DF-04-FP: 门锁响应延迟但最终成功锁定

The entrance sensors appear to be functioning normally; the observed behavior is consistent with low-activity usage patterns and smart lock operational logic.

Explanation: The investigation identified a potential anomaly at 17:51 in C09 where the front door lock state changed (unlocked to locked) without a corresponding `front_door_contact` log entry.

Explanation: However, the supervisor correctly flagged this as insufficient evidence for a hardware fault. Smart locks can operate independently of contact sensors (e.g., locking from inside when the door is already closed), making the absence of a contact update ambiguous rather than definitive proof of failure.

Explanation: Crucially, the `front_door_contact` sensor functioned correctly in other events within the same dataset: it reported state changes during the morning interaction (C04) and immediately after the manual unlock at 18:24 (C09). This proves the sensor is capable of reporting and is not stuck or offline.

Explanation: There are no explicit fault codes, repeated non-recovery patterns, or contradictory states (e.g., contact says 'closed' while lock is 'unlocked' and occupancy is 'occupied') that would indicate a malfunction.

Explanation: Therefore, the sparse logging is best explained by normal low-activity behavior and the specific mechanics of the lock operation at 17:51, rather than a device fault.

C04 (07:15): Contact sensor successfully logs 'false' then 'true' alongside lock operations, confirming functionality.

C09 (18:24): Contact sensor logs 'false' immediately after manual unlock, confirming recent functionality.

C09 (17:51): Lock state flips without contact log, but this is consistent with internal lock mechanism operation without physical door movement.

Monitor future logs to see if similar gaps occur during obvious physical door openings to further characterize the sensor's trigger sensitivity.

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 entrance 区域的传感器（入户门传感器）是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

sparse telemetry for target device
lack of continuous status reporting

C03 end: Lock unlocked manually at 07:15:18.

C04 start: Contact sensor reports 'false' (closed) then 'true' (open) at 07:15:20-22, followed by auto-lock at 07:15:23. This sequence implies the door was opened and immediately re-closed/locked, consistent with a user entering or exiting quickly.

C09 mid: Lock state flips from unlocked to locked between 17:51:03 and 17:51:08 without explicit contact sensor logs, but this is within normal operational variance for smart locks that may not always trigger contact updates on internal mechanism changes.

C09 end: Manual unlock at 18:24:00 followed by contact 'false' at 18:24:02 and occupancy change at 18:24:24, showing a coherent entry event.

Relies on the assumption that missing contact logs in C09 (17:51) were simply not triggered or logged, rather than a failure to report.

Does not account for potential intermittent connectivity issues if other devices also dropped packets.

Intermittent communication failure or sensor lag in the front_door_contact device, specifically around the 17:51 event in C09, where the lock state changed but no corresponding contact state update was recorded, potentially indicating a missed packet or sensor delay.

In C09, at 17:51:03 the lock is unlocked, and at 17:51:08 it is locked. No `front_door_contact` log exists in this 5-second window.

In contrast, the earlier event in C04 (07:15:20-22) shows immediate contact updates coinciding with lock operations.

The absence of a contact update during a rapid lock/unlock cycle suggests the contact sensor might be failing to report state changes reliably, or the network path for this specific device is unstable.

Smart locks often operate independently of contact sensors; a lock state change does not strictly require a contact state change if the door didn't physically move significantly (e.g., just the bolt moved).

Only one instance of missing data is observed; a single dropout is insufficient to confirm hardware malfunction per the rules.

No other devices in the house show similar dropouts, suggesting the issue is isolated to this device's reporting or a very brief local glitch.

Potential security gap due to lack of continuous monitoring: The contact sensor did not report the door state during the 17:51 lock operation, creating an ambiguity about whether the door was physically open or closed during that interval.

At 17:51:03, the lock is unlocked. At 17:51:08, it is locked. Without a contact sensor reading, we cannot confirm if the door was open while unlocked.

If the door was open while unlocked, the system failed to capture this critical security state via the contact sensor.

This contrasts with the clear sequence in C04 where both lock and contact states are tightly coupled.

It is plausible the door was already closed when the lock was manipulated (e.g., locking from inside), so no contact change would occur.

The subsequent manual unlock at 18:24 shows the contact sensor working correctly, implying the device is not permanently broken.

Comparison of C04 (07:15) vs C09 (17:51): In C04, contact sensor updates ('false' then 'true') are explicitly logged alongside lock operations. In C09, a lock state flip occurs (unlocked -> locked) with NO corresponding contact sensor log, despite the short duration.

C09 (18:24): Contact sensor successfully logs 'false' immediately after a manual unlock, proving the sensor is capable of reporting when triggered by physical movement.

Network packet loss logs for the entrance zone to determine if the missing contact update at 17:51 was a transmission error.

Detailed mechanical logs from the lock itself to see if it registered a 'door ajar' condition during the 17:51 interval.

More frequent polling intervals for the contact sensor to rule out sampling gaps.

Verify if C07 (13:50-14:48) contains any front_door_contact or front_door_lock events to establish baseline behavior between the morning and evening incidents.

Check for network connectivity logs or other device dropouts in C07/C09 to determine if the missing contact log at 17:51 was part of a broader communication failure.

Confirm if the 'unlocked' state at 17:51:03 was followed by a physical door opening event (occupancy change in entrance/entryway) which would necessitate a contact sensor update.

The investigator correctly identified that the contact sensor is largely silent outside of specific interaction windows.

However, the hypothesis of 'sensor malfunction' relies heavily on a single instance (17:51 in C09) where a lock state changed without a corresponding contact log. This is a weak basis for a hardware fault conclusion given the rules require direct fault evidence (stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarms).

Smart locks often operate independently of contact sensors (e.g., locking from inside when the door is already closed), making the absence of a contact log ambiguous rather than definitively faulty.

The investigation lacks context from the intervening time period (likely C07) to see if this is an isolated glitch or a pattern. Without evidence of repeated failures or contradictory states (e.g., contact says 'closed' while lock is 'unlocked' and occupancy is 'occupied'), we cannot confirm a malfunction.

Risk of false alarm is high because concluding a hardware fault based on one potential missed packet or logical gap in logging is speculative.

Need to check C07 to ensure no other anomalies occurred and to better characterize the device's normal reporting frequency.

The entrance sensors (contact and lock) are functioning normally. The sparse logging is due to the low-activity nature of the entrance area, where state changes only occur during specific door operations.

In C04, the front_door_contact sensor correctly transitions from false to true (door closed to open), triggering a corresponding LockOperation event on the front_door_lock.

In C09, the front_door_lock successfully executes manual unlock/lock cycles with correct state transitions (unlocked -> locked -> unlocked).

The contact sensor reports 'false' (closed) at 18:24:02 immediately after the door was manually unlocked at 18:24:00, which is consistent with the door being physically closed but unlocked.

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or stuck values are present in the logs for these devices.

The lack of continuous telemetry makes it impossible to detect intermittent communication drops or minor mechanical sticking that doesn't result in a full state change failure.

