FG-01-FP: 煲汤/慢炖（正常长时间开灶）

温度上升后稳定（不持续飙升），住户定期回来检查，烟雾传感器未触发

The observed events are consistent with a normal morning routine involving two distinct entry/exit cycles and standard occupancy sensor behavior; no evidence of intrusion or device malfunction was found.

Explanation: The '4 lock_state_flips' signal is explained by the protocol-level state transitions of two complete manual unlock/auto-lock cycles (Unlock->Locked x2), which aligns perfectly with the two clear manual unlock events seen in C04 (07:06) and C06 (08:37). There is no evidence of failed attempts or unauthorized access.

Explanation: The persistent 'entrance_occupancy = occupied' status from 07:06 onwards is likely due to the nature of PIR/motion sensors detecting residual heat or movement near the door frame after the resident left, or potentially the resident lingering just outside. Crucially, there is no contradictory evidence of an intruder entering (e.g., living room activity during the 'unoccupied' window for the rest of the house, or multiple rapid unlocks without contact sensor changes).

Explanation: The sequence of events—waking up (C03), leaving home (C04), returning home (C06), and subsequent activity in the living room/kitchen—is coherent and typical for a resident's morning routine. The temperature trends are stable and normal.

Explanation: While the supervisor noted missing pre-event context (C01/C02), the available data from C03 onwards shows a logical progression of human presence that does not support an anomaly hypothesis over the normal routine hypothesis.

Two distinct manual unlock events at 07:06 and 08:37 corresponding to exit and return.

Contact sensor confirms door opened/closed for both events.

Living room occupancy and lights activate only after the 08:37 return, confirming resident presence inside.

No error codes, forced entry indicators, or impossible state transitions detected.

Monitor entrance occupancy sensor behavior to determine if it consistently stays 'occupied' after exits, which may indicate a need for sensitivity adjustment or sensor replacement if it causes false alarms in other contexts.

Potential unauthorized access or lock malfunction

Normal resident morning routine with two distinct entry/exit events. The first event (07:06) was a quick exit (e.g., to work or errands), and the second event (08:37) was a return home. The '4 lock_state_flips' signal likely counts the state transitions for these two cycles (Lock->Unlocked->Locked x2) or includes a minor background sync/status update, rather than indicating four separate physical manipulations.

C04 (07:06): Manual unlock followed immediately by auto-lock (9 seconds later). Contact sensor shows door opened then closed. Entrance occupancy activates briefly then deactivates as person leaves.

C06 (08:37): Manual unlock. Contact sensor opens. Living room activity (light on, occupancy) begins shortly after (08:37-08:42), consistent with a resident returning home and moving into the main living area.

Temperature trends are stable and gradual across all chunks, showing no anomalies.

Occupancy patterns in Bedroom/Kitchen/Living Room follow a logical progression of waking up and starting the day.

Does not fully explain the '4 lock_state_flips' count if it strictly refers to discrete manual operations, though protocol-level state changes could account for this.

Relies on the assumption that the gap between 07:06 and 08:37 represents the resident being away, which is plausible but unverified without GPS or other external data.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating at the entrance. The '4 lock_state_flips' signal suggests more activity than just two clean entry/exit cycles. If the missing flips occurred rapidly or without corresponding contact sensor openings/closings, it could indicate a brute-force attempt, a malfunctioning lock, or an intruder bypassing the contact sensor.

Structured Signal indicates 'lock_state_flips: 4', but only 2 clear manual unlock events are visible in C04 and C06.

C04 shows a very rapid cycle (Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Lock) in 9 seconds. While fast, it's possible.

C06 shows an unlock at 08:37, but the subsequent behavior (living room light on, occupancy) is normal. However, if there were intermediate flips not captured or misinterpreted, the security posture is unclear.

Entrance occupancy remains high/sticky from 07:06 through 09:20+, which is unusual for a single quick exit unless someone stayed outside or the sensor is stuck. However, looking closely, C04 shows entrance_occupancy=occupied at 07:06:08, then C05/C06 show it remaining occupied intermittently. This persistence might suggest someone lingering near the door or a sensor fault.

No explicit failed lock attempts or forced entry indicators (e.g., error codes) are present.

The 'missing' flips might be internal state updates or re-syncs rather than physical actions.

The resident presence hypothesis (N1) explains the majority of the behavioral data (lights, cooking, movement) coherently.

Sensor Malfunction / Stuck State. The entrance_occupancy sensor appears to remain 'occupied' for an extended period (from 07:06 through at least 09:20) despite the door locking automatically and the resident presumably leaving or moving inside. This contradicts the expected 'unoccupied' state after a departure.

C04 (07:06:08): entrance_occupancy becomes occupied.

C04-C07: entrance_occupancy repeatedly reports 'occupied' (raw=1) at timestamps like 07:11, 07:16, 07:21, 07:26, etc., even though the door locked automatically at 07:06:14.

If the resident left at 07:06, the entrance should be unoccupied. The persistent 'occupied' signal suggests the sensor is stuck or failing to detect the absence.

This false positive occupancy could mask a real intrusion if an intruder entered later, as the system would already believe someone is there.

It is also possible the resident never actually left (e.g., stepped out for a moment and came back in, or is standing just outside the door frame triggering the PIR/motion sensor).

Without a clear 'unoccupied' transition after 07:06, we cannot definitively prove the sensor is faulty versus the user being present.

The discrepancy between the '4 lock_state_flips' signal and the 2 clearly visible manual unlock events.

The persistent 'entrance_occupancy = occupied' status from 07:06 onwards, which conflicts with the automatic re-locking of the door at 07:06:14 if the resident had truly departed.

The sequence at 08:37 where the door unlocks and living room activity begins, confirming a resident presence, but leaving the earlier 07:06-08:37 window ambiguous regarding whether the resident was away or the sensor was stuck.

Raw log details for any lock state changes between 07:06 and 08:37 to verify the '4 flips'.

Confirmation of resident location (e.g., phone GPS) during the 07:06-08:37 window to determine if they were away.

Clarification on whether the entrance_occupancy sensor is motion-based (PIR) or presence-based (mmWave/UWB), as PIR sensors can trigger falsely or stay active due to heat/airflow.

Verify the '4 lock_state_flips' signal by checking for intermediate state changes or sync events in C01-C03 that are not visible as manual operations.

Determine if the persistent 'entrance_occupancy = occupied' is a sensor fault (stuck high) or valid presence (e.g., someone lingering outside/inside threshold). Check if it transitions to 'unoccupied' later in C07 or if it remains stuck.

Check for any explicit fault codes or error logs from the door lock or occupancy sensors.

The investigator correctly identifies the core ambiguity: the discrepancy between the '4 flips' signal and only 2 clear manual unlocks, and the persistent entrance occupancy.

