `ContactSensor` events in the detailed chunks C00-C02.

The continuous `unoccupied` status of the `entrance_occupancy` sensor throughout the entire 3.75-hour window, contradicting any hypothesis of legitimate human entry/exit associated with the lock flips.

Raw log entries specifically detailing the 5 lock state transitions mentioned in the structured signals (timestamps, previous/next states).

Status of the `contact_sensor` on the entrance door (is it reporting closed? did it trigger?).

Contextual data regarding whether the lock supports remote/manual override that might explain state changes without physical presence.

Audio or video surveillance logs for the entrance area to visually confirm or deny presence.

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or repeated failed lock attempts are present in C06.

Contact sensor `false` (open) at 07:24:34 confirms the door was physically open during the unlock event.

No explicit fault codes yet, but the behavior is inconsistent with typical stable smart lock operation.

Direct log entries for DoorLock.LockState transitions in the target timeframe.

ContactSensor status logs for the entrance door to correlate with lock state changes.

Verification of whether 'lock_state_flips' in structured signals correspond to actual physical actuations or software telemetry updates.

Check for any explicit fault or alarm events from the door lock device.

The investigator correctly identifies a discrepancy between structured signals (5 lock flips) and raw logs (no visible lock events), but fails to resolve it due to missing chunks.

The current evidence (C00-C02) only contains temperature and occupancy data, which is insufficient to confirm or deny the lock activity.

Without the specific log lines for the lock events, concluding 'normal operation' (N1) or 'intrusion/malfunction' (A1/A2) is speculative.

High risk of false alarm: The anomaly relies entirely on an unverified signal ('lock_state_flips') that might be a software artifact or telemetry noise, not a physical event. If the raw logs for the lock are absent or show no change, the 'flips' count may be misleading.

Must retrieve chunks containing the actual DoorLock and ContactSensor logs to verify if the 5 flips occurred physically or were just state reports without action.

Do not finalize verdict until the direct evidence for the lock mechanism is reviewed.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 401,
    "master_bedroom": 519,
    "kids_room": 516,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 218,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 233,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1087,
    "OnOff": 28,
    "StateValue":

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "door_lock",
    "contact_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C01",
    "C02"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Door lock state flips without corresponding occupancy or contact sensor triggers indicative of normal entry/exit."
  ],
  "why_things_chunks": [
    "The deterministic signals indicate 5 lock state flips. The preview lines for C00-C02 show temperature and occupancy but do not explicitly list the lock events in the top 12 lines, suggesting they might be sparse or hidden in the full log. However, checking these early chunks is critical to see if the lock activity correlates with any entrance movement (occupancy/contact) or occurs during unoccupied periods (nighttime), which would suggest unauthorized access or a malfunction. C00 covers the start of the period where all rooms are unoccupied, making any lock activity highly suspicious.",
    "C01 and C02 continue the nighttime period. If lock flips occur here without occupancy changes, it strengthens the suspicion of a security threat (forced entry attempt or fault).",
    "These chunks allow us to correlate the 'alarmish_count' (which is relatively low in C00/C01 but present) with specific device behaviors to rule out false positives from other sensors."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safet


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

The event sequence represents a normal smart home operation where an auto-lock engaged after the front door was closed, with no evidence of unauthorized entry or device failure.

Explanation: The core event is a `LockOperation` with `OperationSource=Auto` triggered immediately after `front_door_contact` became true (door closed) at 22:43:27. This is a standard configuration for smart locks to secure the home upon entry.

Explanation: While the Supervisor noted missing pre-state evidence (whether the lock was previously unlocked), the context strongly supports a normal resident routine rather than an intrusion. Specifically, occupancy sensors in key areas (Living Room, Master Bedroom, Kids Room) were continuously reporting 'occupied' throughout the preceding hour (C25-C26). This indicates residents were already present in the house, making an external intruder entering an open door highly unlikely compared to a resident returning from outside (e.g., garage, patio) or simply closing the door.

Explanation: There are no indicators of forced entry, such as shock sensor triggers, broken glass alarms, or rapid/unusual motion patterns preceding the door close. The temperature readings are stable and within normal residential ranges, ruling out environmental hazards.

Explanation: Although the Supervisor recommended further investigation due to the lack of explicit 'Unlock' logs, the presence of continuous internal occupancy negates the primary risk factor of an unmonitored intrusion. Without evidence of the system being in 'Away' mode or previous 'unoccupied' states that would make this entry suspicious, the most probable explanation is a legitimate user interaction triggering the auto-lock feature.

C27: LockOperation(OperationSource=Auto) at 22:43:28 immediately following Door Close.

C25-C26: Continuous 'occupied' status in Living Room, Master Bedroom, and Kids Room prior to the event, indicating residents were present inside.

Absence of forced entry indicators (shock/break-glass alarms) or anomalous motion data.

No immediate action required; log as normal activity.

Verify if the 'Auto Lock' delay setting aligns with user expectations, though current behavior is technically correct.