Potential sensor_malfunction or communication intermittency in the front_door_contact sensor, indicated by a brief gap between the lock operation and the contact status update, or potential missed state reporting if the door was opened/closed without logging.

In C09, at 18:24:00, the front_door_lock is manually unlocked. The front_door_contact sensor does not report a state change until 18:24:02, showing 'false' (closed). If the door was opened to unlock, the contact should have gone 'true' (open) first. The log shows 'false' directly, implying either the door remained closed while unlocking (smart lock auto-unlock) or the 'open' state was missed/skipped in logging.

In C04, the contact sensor goes false->true, then the lock operates. There is no subsequent 'false' (closed) log entry for the contact sensor in the provided chunk, leaving the final state ambiguous relative to the lock's 'locked' state, though this is less critical than the C09 sequence.

Smart locks often have an 'auto-unlock' feature where the bolt retracts while the door is still closed, meaning the contact sensor would legitimately remain 'false'. Without knowing the specific lock model behavior, assuming a malfunction is speculative.

The query asks for a general health check; isolated timing discrepancies in event ordering do not constitute definitive proof of hardware failure without repeated occurrences or explicit error flags.

C04: front_door_contact transition false->true followed by LockOperation confirms basic connectivity and logical correlation between contact and lock.

C09: Manual LockOperation at 18:24:00 followed by contact state 'false' at 18:24:02. This sequence suggests the door was likely closed during the unlock event (auto-unlock) or the open-state log was omitted, requiring clarification on device behavior to rule out sensor lag/failure.

Confirmation of whether the front_door_lock supports 'auto-unlock' (retracting bolt while door is closed), which would explain the C09 sequence as normal behavior.

Full log coverage for the entrance area to determine if there were other unlogged door openings/closings that might indicate packet loss or sensor dropouts.

Check C03 (pre-C04) to establish the baseline state of front_door_contact before the first observed transition.

Check C05 (post-C04) to verify if the contact sensor reported a 'closed' (false) state after the door was locked in C04, confirming full cycle integrity.

Verify if the gap between LockOperation and Contact update in C09 is consistent with known auto-unlock behavior or indicates packet loss.

The investigator correctly identified that sparse logging makes definitive fault diagnosis difficult without more context.

However, concluding 'normal' based solely on one successful sequence in C04 and one ambiguous sequence in C09 is insufficient for a robust health check.

To rule out intermittent communication drops or sensor lag, we need to see the full lifecycle: Open -> Close -> Lock -> Unlock -> Close. Currently, we only have fragments.

Requesting adjacent chunks C03 and C05 to capture the states immediately preceding and following the events in C04 will allow us to verify if the sensor consistently reports state changes or if there are missing logs indicative of connectivity issues.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 397,
    "bedroom": 353,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 52,
    "entrance": 17
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 212,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "LockState": 6,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 6,
  "occupancy_events": 212,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-12T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-12T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_contact",
      "front_door_lock"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 entrance 区域的传感器（入户门传感器）是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_contact",
    "front_door_lock"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C09"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "sparse telemetry for target device",
    "lack of continuous status reporting"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the only explicit log entries for front_door_contact and front_door_lock in the entire dataset, showing a brief state change sequence.",
    "C09 shows the presence of front_door_lock in top devices but no specific contact sensor logs, helping to establish that the contact sensor is largely silent outside of C04.",
    "Comparing these chunks allows assessing if the lack of further logs indicates normal low-activity behavior or a potential communication/fault issue."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The entrance sensors (contact and lock) are functioning normally. The sparse logging is due to the low activity in the entrance area, with only two distinct interaction cycles observed during the monitoring period.",
      "evidence": [
        "C03 end: Lock unlocked manually at 07:15:18.",
        "C04 start: Contact sensor reports 'false' (closed) then 'true' (open) at 07:15


DF-02-FP: 夏季午后持续升温（正常日照效应）

温度上升后在午后到达峰值并回落，符合日间正弦曲线；而真正的漂移是不回落的单向偏移

The living room sensors appear to be functioning normally based on available data, but a significant telemetry gap prevents high-confidence verification of continuous operation.

Explanation: 1. Analyzed the provided chunks (C00-C04, C10, C13) for the living_room_temp_sensor and living_room_occupancy.

Explanation: 2. In C00-C04, the temperature sensor shows stable, gradual changes consistent with environmental drift, and the occupancy sensor correctly reports 'unoccupied' when no activity is detected.

Explanation: 3. In C10, the occupancy sensor correctly transitions to 'occupied' coincident with light/AC activation, validating its logic. The temperature sensor returns valid readings.

Explanation: 4. A transient temperature spike at 18:24 in C10 (25.10°C) was observed but immediately recovered to baseline (23.06°C) within one minute. Per protocol, a single isolated spike that self-corrects without corroborating fault evidence or repetition is likely environmental noise or interference, not a device malfunction.

Explanation: 5. There is a ~9-hour gap in telemetry between C04 (ending 08:50) and C10 (starting 18:13). While no explicit error logs are present, the absence of data means we cannot verify if the sensors were online or reporting accurately during this period.

Explanation: 6. The Supervisor explicitly recommended refining the investigation due to this gap and the risk of false alarms from the transient spike. Since the intermediate chunks (C05-C09) are not provided, we cannot confirm continuous health.

Explanation: 7. However, there is no direct evidence of a fault (e.g., stuck values, repeated failures, explicit alarms). Therefore, we cannot conclude an anomaly exists, but we also cannot give a high-confidence 'normal' verdict.

C00-C04: Stable temperature trends and correct 'unoccupied' status indicate normal baseline behavior.

C10: Occupancy transition correlates with actuator events, confirming sensor logic works.

C10 18:24: Transient temp spike to 25.10°C recovered instantly; insufficient evidence for sensor_malfunction.

Gap between C04 and C10: Missing telemetry prevents verification of continuous operation.

Retrieve and analyze intermediate chunks (C05-C09) to verify continuous telemetry and check for dropouts or faults during the 08:50-18:13 window.

Check for environmental factors (e.g., sunlight, drafts) around 18:24 to rule out external causes for the transient temperature spike.

Monitor the sensors for recurrence of similar transient spikes to distinguish between random noise and potential hardware degradation.

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

C00: Baseline check for temperature sensor stability and initial occupancy state (unoccupied).

C10: Check for occupancy transition to 'occupied' and subsequent temperature behavior during active use.

Occupancy reports in C00-C04 are consistently 'unoccupied' (raw=0), which aligns with the absence of lighting, AC, or other activity logs in the living room during this period.

In C10, the transition from 'unoccupied' to 'occupied' coincides exactly with the activation of lights and AC, indicating the sensor correctly detected human presence.

In C13, the sensor continues to report stable temperatures (~22.5°C) while occupied, showing no signs of drift or stuck values.

The large gap between C04 (ends 08:50) and C10 (starts 18:13) means we cannot verify continuous connectivity or battery health during that ~9-hour window, although the lack of error logs suggests normal operation.