However, the investigation relies heavily on inference ('likely counts state transitions') rather than direct evidence. The '4 flips' could indicate a malfunctioning lock or a specific security event (e.g., multiple failed attempts) that requires raw log verification.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is plausible but weak because PIR sensors can stay active due to heat/movement without being 'faulty'. Without seeing the transition back to 'unoccupied' or an explicit fault code, we cannot confirm a malfunction.

Crucially, the investigation ignores the pre-event context (C01, C02). To determine if the 07:06 exit was normal, we need to see the preceding behavior (e.g., did the resident wake up? Was there prior activity?).

The current conclusion is speculative. We need to verify the lock's internal state history and the occupancy sensor's recovery pattern before ruling out safety threats or confirming device health issues.

Normal resident activity with standard lock operation. The resident manually unlocked the door (likely to let someone in or check outside), the contact sensor detected the door open, and the auto-lock feature engaged shortly after to secure the home. Subsequent occupancy at the entrance is consistent with a person standing near the door or entering.

At 07:06:05, `front_door_lock` shows `LockOperationType=1` (Unlock) with `OperationSource=Manual`, indicating intentional user action.

Immediately following the unlock, `front_door_contact` goes `false` (open) at 07:06:07.

At 07:06:14, `front_door_lock` performs `LockOperationType=0` (Lock) with `OperationSource=Auto`, returning to `locked` state. This is a typical 'auto-relock' behavior after manual unlock + door open event.

The `entrance_occupancy` transitions to `occupied` at 07:06:08, which aligns with the timeframe of the door being open/unlocked, suggesting a person was present at the entrance during this normal interaction.

Does not fully explain the '4 lock_state_flips' mentioned in structured signals if they refer to rapid toggling beyond this single event, though only one clear flip sequence is visible in the provided chunks.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating attempt. The manual unlock followed by an immediate auto-lock might indicate a forced entry where the intruder triggered the auto-lock, or a 'tailgating' scenario where an authorized person opened the door for an unauthorized individual who then remained inside (indicated by sustained entrance occupancy).

The transition from `unoccupied` to `occupied` at the entrance (07:06:08) coincides exactly with the door being unlocked and open.

Sustained `entrance_occupancy = occupied` throughout C05 and C06 suggests someone is lingering at the entry point or has entered and is moving through the house, rather than just passing through quickly.

If the '4 lock_state_flips' signal refers to multiple rapid lock/unlock cycles not fully detailed in these specific timestamps but implied by the summary, it could indicate brute-force attempts or repeated failed entries.

The explicit `OperationSource=Manual` for the unlock makes a pure brute-force attack less likely unless the attacker had credentials.

The auto-lock engaging successfully (`locked` state) mitigates the risk of the door remaining open.

No evidence of forced entry (broken contact sensor, error codes) is present.

The pattern is consistent with a legitimate resident letting a guest in or checking the door.

Lock malfunction or false auto-lock. The device may have incorrectly interpreted the manual unlock as a transient state and re-locked immediately, potentially trapping someone outside or creating confusion, although the logs show a successful manual unlock first.

The gap between manual unlock (07:06:05) and auto-lock (07:06:14) is very short (9 seconds). If the user intended to keep the door open longer, this could be a configuration issue or malfunction.

However, the `BooleanState.StateValue` went `true` (closed) at 07:06:13, right before the auto-lock, suggesting the door was physically closed, triggering the auto-lock timer.

The sequence (Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Lock) is logically sound for a smart lock with auto-relock enabled.

No error codes or stuck states are observed.

The precise timing of `LockOperation` events: Manual Unlock at 07:06:05 followed by Auto Lock at 07:06:14.

The correlation between `front_door_contact` going `false` (open) and `entrance_occupancy` becoming `occupied`.

The final state of the lock being `locked` (raw=1) after the event window, indicating security was restored.

Logs covering the period *before* 06:23 to establish the baseline state of the lock and occupancy (was it locked/unoccupied?).

Details on the other 3 'lock_state_flips' mentioned in structured signals, as only one clear unlock/lock cycle is visible in the focused chunks.

Context on whether the resident was expected to be home or away at this time (07:00-09:00).

Temperature trends are stable and gradual across all chunks, showing no anomalies.

Occupancy patterns in Bedroom/Kitchen/Living Room follow a logical progression of waking up and starting the day.

Structured Signal indicates 'lock_state_flips: 4', but only 2 clear manual unlock events are visible in C04 and C06.

C04 shows a very rapid cycle (Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Lock) in 9 seconds. While fast, it's possible.

C04 (07:06:08): entrance_occupancy becomes occupied.

Verify the '4 lock_state_flips' signal mentioned in Triage. The current chunks (C04-C06) only show 2 distinct manual unlock events (07:06 and 08:37). The other 2 flips must be located to determine if they represent a brute-force attempt or rapid cycling.

Check C03 for the baseline state of the door lock and occupancy prior to 06:23 to confirm the 'long period of unoccupied status' and ensure no earlier unauthorized access occurred.

Correlate the second unlock event at 08:37 with the living room activity (light on, occupancy) to rule out normal resident movement vs. lingering intruder.

The investigator correctly identified the primary security-relevant events (manual unlocks) but failed to account for the full scope of the 'suspected_patterns' flagged by the triage system ('LockState flips (4 total)').

Chunks C04-C06 only capture two unlock cycles. Without C03 (pre-06:23), we cannot verify the initial state or find the missing flip(s). If the other flips were rapid/unauthorized, the threat level changes significantly.

The conclusion relies heavily on interpreting sustained occupancy as 'lingering' rather than just normal presence. While plausible, it is not definitive proof of intrusion without ruling out the other lock flips.

No protocol-format misunderstandings detected (temperatures are handled correctly).

Refinement is needed to locate all lock state changes before concluding safety.

## 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: 独居老人 (Elderly Living Alone)
- 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>, 床头灯<onoff_light>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- living_room: 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 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": 497,
    "bedroom": 528,
    "kitchen": 537,
    "bathroom": 59,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 940,
    "MeasuredValue": 872,
    "OnOff": 22,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 940,
  "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": "2026-06-10T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-10T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "entrance": 4

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "door_lock",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "entrance_contact_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C05",
    "C06"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "LockState flips (4 total)",
    "Occupancy transitions at entrance",
    "Potential unauthorized access or lock malfunction"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the start of the occupancy transition at the entrance (07:26) and shows the first signs of activity after a long period of unoccupied status, coinciding with the 'alarmish_count' spike. It is crucial to check if this correlates with any lock state changes.",
    "C05 continues the high-activity period with sustained occupancy at the entrance and other rooms. This chunk likely contains the bulk of the 'lock_state_flips' mentioned in deterministic signals, which are critical for determining if the door was opened/closed repeatedly (potential break-in attempt or malfunction).",
    "C06 shows the continuation of the occupied state. Checking here helps determine if the lock returned to a secure state or if the activity persisted abnormally. Since lock events are sparse (only 4 flips), they likely occurred within this active window."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event


有人在卫生间正常使用中触发，且短时间内恢复为 false

The front door was manually unlocked and remained in an unsecured state for over two hours without re-locking, indicating a failure of the expected auto-lock security protocol.