Lock operation at late night (22:43)
Occupancy context during lock event

C26 shows `front_door_contact` becoming `true` (door closed) at 22:43:27.

The transition from Unlocked to Locked via Auto-Source is a standard configuration for many smart locks to ensure security after entry.

Post-lock occupancy logs (C27-C28) show stable 'occupied' states in living room, master bedroom, and kids room, indicating no immediate exit or intrusion signs.

Temperature readings are stable and within normal residential ranges (~22-23°C), showing no thermal anomalies.

Does not explicitly confirm *who* entered, though high probability of resident given the context of occupied zones lighting up shortly after.

Relies on the assumption that 'Auto' lock implies a legitimate user interaction rather than an automated response to an unauthorized entry.

Potential Tailgating or Unauthorized Entry: An intruder entered while the door was open (or propped), closed it, triggering the auto-lock. The system locked the intruder inside without detecting a valid credential usage.

The lock engaged automatically (`OperationSource=Auto`) rather than manually (`Manual`) or via app, which can happen if the lock is configured to lock upon door closure regardless of how the door was opened.

There is no explicit 'Unlock' event logged in C26 preceding the contact close, only the contact closing. If the door was unlocked prior to this window (not visible in C26 start), an unknown person could have entered.

The timing (22:43) is late evening, a common time for break-ins if residents are asleep or less vigilant.

If the house was previously marked 'unoccupied' or if no resident was expected to be home, this sequence represents a critical security failure.

Lack of explicit 'Unlocked' state in C26 makes it hard to prove the door was open just before; it might have been unlocked earlier and left ajar.

Occupancy sensors in key rooms (Living Room, Master Bedroom) were already reporting 'occupied' throughout C25-C26, suggesting residents were likely present in the house, making an external intrusion less likely than a resident entering from outside (e.g., garage/patio) or returning home.

No forced entry indicators (shock sensors, broken glass) are present.

The 'Auto' lock source is a feature, not necessarily a bug; it often triggers on contact closure even for authorized users.

C26: `front_door_contact | BooleanState.StateValue = true` at 22:43:27 (Door Closed).

C27: `front_door_lock | Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=0, OperationSource=Auto)` at 22:43:28 (Auto-Lock Triggered).

C25-C26: Continuous `entrance_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied` suggests someone/something was detected at the entrance area leading up to the lock event.

Absence of explicit `Unlock` events in the immediate pre-window of C26.

Pre-22:43 state of `front_door_lock.LockState`: Was it already locked? If so, why did it re-lock? If it was unlocked, who unlocked it?

Credential/Access Logs: Was there a successful unlock via PIN, Keypad, Fingerprint, or App immediately before the door closed? This would confirm a resident entry.

Home Status Context: Was the system set to 'Away' or 'Home' mode? If 'Away', an auto-lock after entry is suspicious. If 'Home', it's routine.

Motion Sensor Data: Did motion sensors near the entrance trigger *before* the door closed, confirming a person walked in?

Pre-22:43 state of front_door_lock.LockState (was it already locked?)

Presence of explicit Unlock events or credential logs prior to the door close event

Home Security Mode status (Away vs Home) at the time of the event

The investigator correctly identified the core sequence (Door Close -> Auto Lock) and relevant context (Occupancy).

However, the investigation is inconclusive because it lacks the critical 'pre-state' evidence. We do not know if the lock was previously unlocked or if an unlock event occurred just before C26 started.

Without knowing the lock's state before 22:03 (start of C26), we cannot distinguish between a resident returning home (normal) and an intruder entering an unlocked door (security threat).

Chunk C24 likely contains the preceding window where the door might have been opened/unlocked or the system mode changed. Requesting C24 is necessary to establish the baseline state.

False alarm risk is medium because the 'Auto Lock' feature is standard, but without proof of authorized entry, the 'intrusion' hypothesis remains plausible.

Normal evening routine with automated security locking. The front door was locked automatically (likely via a timer or app command) at 22:43, and the household remained occupied throughout the night as indicated by continuous occupancy signals in multiple rooms.

LockOperation event at 22:43:28 shows OperationSource=Auto, which is standard for smart home automation (e.g., auto-lock after closing).

DoorLock.LockState transitioned to 'locked' (raw=1) immediately after the operation, indicating successful actuation.

OccupancySensing.Occupancy remains 'occupied' (raw=1) in entrance, living_room, master_bedroom, kids_room, and dining_room from 22:47 through 23:55, suggesting residents are present and not fleeing or hiding.

Temperature readings are stable and within normal residential ranges (22-23°C), showing no signs of fire or equipment failure.

Does not explain why the user is asking about a threat if the behavior appears completely normal; relies on the assumption that 'auto-lock' implies authorized action without verifying if an unauthorized person triggered it (though source says Auto, not Manual/Remote).

Potential unauthorized entry or tailgating followed by concealment. If the 'Auto' lock source was triggered by a sensor detecting closure rather than a scheduled timer, and if the entrance occupancy spike coincides with an unexpected presence, this could indicate an intruder entering and staying inside. However, the logs show continuous occupancy *after* the lock, which might mean the occupant entered before locking, or an intruder is present.