Transient Temperature Sensor Glitch / Environmental Interference at 18:24.

At 18:24:00 in chunk C10, the living room temperature spikes abruptly to 25.10°C.

This spike is immediately followed by a return to baseline (23.06°C) at 18:25:00, just one minute later.

The magnitude of the jump (+2.0°C) and the speed of recovery are inconsistent with typical thermal inertia for a room temperature sensor unless subjected to a direct heat source or internal fault.

No concurrent HVAC event or local heat source (like a lamp turning on) is recorded in the immediate vicinity to explain this specific reading as environmental.

The anomaly is isolated and self-correcting within minutes. There is no evidence of repeated occurrences, stuck states, or failure to recover.

It could be explained by a brief environmental factor (e.g., sunlight hitting the sensor, a draft from a door opening) rather than a device fault.

The supervisor feedback noted this spike but dismissed it as likely environmental; without further corroboration, classifying it as a malfunction is speculative.

Potential Connectivity Drop or Telemetry Gap Between Morning and Evening.

There is a significant gap in living room telemetry between C04 (ending 08:50) and C10 (starting 18:13).

While the system resumed functioning in C10, the absence of data prevents verification of whether the sensors were online, powered, or reporting accurately during this ~9-hour period.

If the sensors went offline or reported stale data during this time, the home automation system would have been blind to occupancy and temperature changes, potentially affecting climate control or security logic.

No explicit 'connection lost' or 'offline' events are logged, which might imply the device was simply not configured to poll frequently or the logs provided are sampled.

The prompt asks to judge if they are 'working normally'; a gap in logs is ambiguous—it could mean the device was off, disconnected, or just not queried. It is not definitive proof of failure.

C10 18:24:00: Sudden temperature spike to 25.10°C followed by immediate drop to 23.06°C at 18:25:00.

C00-C04 Consistency: Steady, gradual temperature rise with consistent 'unoccupied' status supports normal baseline behavior.

C10 18:13:16: Occupancy transition to 'occupied' correlates perfectly with light/AC activation, validating occupancy sensor logic.

Gap between C04 and C10: Lack of intermediate data points leaves the device's status during mid-day unverified.

Telemetry data for the living room sensors between 08:50 and 18:13 to confirm continuous operation.

Contextual data for 18:24 (e.g., window contact status, door status) to rule out environmental causes for the temperature spike.

Battery level or power status logs for the sensors to rule out low-power induced errors.

Verify continuous telemetry for living_room_temp_sensor and living_room_occupancy between 08:50 (end of C04) and 18:13 (start of C10).

Investigate the cause of the transient temperature spike at 18:24 in C10 (check for concurrent HVAC events, window/door status, or sensor reset logs).

Check for any explicit fault/alarm events from the sensors during the gap period.

Confirm if the 'None' value in kitchen_temp_sensor at 19:16 is isolated or indicative of a broader connectivity issue affecting other devices.

The investigator correctly identified that the living room sensors appear functional in the sampled chunks (C00-C04, C10, C13).

However, there is a significant unobserved gap (~9 hours) between C04 and C10. The current evidence does not prove the sensors were working normally during this time; it only proves they worked before and after.

The 'anomaly' cited (A1) is a single transient spike that recovered immediately. Per protocol, this is likely environmental or noise, not a device fault, unless corroborated by other evidence. Relying on this as a potential malfunction without further context creates a high false-alarm risk.

The conclusion that sensors are 'working normally' is premature because the continuity of operation cannot be verified. We need the intermediate chunks (C05-C09) to confirm no dropouts or faults occurred during the day.

Do not finalize a 'normal' verdict based solely on pre- and post-gap data points.

The living room temperature sensor and occupancy sensor are functioning normally. The temperature readings show stable, gradual fluctuations consistent with a residential environment (approx 22-23°C), and the occupancy sensor correctly transitions between unoccupied and occupied states without getting stuck.

C00: Temperature sensor reports values ranging from 22.67 C to 23.27 C over ~1.5 hours with no gaps or impossible jumps.

C00: Occupancy sensor remains 'unoccupied' (raw=0) consistently during this period, which is plausible for late night/early morning.

C10: At 18:13:16, occupancy transitions to 'occupied' (raw=1) coinciding with lights and AC turning on, indicating correct detection of presence.

C10: Temperature returns to baseline (~23.06 C) after a brief spike at 18:24:00 (25.10 C), suggesting the spike was likely due to local heat source or airflow rather than sensor failure, as it recovered immediately.

C13: Occupancy remains 'occupied' (raw=1) throughout the evening session (22:22 - 23:45), consistent with continuous human presence.

C13: Temperature remains stable around 22.5-22.6 C during the occupied evening period.

Does not fully explain the isolated 25.10 C reading in C10, though recovery suggests it wasn't a permanent fault.

Transient sensor glitch or environmental interference caused a momentary inaccurate high-temperature reading in the living room sensor.

C10: At 18:24:00, living_room_temp_sensor reports 25.10 C (raw=2510).

C10: This value is significantly higher than the preceding (23.08 C) and succeeding (23.06 C) readings, as well as other room sensors (~22-23 C).

C10: The value immediately corrected to 23.06 C at 18:25:00, indicating a transient error rather than a drift or stuck state.

The anomaly was self-correcting within one minute.

No explicit fault codes or alarms were generated.

Could be explained by a temporary heat source (e.g., sunlight, appliance) rather than sensor hardware failure.

Insufficient evidence to classify as a persistent device fault.

C10: The isolated 25.10 C reading at 18:24:00 followed immediately by a return to 23.06 C distinguishes a transient glitch from a permanent malfunction.

C00 vs C13: Consistent reporting intervals and logical occupancy transitions (unoccupied -> occupied -> unoccupied patterns) support overall device health.

Context for the 18:24:00 event: Was there any activity in the living room that could generate localized heat (e.g., oven nearby, direct sunlight, heater)?

Battery status or connectivity logs for the sensor to rule out transmission errors causing the spike.

At 18:24:00 in chunk C10, the living room temperature spikes abruptly to 25.10°C.

This spike is immediately followed by a return to baseline (23.06°C) at 18:25:00, just one minute later.

There is a significant gap in living room telemetry between C04 (ending 08:50) and C10 (starting 18:13).

Check for data gaps or missing telemetry intervals in the living room sensors between C00 and C10 (approx 16 hours).

Verify if the 'unoccupied' state in C00/C13 is consistent with the absence of other activity logs (lights/AC) to rule out sensor drift.

Investigate the cause of the 25.10 C spike in C10 more deeply: check for concurrent HVAC events or local heat sources in adjacent chunks.

Confirm connectivity stability by checking for reconnection events or packet loss indicators in the full log stream.

The investigator correctly identified a transient temperature anomaly but dismissed it as likely environmental without sufficient evidence from the surrounding time periods.

There is a significant gap in coverage between C00 (ends 01:50) and C10 (starts 18:13). The investigation lacks evidence regarding the sensor's behavior during this ~16-hour period. If the sensor stopped reporting or reported stale values, that would constitute a fault not captured here.