Explanation: At 07:01, the system demonstrated normal operation: a manual unlock was followed by an automatic lock at 07:01:12, confirming the Auto-Lock feature is active and functional.

Explanation: At 08:26:00, a manual unlock occurred (`LockOperationType=1`), but unlike the previous event, no subsequent lock event (manual or auto) appeared in the logs from 08:26 through the end of the provided data at 11:05.

Explanation: The `DoorLock.LockState` remained `unlocked` (raw=2) throughout this entire period, creating a persistent security vulnerability where the entry point was unsecured while occupants were present inside.

Explanation: While this could be user error (forgetting to lock), the deviation from the established automated pattern (Auto-Lock working at 07:01 but failing/not triggering at 08:26) constitutes a safety anomaly regarding the reliability of the home's security automation.

Explanation: There is no evidence of intrusion (no forced entry signs, occupancy suggests residents are inside), so it is classified as a device/automation safety failure rather than an intrusion.

07:01:12 LockOperation(Auto) successfully locked the door after manual unlock.

08:26:00 Manual Unlock event with no corresponding Lock event thereafter.

Persistent DoorLock.LockState = unlocked from 08:26:00 to 11:05:00.

Verify physical door status via camera or resident confirmation.

Check if Auto-Lock settings were modified or disabled between 07:01 and 08:26.

Alert user to manually secure the door immediately if still unlocked.

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.

TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue is represented in centi-degrees Celsius in this benchmark: 2466 means 24.66 C, not 2466 C.

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.

Occupancy transition at entrance/living room

Normal resident exit and re-entry with auto-lock engagement. The 'Manual' unlock at 08:26 was likely a resident unlocking the door to leave or receive someone, followed by immediate re-entry (indicated by `entrance_occupancy` going occupied). The subsequent lack of lock events is because the door was already locked by the Auto-Lock feature triggered at 07:01:12, or the resident manually locked it immediately after entering but the log only captured the initial state change. The `BooleanState=false` for the contact sensor likely indicates the door is closed (assuming standard Matter convention where Closed=True/False depends on specific implementation, but here `false` appearing during an 'unlocked' state might imply the door is physically closed but not secured, or simply that the sensor logic is inverted relative to my initial assumption). However, given the rapid sequence and occupancy presence, this looks like normal human activity.

At 07:01:04, a manual unlock occurred, followed by an auto-lock at 07:01:12, establishing that Auto-Lock is active and functional.

At 08:26:00, a manual unlock occurred (`LockOperationType=1`).

Immediately after (08:26:03), `entrance_occupancy` became `occupied`, suggesting someone was present at the entrance.

The door remained in an 'unlocked' state in logs, but if the resident stayed inside, the door would remain unlocked until they left again or manually locked it.

No further lock/unlock events occurred after 08:26, which is consistent with the door remaining in its last commanded state (unlocked) while the occupant is inside.

Does not fully explain why the door wasn't re-locked if the resident entered and closed the door, unless the Auto-Lock timer hasn't expired or was disabled for this entry.

Relies on the assumption that `BooleanState=false` means 'Closed' or that the lack of a 'Locked' event doesn't mean 'Unsecured' (it explicitly says `LockState = unlocked`). If the door is physically closed but logically unlocked, it is insecure.

Sensor Logic Inversion / False Positive Security Alert. The system interprets `BooleanState=false` as 'Open' (or vice versa incorrectly), leading to a false alarm. If `false` actually means 'Closed', then the door is closed. Even if `LockState` is 'unlocked', if the door is closed, the immediate intrusion risk is lower than if it were open. The 'threat' is perceived due to misinterpretation of the boolean state.

Supervisor feedback highlights ambiguity in `BooleanState` mapping.

At 07:01:06, `BooleanState=false` coincided with `LockState=unlocked`. At 07:01:11, `BooleanState=true` coincided with `LockState=locked`. This suggests `true` might map to 'Locked/Closed' and `false` to 'Unlocked/Open'.

If this mapping holds, at 08:26:02, `BooleanState=false` means the door is Unlocked/Open. However, if the resident is inside (Occupancy=1), the door being unlocked is a configuration choice, not necessarily an intrusion.

If `false` does mean Open, then the door is indeed unsecured while occupied, which is a safety/configuration issue, not just a sensor error.

Potential Intrusion or Tailgating with Failed Locking. A person unlocked the door manually at 08:26:00. The door contact sensor reported `false` (interpreted as Open/Unsecured) at 08:26:02. Occupancy sensors detected presence. Crucially, unlike the previous event at 07:01 where an Auto-Lock engaged seconds later, NO lock event occurred after 08:26. The door remained in the `unlocked` state for over an hour (logs end at 11:05 with no lock event). This represents a persistent security vulnerability: the door was manually unlocked and never re-secured, potentially leaving the home vulnerable to intrusion if the resident forgot to lock it, or if an intruder gained access and the resident is unaware.

08:26:00: Manual Unlock Event (`LockOperationType=1`).

08:26:02: Door Contact `BooleanState=false` (likely indicating Open/Unsecured state based on contrast with 07:01:11 where `true`=Locked).

08:26:03: Entrance Occupancy becomes `occupied`.

Absence of any `LockState=locked` or `LockOperation` event from 08:26:00 through 11:05:00.

Contrast with 07:01:12 where Auto-Lock successfully engaged, proving the mechanism works.

The prolonged unlocked state (>2 hours) without re-engagement is anomalous behavior for a secure home environment.

Could be explained by user error (forgot to lock) rather than malicious intrusion.

Does not prove an intruder *entered*, only that the door was left unlocked.

If `BooleanState=false` meant 'Closed', the door might be physically closed but logically unlocked, reducing immediate physical breach risk but maintaining security protocol violation.

Auto-Lock Failure or Bypass. The Auto-Lock feature, which worked at 07:01, failed to engage after the manual unlock at 08:26. This could indicate a device fault, a configuration change, or a bypass (e.g., door held open too long, though occupancy suggests otherwise).

Auto-Lock functioned correctly at 07:01:12.

Manual unlock at 08:26:00 did not trigger a subsequent lock event within the observed window.

No explicit fault codes are logged, making this a 'silent' failure of the security automation.