The query specifically targets 'front_door_lock' and 'entrance', implying suspicion around this specific event.

LockOperation occurred at 22:43, late at night. While 'Auto' suggests automation, if the system lacks a schedule, 'Auto' can sometimes mean 'triggered by contact sensor closing'.

Entrance occupancy becomes 'occupied' at 22:47, just 4 minutes after the lock. If the resident was already inside, this might be redundant, but if the resident was outside, they would have been locked out unless they had another way in (unlikely for front door if locked) or were already inside.

Continuous high-frequency occupancy updates (every ~5 mins) across all rooms suggest active monitoring, but do not rule out an intruder blending in with normal activity patterns.

The LockOperation source is explicitly 'Auto', which strongly points to legitimate automation rather than forced entry.

No evidence of failed lock attempts, broken glass, or forced entry alarms.

Occupancy is consistent with a normal household being awake/moving around at night (kids room, master bedroom occupied).

No temperature spikes or smoke/fire indicators.

Device malfunction or false positive security alert. The lock may have engaged incorrectly or the occupancy sensors may be glitching, causing a false sense of intrusion or security breach.

High frequency of occupancy events (1092 total in structured signals) might indicate sensor noise or rapid state flipping, though raw logs show steady 'occupied' states.

If the 'Auto' lock was unintended due to a software glitch, it could represent a safety risk if someone was trapped outside or if the lock mechanism is unreliable.

No explicit fault codes or error messages in the logs.

Lock state changed successfully to 'locked'.

Temperatures are stable, ruling out environmental causes for sensor drift.

LockOperation.OperationSource=Auto: Indicates the lock was triggered by automation, not manual force or remote command, reducing likelihood of malicious external attack.

DoorLock.LockState=locked (raw=1): Confirms the lock physically engaged.

Continuous OccupancySensing.Occupancy=1 in multiple rooms: Suggests normal human presence rather than an empty house or fleeing occupants.

Stable Temperature Measurements: No thermal anomalies suggesting fire or electrical faults.

Context of 'Auto' lock source: Was there a pre-set schedule? Or did it trigger on door close?

History of lock operations prior to 22:43: To determine if this is a recurring pattern or an isolated incident.

User identity/status: Who was expected to be home? Were any doors left open previously?

Definition of 'Security Threat': Is the concern about physical break-in, data privacy, or device reliability?

C26 shows `front_door_contact` becoming `true` (door closed) at 22:43:27.

Temperature readings are stable and within normal residential ranges (~22-23°C), showing no thermal anomalies.

The timing (22:43) is late evening, a common time for break-ins if residents are asleep or less vigilant.

Pre-event context: Check C26 for the state of the front door lock and occupancy immediately before 22:43 to determine if the 'Auto' lock was a response to an entry or a scheduled timer.

Entry verification: Verify if there was an 'unlocked' -> 'locked' transition triggered by a contact sensor (door close) vs. a timer, which distinguishes between normal routine and potential tailgating/unauthorized entry.

Occupancy baseline: Confirm if the house was previously marked 'unoccupied' or if occupants were expected to be away, to contextualize the late-night activity.

The investigator correctly identified that the current logs (C27-C28) show a stable, occupied state following an auto-lock, which argues against a violent break-in or immediate emergency.

However, the investigation is incomplete because it lacks the 'trigger' context. The core question is whether the 'Auto' lock at 22:43 was legitimate (e.g., resident entering and closing door, triggering auto-lock) or suspicious (e.g., intruder entering, door closing, auto-lock engaging).

Without C26 (pre-22:43), we cannot see if the door was unlocked just prior, or if the house was empty. This ambiguity prevents a definitive safety verdict.

The risk of false alarm is medium because while the post-lock behavior is normal, the pre-lock sequence is missing. If C26 shows the door was unlocked and then closed by an unknown person, the threat level changes significantly.

Requesting C26 is necessary to establish the full sequence logic.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 406,
    "master_bedroom": 519,
    "kids_room": 517,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 218,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 53,
    "entrance": 233,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1092,
    "OnOff": 27,
    "StateValue":

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "master_bedroom",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "master_bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C27",
    "C28"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Lock operation at late night (22:43)",
    "Occupancy context during lock event"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C27 contains the specific lock operation event and immediate state change, which is the primary evidence for the security assessment.",
    "C28 provides the subsequent occupancy context to verify if the lock action was followed by normal home activity or potential intrusion/stay."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal evening routine: Resident enters home, closes door, and the smart lock engages its 'Auto Lock' feature after a short delay or upon contact sensor trigger. Subsequent activity is consistent with normal household occupancy.",
      "evidence": [
        "C26 shows `front_door_contact` becoming `true` (door closed) at 22:43:27.",
        "C27 shows `front_door_lock` executing `LockOperation` with `OperationSource=Auto` at 22:43:28, immediately following the door close event.",
        "The transition from Unlocked to Locked via Auto-Source is a standard configuration fo