The conclusion of 'normal operation' relies heavily on the assumption that the lack of data in the gap implies no issue, which is a logical leap. We need to see if the device was online and functioning normally throughout the day.

The risk of false alarm is medium because while the specific spike looks benign, the overall health assessment is incomplete due to the large data gap. A 'normal' verdict cannot be safely issued without verifying continuous operation.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 404,
    "bedroom": 357,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 58,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 871,
    "Occupancy": 224,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 224,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-09T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-09T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices":

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "living_room_temp_sensor",
      "living_room_occupancy"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 living_room 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "living_room_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C10",
    "C13"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "sensor_normal_operation",
    "occupancy_transition_logic"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline check for temperature sensor stability and initial occupancy state (unoccupied).",
    "C10: Check for occupancy transition to 'occupied' and subsequent temperature behavior during active use.",
    "C13: Check for sustained occupancy reporting and continued temperature telemetry to confirm no stuck states or dropouts."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The living room temperature sensor and occupancy sensor are functioning normally. The observed data represents standard environmental fluctuations and correct occupancy detection.",
      "evidence": [
        "Temperature readings in C00-C04 show a gradual, physically plausible rise from ~22.6°C to ~25.4°C over several hours, consistent with diurnal heating or HVAC cycling in an unoccupied room.",
        "Occupancy reports in C00-C04 are consistently 'unoccupied' (raw=0), which aligns with the absence of


DF-01-FP: 空调恒温控制导致温度稳定

有微小波动（±0.2°C），不是完全固定值；且空调处于开启状态

The living room temperature and occupancy sensors are operating normally with no evidence of malfunction.

Explanation: The investigation focused on the `living_room_temp_sensor` and `living_room_occupancy` devices across chunks C00-C03.

Explanation: Temperature readings from the living room sensor show a smooth, physically plausible progression from ~22.7°C to ~25.3°C, with natural minor fluctuations (e.g., 24.99 -> 25.06 -> 25.01) that indicate active sensing rather than stuck values.

Explanation: Occupancy reports remain consistently 'unoccupied' (raw=0) at regular intervals, indicating stable communication and state retention without intermittent failures or impossible transitions.

Explanation: No explicit fault codes, alarms, or diagnostic indicators of device failure were present in the logs.

Explanation: The supervisor confirmed that the evidence is sufficient and that the interpretation of Matter-scaled values was correct, ruling out false alarms based on raw integer magnitudes.

TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue transitions: e.g., [C00] 22.74->22.63->22.64 and [C03] 24.99->25.06->25.01 show natural variance rather than stuck states.

OccupancySensing.Occupancy consistency: Repeated 'unoccupied' (raw=0) reports every 30 minutes across all chunks indicate stable communication and state retention, not intermittent failure.

Absence of fault indicators: No repeated non-recovery, no impossible state transitions, and no explicit alarm events in the logs.

No immediate action required; continue routine monitoring.

The living room temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally. The temperature readings show a gradual, physically plausible increase over the morning hours (from ~22.7°C to ~25.3°C), consistent with typical diurnal temperature changes or HVAC startup. Occupancy remains 'unoccupied' throughout the period, which is consistent with the low activity count in the structured signals for this specific timeframe.

Temperature values change smoothly between readings (e.g., 22.74 -> 22.63 -> 22.64) without sudden jumps or impossible deltas.

Raw integer values correspond correctly to Celsius values (e.g., raw=2274 means 22.74 C).

OccupancySensing.Occupancy consistently reports 0 (unoccupied) at regular intervals (every 30 mins), indicating stable reporting.

No explicit fault codes, alarms, or stuck-value patterns (constant identical values for extended periods unrelated to physical reality) are present.

The query specifically asks to check for faults; while no obvious fault exists, subtle sensor drift or calibration issues cannot be ruled out without historical baseline data, though current logs do not exhibit diagnostic criteria for malfunction.

Historical baseline data for the living room sensors to definitively rule out slow sensor drift.

Context on expected occupancy patterns for this time of day to confirm if 'unoccupied' is the expected state (though lack of occupancy itself isn't a sensor fault).

The investigator correctly interpreted Matter-scaled temperature values (centi-degrees) and did not fall for false-alarm traps regarding literal high temperatures.

The analysis covers the full requested timeframe (C00-C03) for the target devices in the living room.

Evidence shows stable reporting intervals, physically plausible temperature gradients, and consistent occupancy states without stuck values or impossible transitions.

No explicit fault codes or alarms were found. The conclusion of 'normal operation' is well-supported by the absence of diagnostic criteria for malfunction.

The distinction between 'sensor drift' (which requires historical baseline data not present here) and 'malfunction' (which requires direct evidence like stuck values) was handled correctly.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 487,
    "bedroom": 497,
    "kitchen": 308,
    "bathroom": 54,
    "entrance": 3
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 874,
    "Occupancy": 445,
    "OnOff": 19,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 3,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "LockState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 1,
  "occupancy_events": 445,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-14T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-14T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [
      "living_room_tem

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "living_room_temp_sensor",
      "living_room_occupancy"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 living_room 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "living_room_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C01",
    "C02",
    "C03"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "sensor_stuck_values",
    "missing_data_gaps",
    "impossible_state_transitions"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00 and C01 cover the initial period (00:00-03:45) where temperature readings are frequent and occupancy is mostly unoccupied, establishing a baseline for normal operation.",
    "C02 covers the transition period (03:45-05:35) to check if sensors continue reporting normally as time progresses.",
    "C03 covers the morning period (05:40-07:30) to verify if any anomalies persist or if recovery occurs. These chunks allow inspection of both temperature stability and occupancy transitions without immediate confounding factors like high activity or alarms."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The living room temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally. The temperature readings show a gradual, physically plausible increase over the morning hours (from ~22.7°C to ~25.3°C), consistent with typical diurnal temperature changes or HVA


触发间隔不规律（不是周期性的），且频率较低（几分钟一次不是几十秒一次）

Insufficient evidence to confirm a device fault; observed occupancy fluctuations are consistent with normal PIR sensor behavior or transient presence changes.

Explanation: The temperature sensor data shows normal, gradual trends consistent with house-wide thermal dynamics, ruling out stuck values or drift for the temp sensor.

Explanation: The occupancy sensor exhibits 'flickering' (rapid occupied/unoccupied transitions) in C03 and C08. While this can indicate high sensitivity or minor motion detection (e.g., breathing, shifting), it is a common behavioral characteristic of PIR sensors rather than a definitive hardware fault without explicit error codes or persistent failure.

Explanation: In C13, the bedroom occupancy sensor reports 'unoccupied' while the living room is 'occupied'. This discrepancy could imply a blind spot, calibration issue, or that the occupant moved out of the bedroom's detection zone. However, without intermediate logs from C05-C12 to confirm continuous absence or corroborating data from other rooms (hallway/bathroom) showing no transit, this cannot be definitively classified as a malfunction versus a normal state change.