Users can often disable auto-lock temporarily or hold the door open to prevent it. Without explicit 'Auto-Lock Disabled' logs, this is speculative.

Requires assuming the user intended for the door to be locked.

The persistent `DoorLock.LockState = unlocked` from 08:26 onwards.

The `BooleanState=false` at 08:26:02, which correlates with the unlocked state.

Confirmation of the `BooleanState` logical mapping (does false=open/closed?).

Whether the Auto-Lock feature was configured to ignore manual unlocks or had a timeout that expired.

Physical verification of the door's actual position (open vs closed) via camera or other sensors.

User confirmation of whether they intentionally left the door unlocked.

At 07:01:04, a manual unlock occurred, followed by an auto-lock at 07:01:12, establishing that Auto-Lock is active and functional.

At 08:26:00, a manual unlock occurred (`LockOperationType=1`).

Immediately after (08:26:03), `entrance_occupancy` became `occupied`, suggesting someone was present at the entrance.

Supervisor feedback highlights ambiguity in `BooleanState` mapping.

08:26:00: Manual Unlock Event (`LockOperationType=1`).

08:26:02: Door Contact `BooleanState=false` (likely indicating Open/Unsecured state based on contrast with 07:01:11 where `true`=Locked).

08:26:03: Entrance Occupancy becomes `occupied`.

Absence of any `LockState=locked` or `LockOperation` event from 08:26:00 through 11:05:00.

Contrast with 07:01:12 where Auto-Lock successfully engaged, proving the mechanism works.

The prolonged unlocked state (>2 hours) without re-engagement is anomalous behavior for a secure home environment.

Auto-Lock functioned correctly at 07:01:12.

Manual unlock at 08:26:00 did not trigger a subsequent lock event within the observed window.

No explicit fault codes are logged, making this a 'silent' failure of the security automation.

Verify if the door was re-locked after 09:16 (end of C06) or later in C07-C08.

Check for explicit 'Auto-Lock Disabled' or configuration change events.

Confirm physical door state via camera logs if available, or infer from contact sensor stability.

Distinguish between user error (forgot to lock) and security breach (intruder present).

The investigator correctly identified the core anomaly: a manual unlock at 08:26 that did not trigger an auto-lock, unlike the previous event at 07:01. However, the investigation stops at 11:05 (end of C08). The logs show the door remained 'unlocked' throughout this period, but we do not know if it was locked again afterwards. A conclusion of 'security threat' requires knowing if the vulnerability persisted or was mitigated. Without chunks C09+ showing the final state or any subsequent locking event, the evidence is incomplete. Additionally, the distinction between 'user forgot to lock' and 'intrusion' cannot be made without more context (e.g., did anyone leave? was there a second unlock?). The current hypothesis relies heavily on the absence of a log entry (no lock event), which is weak evidence for a specific threat type without corroboration.

Normal morning routine: A resident manually unlocked the front door to enter or exit, followed by normal occupancy presence in the house.

At 08:26:00, `front_door_lock` reports a manual lock operation and state 'unlocked'. This is consistent with a user unlocking the door to let someone in or out.

Immediately following the unlock (08:26:03), `entrance_occupancy` transitions to 'occupied', indicating someone is present at the entrance.

Subsequent occupancy logs show stable 'occupied' states across living room, kitchen, and bedroom from 08:27 onwards, suggesting residents are home and active.

Temperature readings remain within normal residential ranges (24-25°C) with no spikes indicating fire or equipment failure.

No further lock operations or contact sensor changes occur after the initial event, implying the door was either left open intentionally or re-secured off-log, but without evidence of forced entry or repeated failures.

Does not explain why the door remained unlocked for over an hour if it was just an entry/exit, though this could be due to the resident staying inside with the door open or forgetting to close it.

Lacks explicit confirmation of the door being locked again, leaving a small window of potential insecurity if the resident intended to secure the home.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating: The door was unlocked manually, but there is no corresponding 'locked' event later, and the contact sensor state is ambiguous regarding whether the door was physically closed after entry.

The `front_door_contact` BooleanState is reported as 'false' (raw=False) at 08:26:02. In many Matter implementations, 'false' for a contact sensor often means 'open' (circuit broken) or 'closed' depending on wiring logic (NO vs NC). However, combined with the lock being 'unlocked', it suggests the door was accessed.

There is no subsequent log entry showing the door being locked again between 08:26 and 10:12. If the resident intended to secure the home, the lack of a 'lock' command is suspicious.

If 'false' implies 'open' (common in some contexts where true=closed/contact made), then the door has been open/unsecured for nearly an hour while occupants are present inside, which is a security risk.

If 'false' implies 'closed' (contact made), the door might have been closed but not locked, leaving it vulnerable to push-in attacks or easy re-entry by others.

The term 'Manual' lock operation usually implies a deliberate action by a known user, making random intrusion less likely than a user error or oversight.

Occupancy sensors show people are home, reducing the immediate risk of theft compared to an empty house.

Without knowing the specific wiring logic of the contact sensor (whether false=open or false=closed), the exact physical state of the door is ambiguous.

No evidence of forced entry, alarm triggers, or multiple failed attempts.

Device fault or misconfiguration: The lock mechanism may be stuck in an unlocked state or failing to report lock commands correctly.

Only one lock operation is recorded in the entire 1-hour window. If the system is configured for auto-locking, the absence of such events might indicate a configuration issue or device failure.

The contact sensor value 'false' appearing immediately after the lock event might indicate a sensor desynchronization or fault if the door was actually closed.

No other anomalies in temperature or occupancy suggest the rest of the system is functioning normally, isolating the issue to the lock/contact pair.

Matter logs typically reflect state changes; a stuck lock would usually require more evidence like repeated failed commands or persistent state mismatches over time.

The single event looks more like a user interaction than a mechanical failure.

The timestamp sequence: Lock Operation (Manual) -> Unlocked State -> Contact Sensor False -> Occupancy Occupied. This tight coupling suggests a human-initiated event rather than a glitch.

The absence of any 'Lock' command or 'Locked' state transition after 08:26:00, despite the duration extending to 10:12.

The interpretation of `BooleanState.StateValue = false` for the door contact sensor, which needs clarification against the specific device's NO/NC wiring to determine if the door was physically open or closed.

Definition of the `BooleanState` for the door contact sensor: Does 'false' mean Open or Closed?

Whether the smart home system has an auto-lock feature enabled that should have triggered a lock command after a period of inactivity.

Historical context: Is it normal for the front door to remain unlocked during these hours?

Confirmation of who performed the 'Manual' operation (if biometric or app-based logs are available).

At 07:01:04, a manual unlock occurred, followed by an auto-lock at 07:01:12, establishing that Auto-Lock is active and functional.

At 08:26:00, a manual unlock occurred (`LockOperationType=1`).

Immediately after (08:26:03), `entrance_occupancy` became `occupied`, suggesting someone was present at the entrance.

Supervisor feedback highlights ambiguity in `BooleanState` mapping.

08:26:00: Manual Unlock Event (`LockOperationType=1`).

08:26:02: Door Contact `BooleanState=false` (likely indicating Open/Unsecured state based on contrast with 07:01:11 where `true`=Locked).

08:26:03: Entrance Occupancy becomes `occupied`.

Absence of any `LockState=locked` or `LockOperation` event from 08:26:00 through 11:05:00.

Contrast with 07:01:12 where Auto-Lock successfully engaged, proving the mechanism works.

The prolonged unlocked state (>2 hours) without re-engagement is anomalous behavior for a secure home environment.

Auto-Lock functioned correctly at 07:01:12.

Manual unlock at 08:26:00 did not trigger a subsequent lock event within the observed window.

No explicit fault codes are logged, making this a 'silent' failure of the security automation.

At 07:01:04, a manual unlock occurred, followed by an auto-lock at 07:01:12, establishing that Auto-Lock is active and functional.

At 08:26:00, a manual unlock occurred (`LockOperationType=1`).

Immediately after (08:26:03), `entrance_occupancy` became `occupied`, suggesting someone was present at the entrance.

Supervisor feedback highlights ambiguity in `BooleanState` mapping.

08:26:00: Manual Unlock Event (`LockOperationType=1`).

08:26:02: Door Contact `BooleanState=false` (likely indicating Open/Unsecured state based on contrast with 07:01:11 where `true`=Locked).

08:26:03: Entrance Occupancy becomes `occupied`.

Absence of any `LockState=locked` or `LockOperation` event from 08:26:00 through 11:05:00.

Contrast with 07:01:12 where Auto-Lock successfully engaged, proving the mechanism works.

The prolonged unlocked state (>2 hours) without re-engagement is anomalous behavior for a secure home environment.

Auto-Lock functioned correctly at 07:01:12.

Manual unlock at 08:26:00 did not trigger a subsequent lock event within the observed window.

No explicit fault codes are logged, making this a 'silent' failure of the security automation.

Clarify the logical mapping of `BooleanState` for the door contact sensor (i.e., does 'false' mean Open or Closed in this specific Matter implementation?).

Check if an auto-lock feature is configured and active; if so, the lack of a lock event after the unlock is significant.

Verify if the 'Manual' operation source implies a user action that might not trigger standard 'Lock' state transitions if the door was already unlocked or if it was a partial engagement.

Determine if the door was physically closed but not locked, or left open, by correlating with any other sensors (e.g., window contacts) or historical patterns.

The investigator correctly identified the core sequence (Unlock -> Occupancy) but failed to resolve the ambiguity of the `BooleanState` value ('false') for the door contact sensor. Without knowing if 'false' means Open or Closed, the security assessment (whether the door is unsecured) is speculative.

The risk of false alarm is high because the conclusion relies on the assumption that 'no lock event = unsafe', ignoring possibilities like manual holding of the door, auto-lock configuration status, or sensor logic inversion.

Chunk C05 (pre-event context) is missing. It is crucial to see the state of the door lock and contact sensor *before* the 08:26 event to determine if the door was already unlocked or if this was a transition from a known secure state.

The investigation should not proceed to a final verdict until the sensor logic is clarified or corroborated by pre-event data.

## 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: 独居老人 (Elderly Living Alone)
- 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>, 床头灯<onoff_light>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- living_room: 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 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": 497,
    "bedroom": 529,
    "kitchen": 534,
    "bathroom": 65,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 944,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 22,
    "StateValue": 6,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 944,
  "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": "2026-06-16T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-16T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "entrance": 4

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "kitchen"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Lock operation with manual source",
    "Door contact state change (open/close)",
    "Occupancy transition at entrance/living room"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06 contains the specific event sequence of the door lock operation, contact sensor change, and immediate occupancy updates, which is the core evidence for assessing the security threat.",
    "C07 provides the subsequent context to verify if the state stabilized or if there were further anomalous activities following the initial event."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal resident exit and re-entry with auto-lock engagement. The 'Manual' unlock at 08:26 was likely a resident unlocking the door to leave or receive someone, followed by immediate re-entry (indicated by `entrance_occupancy` going occupied). The subsequent lack of lock events is because the door was already locked by the Auto-Lock feature triggered at 07:01:12, or the resident manually locked it im


有人在卫生间正常使用中触发，且短时间内恢复为 false

The observed lock activity is consistent with a routine morning departure using an auto-lock feature, and no evidence of intrusion or safety hazard was found.

Explanation: The primary security event at 07:03 involves a Manual Unlock followed immediately (3 seconds later) by an Auto Lock. This sequence is characteristic of a resident unlocking the door to exit, passing through, and the smart lock engaging its 'vacation mode' or short-timer auto-relock upon detecting the door closed.

Explanation: The contact sensor flip (False->True->False) within that 3-second window confirms the door was opened slightly for passage and then closed, which aligns perfectly with the manual-to-auto transition rather than a forced entry or malfunction.

Explanation: There are no indicators of unauthorized access: no 'Forced Entry' alarms, no tamper events, and no subsequent suspicious movement patterns in the logs (occupancy remains high in living areas, suggesting the resident is still home or just returned from a very brief errand).

Explanation: Other potential anomalies (water leak, cooking temp dropout) were assessed as transient glitches or non-hazardous; the water leak cleared quickly without corroborating humidity/flow data, and the cooking surface was turned off normally without fire alarms triggering.

Explanation: Therefore, the event does not constitute a safety threat.

LockOperation Manual Unlock at 07:03:08 followed by Auto Lock at 07:03:11.

Contact sensor state change False->True->False between 07:03:10 and 07:03:11, indicating brief opening/closing.

No Forced Entry or Tamper alarms triggered on the lock device.

Subsequent occupancy logs show normal residential activity without signs of intrusion.

Verify if the auto-lock timer setting is appropriate for the user's habits to prevent future confusion.

Monitor the bathroom water leak sensor for recurrence, though current evidence suggests a false positive.

Unusual early morning activity (06:20-07:17)

C06 follows immediately to check if the lock stabilized or if further suspicious activity occurred after the initial event.

At 07:03:08, `front_door_lock` shows a Manual Unlock event followed by an Auto Lock event at 07:03:11 (3 seconds later).

The `front_door_contact` flips False->True->False rapidly between 07:03:10 and 07:03:11, consistent with a door being opened slightly for passage and then closing quickly as the auto-lock engages.

Subsequent activity in C05-C06 shows high occupancy in living areas (kitchen, bedroom) starting around 07:15-08:20, suggesting the resident is still home or has just returned, making a break-in less likely than a routine exit/return or simply leaving the door locked after exiting.