Explanation: Per supervisor guidance, the lack of intermediate chunks prevents ruling out communication drops or accurate empty-room states. Per Matter Notes, scaled temperature values alone are insufficient, and boolean states require transition context which is sparse here.

Explanation: Given the ambiguity and lack of direct fault evidence (like repeated non-recovery or explicit alarms), the most prudent conclusion is that the devices are likely functioning within normal operational variance, albeit with potential sensitivity issues that do not constitute a confirmed fault.

C03/C08: Rapid occupancy toggles (e.g., 06:24-06:41, 14:57-15:03) suggest high sensitivity but not necessarily failure.

C13: Bedroom unoccupied at 22:42/23:12/23:42 while Living Room occupied, creating an ambiguous context regarding occupant location.

Missing chunks C05-C12 prevent verification of continuous absence or transit paths.

Review full log continuity (chunks C05-C12) to determine if the 'unoccupied' states were transient glitches or sustained absences.

Check for correlation with bathroom/hallway occupancy to verify if the occupant moved through those areas during the evening.

Monitor for persistent 'unoccupied' states despite known presence to rule out blind spots or calibration errors.

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

C00: Baseline check for normal temperature reporting and initial occupancy state (unoccupied) in the early morning.

C08: Check for occupancy transitions (occupied/unoccupied) during afternoon activity to verify sensor responsiveness.

C08: Bedroom temp drops from 23.44°C to 22.78°C in the afternoon, consistent with passive cooling or HVAC cycling.

C13: Bedroom temp stabilizes around 21.5-21.7°C at night, consistent with a sleeping environment.

Temperature data alone cannot rule out intermittent communication failures between reporting intervals.

The bedroom occupancy sensor is functioning normally, exhibiting 'flickering' behavior typical of sensitive PIR sensors detecting minor movements (breathing, shifting) or environmental noise when a person is present but stationary. The transitions to 'unoccupied' are transient and followed by re-detection, indicating the sensor recovers correctly.

C03: Occupancy toggles between occupied/unoccupied rapidly (06:24-06:41) while the light is on, suggesting presence detection sensitivity rather than failure.

C08: Brief occupancy bursts (14:57, 15:02) occur without corresponding light activation, possibly due to high sensitivity to non-human motion or air currents, but the sensor returns to unoccupied quickly.

C13: Occupancy remains stable for long periods (22:30-22:42) before dropping, which is normal for a person leaving the room.

Does not fully explain why the sensor fails to detect the occupant in C13 after they leave the bedroom but remain in the house (living room occupied), potentially indicating a blind spot or calibration issue rather than just sensitivity.

Bedroom occupancy sensor has a calibration or placement issue causing false negatives (failure to detect sustained presence). In C13, the sensor reports 'unoccupied' at 22:42 and 23:12 despite the living room being continuously occupied, implying the occupant moved to the living room but was not detected there or the bedroom sensor failed to update its state relative to the household context. This suggests a potential 'safety_device_failure' or 'sensor_malfunction' regarding reliable presence tracking.

C13: At 22:42:41, bedroom_occupancy becomes unoccupied. Living_room_occupancy becomes occupied at 22:45:10. There is a gap where the system thinks no one is in the bedroom, but someone is in the house.

C13: At 23:12:41, bedroom_occupancy becomes unoccupied again. Living_room_occupancy remains occupied.

C13: At 23:42:41, bedroom_occupancy becomes unoccupied again. Living_room_occupancy remains occupied.

Contrast with C03: In the morning, the sensor was highly reactive (toggling), whereas in the evening it seems to miss the transition of the person leaving the bedroom entirely or failing to register their continued presence if they were still near the door/sensor.

It is possible the occupant left the house entirely, but the living room occupancy log contradicts this.

The 'unoccupied' states in C13 might be correct if the person was in another part of the house not covered by these specific sensors, but the query focuses on the bedroom sensor's reliability.

Bedroom occupancy sensor exhibits unstable behavior ('flickering') in C03 and C08, which could indicate a hardware fault (e.g., failing PIR element) or severe environmental interference (e.g., drafts, heat sources) affecting calibration. While it recovers, the instability is a precursor to potential failure.

C03: Multiple rapid transitions (occupied -> unoccupied -> occupied) within minutes (06:24-06:41) while the light is on.

C08: Short-lived occupancy events (1 second duration at 14:57, 50 seconds at 15:02) that do not trigger lights, suggesting spurious triggers.

PIR sensors are known to be sensitive; without explicit error codes or persistent stuck states, this may be considered 'behavioral anomaly' rather than 'device fault'.

C13: The discrepancy between bedroom_occupancy=unoccupied and living_room_occupancy=occupied during the evening hours (22:42-23:50) strongly suggests the bedroom sensor is either missing the occupant's departure or failing to maintain a 'home' context if the occupant is still nearby.

C03/C08: Rapid oscillation of occupancy state without corresponding actuator changes (lights) indicates potential sensitivity issues.

Logs for other rooms (e.g., hallway, bathroom) to confirm if the occupant moved through them.

Explicit fault/alarm logs from the Matter device itself.

Context on whether the occupant typically stays in the bedroom at night or moves to the living room.

Verify if the 'unoccupied' states in C13 are transient glitches or persistent failures by checking intermediate timestamps (e.g., every 5-10 mins) between 22:42 and 23:50.

Check for explicit Matter fault/alarm events from bedroom_occupancy_sensor during the suspected malfunction periods.

Correlate bedroom_occupancy transitions with other sensors (bathroom, hallway) to determine if the occupant moved through them, which would explain the 'unoccupied' state in the bedroom without implying sensor failure.

Analyze the rapid toggling in C03/C08 more closely to distinguish between PIR sensitivity issues and actual data corruption.

The investigator correctly identified potential anomalies in the occupancy sensor (C13 unoccupied while living room occupied; C03/C08 flickering).

However, the conclusion relies heavily on sparse logging intervals (every 5 minutes for temp, irregular for occupancy). The 'unoccupied' readings in C13 at 22:42, 23:12, and 23:42 might be correct if the person was not in the bedroom's detection zone, but the lack of intermediate data makes it impossible to rule out a stuck sensor or communication drop.

The 'flickering' in C03/C08 is noted as potentially normal PIR behavior, but without seeing the full context of light activations or other motion triggers, it remains ambiguous.

Crucially, chunks C05-C12 are missing. These likely contain the critical transition periods where the occupant moves between rooms, which is necessary to validate whether the bedroom sensor is failing to detect presence or if the person simply wasn't there.

Without these chunks, we cannot confirm if the 'unoccupied' states were errors or accurate reflections of an empty room. Therefore, evidence is insufficient for a definitive fault diagnosis.

Bedroom sensors (temperature and occupancy) are functioning normally. Temperature readings show expected diurnal variation and stability, while occupancy transitions reflect typical human movement patterns (brief entries/exits or sensor sensitivity to minor movements).

Temperature logs for bedroom_temp_sensor in C00, C08, and C13 show continuous updates with values fluctuating within a realistic range (21.48°C - 23.45°C), consistent with ambient room temperature changes.

No 'stuck' values observed; raw integer values change frequently (e.g., 2173 -> 2164 -> 2167 in C00).

Occupancy events in C08 (14:57-15:03) and C13 (22:25-23:12) show transitions between occupied (1) and unoccupied (0). The brief duration in C08 (approx. 1 minute total active time across two bursts) and the longer duration in C13 align with plausible user behavior (e.g., checking the room, moving through, or sleeping/waking cycles).

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or communication errors are present in the logs.

The very short occupancy durations in C08 could indicate high sensor sensitivity or false positives, but this is a behavioral characteristic rather than a hardware fault unless it persists indefinitely without recovery.

Occupancy sensor exhibits intermittent false-positive triggering or instability, potentially indicating a sensitivity issue or environmental interference, though not necessarily a complete hardware failure.

In C08, the bedroom_occupancy sensor flips from unoccupied to occupied at 14:57:00 and back to unoccupied at 14:57:45 (45 seconds). It then flips again at 15:02:20 to occupied and back to unoccupied at 15:03:10 (50 seconds). This rapid oscillation suggests the sensor might be detecting non-human motion (e.g., HVAC airflow, pets, or electronic interference) or has unstable calibration.

In C13, the sensor reports 'occupied' starting at 22:25:17, but then reports 'unoccupied' at 22:42:41 despite the living_room_occupancy remaining 'occupied' throughout the evening, implying someone was home. If the bedroom occupant left at 22:42, the subsequent 'unoccupied' status holds until 23:12:41, which is a long gap. However, the initial burst of activity in C08 is more indicative of potential sensor noise.

The 'malfunction' is mild; the sensor does recover and report stable states later. A single period of flickering occupancy (C08) is often due to environmental factors rather than device failure.

Temperature sensor shows no signs of malfunction (no stuck values, drift, or gaps).

C08 occupancy timestamps: 14:57:00 (occupied) -> 14:57:45 (unoccupied) -> 15:02:20 (occupied) -> 15:03:10 (unoccupied). This rapid succession of state changes is the primary indicator of potential sensor instability.

Continuous temperature updates in all chunks (C00, C08, C13) with no missing data points or impossible values, ruling out temperature sensor failure.

Context on whether anyone was actually present in the bedroom during the C08 intervals (14:57-15:03) to verify if the occupancy detections were false positives.

Sensor configuration settings (e.g., sensitivity thresholds, debounce timers) to determine if the rapid toggling is within expected operational parameters.

C08: Bedroom temp drops from 23.44°C to 22.78°C in the afternoon, consistent with passive cooling or HVAC cycling.

C13: Bedroom temp stabilizes around 21.5-21.7°C at night, consistent with a sleeping environment.

C13: At 23:12:41, bedroom_occupancy becomes unoccupied again. Living_room_occupancy remains occupied.

C13: At 23:42:41, bedroom_occupancy becomes unoccupied again. Living_room_occupancy remains occupied.

C03: Multiple rapid transitions (occupied -> unoccupied -> occupied) within minutes (06:24-06:41) while the light is on.

Verify temperature sensor continuity and scaling in chunks between C00 and C08 (e.g., C01-C07) to rule out data gaps or drift.

Verify occupancy sensor behavior in chunks between C08 and C13 (e.g., C09-C12) to determine if the 'unoccupied' state in C13 was a transient glitch or sustained absence.

Check for explicit fault/alarm events in the full log stream, not just the selected chunks.

Corroborate bedroom occupancy with other sensors (e.g., light usage, door lock) to validate human presence vs. sensor noise.

The investigator correctly identified potential instability in the occupancy sensor (rapid toggling in C08) but dismissed it as likely environmental rather than a hardware fault without sufficient evidence.

The conclusion relies heavily on the assumption that the brief occupancy bursts were 'behavioral' rather than 'malfunction'. However, rapid oscillation (flickering) is a classic symptom of sensor failure or severe calibration issues.

Crucially, the investigation ignores the gap between C00 (early morning) and C08 (afternoon). We do not know if the sensors worked normally during the day. A device could be intermittent.

Similarly, in C13, the transition from occupied to unoccupied at 22:42 needs context. Was the person actually gone? If they stayed (implied by living room occupancy), the sensor might have failed to detect them again or reported incorrectly.

To confirm 'normal' operation, we need to see continuous, stable logs across the entire timeline, not just isolated snapshots. The current selection is insufficient to rule out intermittent faults.

False alarm risk is medium because the 'anomaly' (flickering) is real, but the interpretation (it's just sensitivity, not a fault) is speculative without more data.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 398,
    "bedroom": 360,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 53,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 221,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 221,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-09T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-09T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "bedroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "bedroom_temp_sensor",
      "bedroom_occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 bedroom 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "bedroom_temp_sensor",
    "bedroom_occupancy_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C08",
    "C13"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "sensor_stuck_values",
    "missing_data_gaps",
    "state_transition_anomalies"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline check for normal temperature reporting and initial occupancy state (unoccupied) in the early morning.",
    "C08: Check for occupancy transitions (occupied/unoccupied) during afternoon activity to verify sensor responsiveness.",
    "C13: Check for occupancy stability and temperature consistency during evening/night hours when the room is likely occupied."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The bedroom temperature sensor is functioning normally. The logs show consistent, gradual temperature changes (approx. 0.1-0.2°C per 5 minutes) that correlate with the general house trend and lack of active heating/cooling spikes. No stuck values or impossible transitions are observed.",
      "evidence": [
        "C00-C04: Bedroom temp rises steadily from 21.73°C to 24.49°C as the house warms up, mirroring living room/kitchen trends.",
        "C08: Bedroom temp dro


DF-04-FP: 门锁响应延迟但最终成功锁定

The entrance contact sensor appears to be functioning normally; the lack of logs is attributed to event-only reporting with no door activity during the gap.

Explanation: The investigator identified a significant gap in `front_door_contact` telemetry between 07:14:30 and 22:11:49, while lock activity was observed at 21:24:00.

Explanation: The supervisor correctly noted that intermediate chunks (C07-C10) are missing, preventing definitive confirmation of whether the door opened during the gap.

Explanation: However, the lock activity at 21:24:00 was extremely brief (unlocked at :03, locked at :08), lasting only 5 seconds. This pattern is consistent with an auto-relock feature engaging immediately after a manual unlock or a user unlocking from inside without opening the door significantly enough to trigger the contact sensor.

Explanation: Contact sensors typically operate on state-change events. Without evidence of a sustained open state or explicit fault codes, assuming a malfunction based solely on silence is speculative.

Explanation: The device reported valid states ('false' then 'true') at the start of the observation window (C03) and 'true' at the end (C12), proving connectivity and basic functionality.

Explanation: Per the rules, we must not escalate to `sensor_malfunction` from missing logs alone or single transient dropouts without corroborating failure evidence. The normal hypothesis (door remained closed or opened briefly without triggering) is plausible given the lock behavior.

front_door_contact reported valid transitions (false->true) at 07:14:25-07:14:30 in C03.

front_door_contact reported true at 22:11:49 in C12.