No 'Forced Entry' or 'Tamper' alarms were triggered on the lock device.

Does not fully explain why the resident would leave the house briefly at 07:03 if they are present in the kitchen/bedroom by 07:15-08:20, unless it was a very short errand.

Relies on the assumption that the 'Auto' source indicates a configured timer rather than a system retry or error recovery.

Transient water leak false positive. A minor spill or condensation event in the bathroom triggered the leak sensor momentarily, which cleared itself without human intervention.

At 07:15:00, `bathroom_water_leak` triggers (`StateValue = true`).

By 07:17:00, the state returns to `false`.

The duration is extremely short (<2 minutes), typical of transient moisture events or sensor glitches.

No other environmental anomalies (e.g., humidity spikes, flow meter data) corroborate a sustained leak.

Cannot rule out a small, contained leak that dried up quickly.

Lacks corroboration from other bathroom sensors (humidity/flow) mentioned in supervisor feedback.

Unauthorized access via forced entry or credential theft. An intruder manually unlocked the door, entered, and the lock's auto-relock feature engaged after they passed through or closed the door, masking the intrusion.

Manual unlock at 07:03:08 coincides with a contact sensor flip indicating the door opened.

The rapid auto-lock at 07:03:11 could be exploited by an intruder who enters and closes the door behind them, triggering the auto-lock and securing the perimeter against immediate pursuit.

If the resident was asleep (indicated by early morning timing and lack of prior entrance activity), this represents a breach of security.

The contact sensor glitch (False->True) might indicate the door was held open or bumped during entry.

No evidence of subsequent movement *out* of the house or further unauthorized actions in the logs provided.

The resident appears to be active in the house shortly after (C05/C06), which contradicts a successful stealthy intrusion unless the intruder is hiding or the resident is unaware.

Without C03 baseline, we don't know if the lock was previously unstable or if there were failed attempts.

Unattended cooking fire risk. The cook surface was turned on in the kitchen while the occupant was in the bathroom/bedroom, and the temperature sensor dropout suggests a potential hazard escalation.

At 05:56:36, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON.

At 05:57:18, `bathroom_occupancy` becomes unoccupied, but `kitchen_occupancy` remains occupied until ~06:37 when the cook surface turns OFF.

However, at 06:38:00, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`, indicating a possible sensor failure or environmental interference (heat/smoke) near the sensor.

The gap between turning on the cook surface and it turning off (~40 mins) combined with the sensor dropout raises concern about unsupervised heating.

The cook surface was eventually turned off at 06:37:00, and no smoke/fire alarms were triggered.

The `None` reading could be a simple telemetry dropout rather than heat damage.

Occupancy in the kitchen was logged intermittently, suggesting someone may have been nearby.

The sequence at 07:03:08-07:03:11: Manual Unlock -> Contact Flip -> Auto Lock. The 3-second window is critical to distinguish between a configured auto-relock (Normal) and an opportunistic entry (Anomaly).

The `bathroom_water_leak` trigger at 07:15:00 clearing by 07:17:00. Duration <2 mins strongly favors false positive/transient over significant leak.

The `kitchen_temp_sensor` dropout at 06:38:00 following cook surface usage. While isolated, it occurs in a context of potential unattended cooking.

Pre-event lock state history (C03) to determine if the lock was already in an insecure state or if there were previous failed attempts.

Bathroom humidity or flow meter data to corroborate or refute the water leak event.

Smoke/CO alarm status during the 05:56-06:38 cook surface usage period.

Confirmation of resident presence/location at 07:03 to assess if the manual unlock was expected.

Pre-event lock state and history (C03) to determine if the lock was already unstable or if there were previous failed attempts.

Corroboration of the 'unattended cooking' hypothesis: Check for smoke/CO alarm triggers during the 05:56-06:38 window.

Clarification of the water leak event: Check for humidity/flow meter data in C04/C05 to rule out transient sensor glitch vs actual leak.

Verification of resident presence at 07:03: Cross-reference entrance_occupancy and other room occupancy logs to confirm if the manual unlock was expected behavior.

The investigator correctly identified the critical lock sequence (C04) but failed to retrieve the necessary pre-event context (C03) to establish baseline lock stability. Without C03, the 'auto-lock' behavior cannot be distinguished from a malfunction or forced entry attempt with certainty.

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis relies heavily on a single telemetry dropout (`None`) and assumes unsupervised usage without corroborating evidence (smoke alarms, sustained high heat). This is a weak signal for a safety threat conclusion.

The 'water leak' hypothesis is dismissed as transient based on duration alone, but lacks corroboration from other bathroom sensors. While likely a false alarm, it should not distract from the primary security question.

The investigation drifts into device health (sensor dropout) rather than focusing strictly on the security implication of the lock events. The query asks for a safety threat judgment; the current evidence is insufficient to rule out intrusion or confirm routine behavior definitively.

Request C03 to check for prior lock anomalies or failed access attempts. If C03 shows stable locking, the risk of false alarm for 'intrusion' decreases, but the 'malfunction' risk remains if auto-lock timing is erratic.

Routine morning entry and exit by the resident. The lock state changes at 07:03 represent the resident unlocking the door to leave (or retrieve something) and the auto-lock engaging immediately after, or a manual re-lock. The subsequent activity in the kitchen and bedroom is consistent with normal waking routines.

At 07:03:08, `front_door_lock` performs a Manual Unlock, followed by an Auto Lock at 07:03:11. This rapid sequence suggests a quick access event or a system retry/confirmation rather than a prolonged breach.

Occupancy sensors in the kitchen, bedroom, and living room show continuous 'occupied' states from 06:20 onwards, indicating the home was not empty during the lock events.

Temperature readings are stable and within normal residential ranges (23-25 C), showing no signs of fire or equipment failure.

The bathroom water leak sensor triggered briefly at 07:15 but cleared by 07:17, which could be a false positive or a minor spill quickly resolved, not necessarily a sustained safety threat.

The 'Auto Lock' occurring only 3 seconds after a 'Manual Unlock' is unusual for standard smart locks unless it's a specific 'vacation mode' or 'auto-relock on open' feature, which might indicate a configuration quirk rather than standard usage.

Does not fully explain why the contact sensor flipped False then True so rapidly if the door wasn't physically opened wide enough to break the seal for a significant time.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating incident. The lock was manually unlocked, the contact sensor indicated the door was open (False), and occupancy appeared at the entrance, but the auto-lock engaged very quickly. This could indicate an intruder entering and leaving rapidly, or a 'tailgating' scenario where someone entered behind the resident without proper verification.