Lock activity at 21:24:00 was very short duration (5s), suggesting no prolonged door opening that would necessitate a contact sensor log if the sensor is event-driven.

Verify physical door status during the gap period if possible.

Check sensor configuration for debounce settings or heartbeat intervals.

lock activity without corresponding contact state changes

In C03 (ending 07:14:30), the front_door_lock unlocks manually at 07:14:23. Immediately after, at 07:14:25, `front_door_contact` reports `false` (open) and at 07:14:30 reports `true` (closed). This proves the sensor was active and responsive just before C04 began.

In C04, the lock auto-locks at 07:14:31. No further contact logs appear until C12. If the door remained closed from 07:14:30 onwards, no new state-change events would be generated.

In C12, at 22:11:49, the contact sensor reports `true` (closed) again, followed by an auto-lock event at 22:11:50. This confirms the sensor is still operational and correctly reporting the 'closed' state at the end of the observation period.

Relies on the assumption that the door did not open between 07:14:30 and 22:11:49. While plausible for a residential setting during those hours, it cannot be strictly proven without intermediate logs.

The entrance contact sensor has intermittent connectivity issues or a configuration problem causing it to miss state-change events or fail to report periodically, resulting in a monitoring blind spot for approximately 15 hours.

There is a significant gap in telemetry for `front_door_contact` between 07:14:30 (C03) and 22:11:49 (C12).

During this gap, the `front_door_lock` shows activity at 21:24:00 (unlock/lock sequence). However, there is no corresponding `front_door_contact` log around 21:24:00 to confirm if the door actually opened or if the lock operated while the door was already closed (auto-lock failure vs. manual override).

The lack of any heartbeat or status update for nearly 15 hours is unusual for many smart home protocols unless specifically configured for event-only reporting with long debounce times.

Contact sensors are often designed to be event-driven. If the door was never opened, no logs are expected.

The lock operations at 21:24:00 occurred very quickly (unlocked then locked within seconds), which could indicate an automatic re-lock feature engaging immediately after a brief unlock, potentially without the door physically moving enough to trigger the contact sensor, or the user unlocking it from inside without opening the door.

No explicit fault codes or 'device offline' messages were recorded.

The successful reporting of `front_door_contact` state transitions (`false` to `true`) at 07:14:25-07:14:30 in C03, proving the device was online and functional immediately prior to the gap.

The successful reporting of `front_door_contact` state `true` at 22:11:49 in C12, proving the device was online and functional after the gap.

The absence of any `front_door_contact` logs between 07:14:30 and 22:11:49, despite the presence of other devices (temp sensors, occupancy) logging regularly, suggesting the issue is specific to the contact sensor's reporting frequency or the door's physical state.

Configuration details for the `front_door_contact` sensor (e.g., reporting interval, debounce settings, event-only mode).

Physical verification of whether the door was opened during the gap period (especially around 21:24:00 when the lock cycled).

Verify if `front_door_contact` logs exist in the intermediate chunks (C07-C10) to confirm the 15-hour gap is real or just a sampling artifact.

Check for any explicit 'device offline' or 'connection lost' events associated with the contact sensor during the gap.

Correlate the lock activity at 21:24:00 with any potential door movement; if the door was opened but not reported by the contact sensor, this constitutes a fault.

The investigator correctly identifies the core issue: a long silence from the contact sensor despite lock activity.

However, concluding 'normal' based solely on start/end points (C03/C12) ignores the significant risk that the sensor failed to report an actual door opening event during the gap (especially around 21:24 when the lock cycled).

Concluding 'malfunction' based only on absence of logs is also weak without confirming the door *was* open. The missing intermediate chunks (C07-C10) are critical to determine if the door remained closed (sensor working, no events needed) or opened silently (sensor faulty).

The current evidence is insufficient to distinguish between 'event-only reporting with no events' and 'sensor failure to report events'.

False alarm risk is medium because if the door *did* open and wasn't reported, it's a security fault, not a false alarm. If it didn't open, it's normal behavior. We need the data to decide.

The entrance contact sensor is functioning normally. The lack of early logs in C04 is due to the door remaining closed (stable state), and the single log entry in C12 corresponds to a specific event (door closing/locking) where the state changed or was polled.

In C12, at 22:11:49, `front_door_contact` reports `StateValue = true`. In Matter/standard smart home semantics for contact sensors, 'true' typically indicates the magnet is engaged (door closed) or the switch is pressed, depending on wiring logic, but often correlates with the 'locked' state if wired to the latch mechanism or simply indicating the door is shut.

Immediately following the contact sensor update at 22:11:49, the lock performs an auto-lock operation at 22:11:50, transitioning to `locked`. This sequence (Contact True -> Lock Auto-Lock) suggests a coherent workflow where the system detects the door is closed/secured and then engages the deadbolt.

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or stuck-value patterns are present in the logs.

The definition of 'true' for BooleanState.StateValue varies by manufacturer (Open vs Closed). If 'true' means 'open', this contradicts the immediate locking action unless it's a delayed lock.

There is no continuous telemetry stream for the contact sensor to verify its baseline stability over time, only isolated events.

The entrance contact sensor is experiencing intermittent connectivity or reporting failures (sensor_malfunction/sensor_stuck). It failed to report any state changes during the significant lock activity window in C12 (21:24-21:28), only appearing once much later at 22:11.

In C12, between 21:24:03 and 21:24:08, the front door lock transitions from unlocked to locked. A standard door opening/closing cycle should trigger the contact sensor. However, there are **zero** logs for `front_door_contact` during this entire period.

The first appearance of `front_door_contact` in the focused chunks is at 22:11:49, nearly 50 minutes after the previous lock activity and 1 hour after the start of C12.

In C04, there is also no record of the contact sensor, despite the lock being active at 07:14:31.

This pattern suggests the sensor is either offline, has a broken connection, or fails to transmit state updates until a specific poll or unrelated event triggers it.

If the sensor uses event-driven reporting only on change, and the door was already closed/stable for long periods, the absence of logs might be normal behavior (no change to report).

The single log at 22:11:49 could be a periodic heartbeat or a response to a query, rather than a failure recovery.

Potential security gap or misconfiguration where the contact sensor is not reliably linked to the lock status, creating a blind spot for intrusion detection.

The lock operates autonomously (Auto-lock) without visible confirmation from the contact sensor in the logs during the 21:24 unlock/lock cycle.

If the contact sensor is supposed to trigger automation (e.g., 'unlock when door opens'), the lack of corresponding occupancy or contact logs makes it impossible to verify if such automations fired correctly.

This is a behavioral/system configuration issue rather than a direct hardware fault of the sensor itself, though it manifests as missing data.

Absence of `front_door_contact` logs during the 21:24:03-21:24:08 lock state transition in C12, while other devices (living_room_occupancy, temp sensors) are logging frequently.

Single late appearance of `front_door_contact` at 22:11:49 in C12, coinciding with an auto-lock event, suggesting it may only report on specific triggers or polls rather than continuous state monitoring.

Definition of `BooleanState.StateValue`: Does 'true' mean Door Open or Door Closed? (Crucial for interpreting the 22:11:49 log).

Configuration of the contact sensor: Is it set to report on every state change, or only on significant events/polls?

Logs for the full duration between 21:24 and 22:11 to see if the contact sensor reported anything else.

Verify if `front_door_contact` logs exist in the chunk immediately preceding C04 (likely C03) to establish a baseline or recent history.

Check for any explicit fault codes, connection drops, or 'device offline' events associated with `front_door_contact` in the surrounding chunks.

Determine if the absence of logs is due to event-driven reporting (no state change) vs. actual failure by checking if the door was physically open/closed during the gaps.

The investigator correctly identifies the missing telemetry for the contact sensor but relies heavily on the absence of logs as evidence of malfunction.

This is a high false-alarm risk because contact sensors often only report on state changes. If the door remained closed (or open) for long periods, no logs would be generated even if the device is healthy.

The current evidence (C04 and C12) shows gaps where the lock operated without corresponding contact logs, but this could simply mean the door didn't move (auto-lock from closed state) or the sensor is configured to debounce/report infrequently.

Without adjacent chunks (C03, C05) to see if the sensor reported anything recently before/after these gaps, we cannot distinguish between 'sensor stuck/offline' and 'sensor working normally but no state change occurred'.

The conclusion that the sensor might be faulty is speculative based on incomplete temporal context.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 398,
    "bedroom": 350,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 52,
    "entrance": 17
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 210,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "LockState": 6,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 6,
  "occupancy_events": 210,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-22T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-22T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "contact_sensor",
      "door_lock",
      "onoff_light"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 entrance 区域的传感器（入户门传感器）是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_contact",
    "front_door_lock"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C12"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "missing telemetry for contact sensor",
    "lock activity without corresponding contact state changes"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the first appearance of entrance devices (lock) and allows checking for initial contact sensor logs.",
    "C12 contains significant lock activity (unlock/lock sequence) which is the primary context to verify if the contact sensor reported the door state change."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The entrance contact sensor is functioning normally. The absence of logs in C03 and the sparse logging in C04/C12 are due to the door remaining in a static state (closed) for extended periods, as contact sensors typically only report on state changes or periodic heartbeats which may not have triggered during these specific windows.",
      "evidence": [
        "In C03 (ending 07:14:30), the front_door_lock unlocks manually at 07:14:23. Immediately after, at 07:14:25, `front_door_contact` reports `false` (open) and at 07:14:30 reports `true` (clos


DF-01-FP: 空调恒温控制导致温度稳定

有微小波动（±0.2°C），不是完全固定值；且空调处于开启状态

The living room temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally with no evidence of faults.

Explanation: The investigator correctly identified the target devices (living_room_temp_sensor, living_room_occupancy) and focused on relevant log chunks (C00, C10, C14).

Explanation: Temperature readings for the living room sensor show continuous, physically plausible fluctuations within a normal indoor range (~22-23°C), with no stuck values or impossible jumps.

Explanation: Occupancy sensor data shows logical state transitions (unoccupied to occupied) consistent with human presence patterns, without contradictions.

Explanation: No explicit fault, alarm, or error events were logged for the living room sensors. The transient 'None' value observed in C10 belongs to the kitchen sensor, not the living room sensors, and does not indicate a malfunction for the queried devices.

Living room temp sensor reports continuous valid data points in C00, C10, and C14.

Living room occupancy sensor reports consistent boolean transitions (0->1) without logical contradictions.

Absence of any 'fault', 'alarm', or 'error' tags associated with living_room_temp_sensor or living_room_occupancy in the provided logs.

No action required; sensors are operating within normal parameters.

C00: Occupancy remains 0 (unoccupied) during early morning hours, which is consistent with typical sleep schedules.

C10: Occupancy transitions to 1 (occupied) at 18:06 and stays 1 through evening activity, correlating with typical return-home times.

C14: Occupancy remains 1 late at night (23:44-23:54), consistent with continued presence.

Temperature values in C10 and C14 remain within reasonable indoor ranges (22.5-23.0°C) without erratic spikes or drops.

Does not account for the brief telemetry dropout of the *kitchen* sensor in C10, though this is outside the target scope.

No device fault detected for living room sensors. While there is a transient `None` value for the kitchen sensor in C10, this does not constitute a malfunction for the living room sensors as they continue to report valid data before and after the event. The living room sensors show no evidence of stuck values, drift, or failure.

No explicit alarm/fault events logged for living room devices.

The only anomaly in the focused chunks is a single `None` reading for the *kitchen* sensor at 19:06:00, which recovers immediately at 19:10:00. This is insufficient to claim sensor_malfunction per guidelines requiring persistence/repetition.

Relies on the assumption that the kitchen sensor dropout is isolated and not part of a broader network issue affecting living room sensors, but living room logs do not show any gaps.

Living room temperature sensor provides continuous, non-stuck, physically plausible readings across all three time blocks (C00, C10, C14).

Living room occupancy sensor shows clear state transitions (0 to 1) corresponding to expected human activity patterns.

Logs for other rooms (bedroom, bathroom) are present but not queried; however, they confirm general system health.

No historical baseline data to compare against for 'drift' detection, but current behavior appears normal.

The investigator correctly identified the target devices (living_room_temp_sensor, living_room_occupancy) and focused on relevant chunks (C00, C10, C14).

The analysis correctly interprets Matter-scaled temperature values (centi-degrees) as normal indoor temperatures (~22-23°C), avoiding false alarms based on raw integer misinterpretation.

The investigator properly distinguished between the living room sensors (which are healthy) and the kitchen sensor (which had a transient dropout/anomaly), ensuring the conclusion is specific to the query scope.

Evidence provided (continuous valid readings, logical occupancy transitions, no fault flags) is sufficient to conclude 'normal operation' for the specified devices.

No protocol-format misunderstandings or false-alarm risks detected in the final verdict.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 407,
    "bedroom": 357,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "Occupancy": 225,
    "OnOff": 19,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 225,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-09T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-09T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices":

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "temperature_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 living_room 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "living_room_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C10",
    "C14"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "sensor_stuck_value",
    "normal_operation_verification"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline check for temperature sensor stability and occupancy status at the start of the log period.",
    "C10: Check for occupancy transitions (unoccupied to occupied) and concurrent temperature readings during active hours to verify sensor responsiveness.",
    "C14: Final check to ensure sensors remain functional and report consistent data until the end of the log period."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Living room temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally. The temperature readings show expected natural fluctuations within a comfortable range (22-23°C), and the occupancy sensor correctly transitions between unoccupied and occupied states consistent with human presence patterns.",
      "evidence": [
        "C00: Temperature fluctuates naturally from 22.72°C to 23.26°C over ~1.5 hours while unoccupied, showing no stuck values or impossible jumps.",