At 07:03:08, `front_door_lock` unlocks manually. At 07:03:10, `front_door_contact` goes False (open). At 07:03:11, `entrance_occupancy` becomes occupied. At 07:03:11, `front_door_lock` auto-locks.

The window between unlock and auto-lock is extremely short (3 seconds). If this was a legitimate user leaving, they would likely take longer to pass through. If it was an intruder, they might enter and retreat quickly.

The contact sensor going False confirms the door was physically ajar/opened, validating that the lock state change corresponded to a physical event.

Another unlock event occurs at 08:32:00, also followed by contact sensor changes and occupancy, suggesting a pattern of frequent or suspicious access attempts.

The lack of explicit 'alarm' or 'forced entry' codes doesn't rule out social engineering or using a valid credential (key/fob) that shouldn't have been used at that moment.

The resident was present in the house (kitchen/bedroom occupied), making a burglary less likely than a family member moving about, though the question asks for security threats which include unauthorized use.

Smart locks often have aggressive auto-lock timers; the 3-second gap might just be the time it took for the door to close completely after being pushed open, triggering the sensor and then the lock timer.

No evidence of forced entry (broken glass, high force torque) is visible in the logs.

Minor water leak event in the bathroom. The sensor detected moisture at 07:15, which could indicate a pipe burst, overflow, or appliance leak.

At 07:15:00, `bathroom_water_leak` StateValue = true.

At 07:17:00, `bathroom_water_leak` StateValue = false.

The event lasted approximately 2 minutes.

Bathroom occupancy was active (1) at 07:15, suggesting someone was present to potentially notice or address it, but the brief nature means it might have been missed or was a transient drip.

The leak cleared very quickly (2 mins), which is more indicative of a false alarm, condensation, or a very minor spill than a significant plumbing failure.

No follow-up alerts or persistent wetness indicators were logged.

The sequence at 07:03:08-07:03:11 involving the front door lock, contact sensor, and entrance occupancy is the most critical data point for determining intrusion vs. routine behavior.

The duration of the door being 'open' (contact=False) relative to the auto-lock trigger time.

The presence of other occupants in the house during these events helps contextualize whether it's an external threat or internal movement.

Video footage or audio logs from the entrance area to visually confirm if a person entered/exited.

Configuration details of the smart lock's auto-lock timer settings (is it set to 3 seconds?).

History of previous lock/unlock patterns to establish a baseline for 'normal' resident behavior.

Confirmation of who holds keys/codes to the residence.

At 07:03:08, `front_door_lock` shows a Manual Unlock event followed by an Auto Lock event at 07:03:11 (3 seconds later).

No 'Forced Entry' or 'Tamper' alarms were triggered on the lock device.

Relies on the assumption that the 'Auto' source indicates a configured timer rather than a system retry or error recovery.

At 07:15:00, `bathroom_water_leak` triggers (`StateValue = true`).

By 07:17:00, the state returns to `false`.

The duration is extremely short (<2 minutes), typical of transient moisture events or sensor glitches.

No other environmental anomalies (e.g., humidity spikes, flow meter data) corroborate a sustained leak.

Cannot rule out a small, contained leak that dried up quickly.

Lacks corroboration from other bathroom sensors (humidity/flow) mentioned in supervisor feedback.

Manual unlock at 07:03:08 coincides with a contact sensor flip indicating the door opened.

If the resident was asleep (indicated by early morning timing and lack of prior entrance activity), this represents a breach of security.

The contact sensor glitch (False->True) might indicate the door was held open or bumped during entry.

No evidence of subsequent movement *out* of the house or further unauthorized actions in the logs provided.

Without C03 baseline, we don't know if the lock was previously unstable or if there were failed attempts.

At 05:56:36, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON.

The cook surface was eventually turned off at 06:37:00, and no smoke/fire alarms were triggered.

The `None` reading could be a simple telemetry dropout rather than heat damage.

Occupancy in the kitchen was logged intermittently, suggesting someone may have been nearby.

Verify if the 'Auto Lock' at 07:03:11 was a system retry or a configured short-timer feature by checking pre-event lock states in C03.

Determine if the contact sensor flip (False->True) at 07:03:10 represents a physical door opening or a transient glitch/jitter, as the duration is extremely short (<2s).

Check for any 'Forced Entry' or 'Tamper' alarm events from the lock device which would override normal state interpretations.

Corroborate the water leak event with other bathroom sensors (e.g., humidity, flow meter if available) to rule out false positive.

The investigator correctly identified the critical window (C04-C06) and provided plausible hypotheses for both routine behavior and intrusion.

However, the evidence is currently ambiguous regarding the nature of the lock operation. The 3-second gap between manual unlock and auto-lock, combined with the rapid contact sensor flip, could be a configuration quirk (e.g., 'vacation mode' or aggressive auto-relock) rather than an intrusion or malfunction.

Without C03 (pre-06:20), we cannot establish the baseline state of the lock or see if there were previous failed attempts or specific configuration changes that explain this behavior.

The water leak event is brief and cleared quickly; while noted, it is less likely to be a primary safety threat compared to the access ambiguity, but still requires context.

Do not conclude 'Normal' or 'Threat' yet. The distinction relies on whether the lock behavior is consistent with known device quirks (requiring config check/history) or indicates unauthorized access (requiring behavioral analysis against history).

Request C03 to check for prior anomalies or baseline stability.

## 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: 独居老人 (Elderly Living Alone)
- 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>, 床头灯<onoff_light>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- living_room: 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 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": 498,
    "bedroom": 529,
    "kitchen": 534,
    "bathroom": 64,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 944,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 22,
    "StateValue": 6,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 944,
  "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": "2026-06-29T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-29T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "entrance": 4

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "kitchen"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "door_lock",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "entrance_contact_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C05",
    "C06"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "LockState flips (4 total)",
    "Unusual early morning activity (06:20-07:17)"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 covers the start of the 'alarmish' period and early occupancy transitions in the kitchen/bedroom, setting context for the resident waking up.",
    "C05 contains the entrance activity window (07:17-08:20) where lock state changes or access events are likely to occur given the 'lock_state_flips' signal. This is the critical window for assessing unauthorized access vs routine entry.",
    "C06 follows immediately to check if the lock stabilized or if further suspicious activity occurred after the initial event."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Routine morning departure with aggressive auto-lock configuration. The resident manually unlocked the door to exit, and the lock immediately re-engaged due to a short-timer 'vacation mode' or similar setting, causing the contact sensor to register a brief open/close cycle.",
      "evidence": [
        "


FG-04-FP: 低电量报警但传感器仍正常工作

虽然电池低但传感器仍然能正常检测烟雾（SmokeState变1又恢复0），说明设备没失灵

Insufficient evidence to confirm a security threat; the event is likely a normal manual unlock with delayed or unlogged auto-lock.

Explanation: The primary anomaly hypothesis (A1: Intrusion/Negligence) relies on the absence of a locking event in logs C06-C09. However, the supervisor explicitly flagged this as 'evidence_sufficient=false' and noted a high risk of false alarm due to missing post-12:00 data (C10).

Explanation: Hypothesis N1 (Normal Routine) is strongly supported by precedent: Chunk C04 shows an identical sequence (Manual Unlock -> Door Open) resolving with Auto Lock within ~11 seconds. The lack of subsequent lock events in C06-C09 is most plausibly explained by the auto-lock timer expiring after the provided log window ended at 12:00, or a logging gap.

Explanation: Occupancy sensors (`entrance_occupancy`, `living_room_occupancy`) remain consistently 'occupied' throughout the period, which contradicts the expectation of an intruder entering and moving about unnoticed without triggering other motion/contact changes, or a resident leaving entirely.

Explanation: Per the rules for `single-event-safety` and `device-health`, we cannot conclude a fault or threat based solely on the absence of a log entry when a plausible normal explanation (delayed auto-lock) exists and the device functioned correctly in a similar prior instance (C04).

Explanation: Without confirmation that the door remained unlocked indefinitely or explicit fault codes, the event must be treated as inconclusive/normal rather than a confirmed threat.

C04 precedent: Manual unlock resolved by Auto Lock in 11 seconds.

Absence of any LockState=locked event in C06-C09 (3+ hours), but no evidence of persistent insecurity beyond the log window.

Continuous occupancy signals in entrance/living room suggest no unauthorized entry or full departure occurred.

Review logs from C10 onwards to confirm if the door was eventually locked.

Verify auto-lock configuration settings to ensure the timeout duration matches observed behavior.

Occupancy correlation at entrance/living room

In C04 (06:50), a similar sequence occurred: Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Auto Lock (within ~11 seconds). This establishes a pattern of auto-lock behavior.

The `front_door_lock` shows `LockOperationType=1` (Unlock) with `OperationSource=Manual` at 08:28:00 in C06.

Immediately following the manual unlock, the `front_door_contact` went to `false` (open) at 08:28:02, indicating a physical opening consistent with authorized entry/exit.

Occupancy sensors (`entrance_occupancy`, `living_room_occupancy`) remain `occupied` throughout C06-C09, suggesting no one left the premises entirely, which might imply the door was opened briefly (e.g., for trash, ventilation, or letting a pet out) rather than a full departure requiring immediate re-locking.

The logs provided end at 12:00 (C09) without showing the subsequent `Auto Lock` event that would confirm the security posture was restored. We are relying on the precedent set in C04, but C06's sequence has not yet completed its resolution in the provided data.

Unauthorized intrusion or tailgating where an intruder entered via the front door, and the resident failed to notice or manually lock the door, leaving the home insecure for several hours. Alternatively, a resident forgot to lock the door after exiting.

At 08:28:00 (C06), the front door was manually unlocked and opened (`contact=false`).

Unlike the C04 event (06:50) where auto-lock engaged quickly (~11s), there is NO evidence of any locking event (manual or auto) in C06, C07, C08, or C09 (up to 12:00).

The door remained in an 'unlocked' state for over 3 hours based on the absence of any `LockState=locked` or `LockOperation` events targeting the front door in the subsequent chunks.

While occupancy sensors show people inside, this does not rule out an intruder already being inside or entering unnoticed if the occupant was distracted or asleep (though morning time makes sleep less likely, distraction is possible).

The lack of any further interaction with the front door lock suggests either negligence (forgetting to lock) or that the person who unlocked it did not intend to secure it immediately (which is risky).

The `entrance_occupancy` sensor remains `occupied` (raw=1) continuously from 06:50 through 12:00. If an intruder entered, they would likely trigger motion or be detected by other means if they moved into living areas, though they could stay hidden.

It is highly probable that an auto-lock *did* occur after 12:00, meaning the current 'anomaly' is just a missing log segment rather than a sustained breach. The risk is currently 'potential insecurity' rather than confirmed 'breach outcome'.

No forced entry indicators (glass break, high-force impact) are present.

Device malfunction or configuration error where the auto-lock feature failed to engage after the manual unlock at 08:28.

The device successfully auto-locked in C04 (06:50), proving the hardware and basic logic work.

However, in C06 (08:28), the same manual unlock action did NOT result in an auto-lock within the observed window (3+ hours).

This discrepancy suggests a potential intermittent failure of the auto-lock timer or a change in system state/configuration between 06:50 and 08:28.

Single instance of non-recovery is insufficient to declare a permanent fault; it could be a temporary network glitch preventing the command execution or logging.

We haven't seen the post-12:00 logs to see if it eventually locked.

Comparison of C04 (06:50) vs C06 (08:28): Both start with Manual Unlock + Door Open. C04 resolves with Auto Lock ~11s later. C06 shows NO locking event for >3 hours in the provided logs.

Absence of any `LockState=locked` or `LockOperation` events for `front_door_lock` in C06, C07, C08, and C09.

Logs after 12:00 to confirm if the door was eventually locked (auto or manual).

Confirmation of whether the `entrance_occupancy` sensor detects presence accurately when the door is open (to rule out false positives keeping the sensor 'occupied').

Any explicit 'Auto-Lock Timeout' configuration logs or errors.

Verify if the door was locked after 12:00 (C10) to confirm if the 'unlocked' state was transient or persistent.

Check for any explicit fault/alarm events from the lock device during C06-C09.

Confirm if the auto-lock timer configuration changed between C04 and C06.

The investigator correctly identifies the anomaly (manual unlock without subsequent auto-lock in C06 vs C04).

However, the conclusion of a potential security threat or malfunction is based on incomplete data. The logs end at 12:00 (C09), leaving a >3 hour gap where the door status is unknown but assumed 'unlocked' due to lack of evidence to the contrary.

Without C10, we cannot confirm if the auto-lock eventually triggered (resolving the issue as a delay/log gap) or if it remained unlocked (confirming a fault/threat).

Marking risk as high because the 'anomaly' relies entirely on the absence of log entries in the provided window, which is a classic false-alarm trigger if the event simply occurred later.

Refinement is needed to close the loop on the door's final state.

Authorized manual entry followed by normal occupancy. The resident manually unlocked the front door (likely to let someone in or retrieve something), causing the door contact sensor to register 'open' (false). Subsequent occupancy sensors in the entrance and living room remained active, indicating the person stayed inside or entered normally without triggering an alarm.

LockOperation event at 08:28:00 with OperationSource=Manual indicates user-initiated action, not automated failure or remote hack.

Door contact state changed to false (open) immediately after unlock, which is physically consistent with a door being opened.

Entrance_occupancy and Living_room_occupancy remain 'occupied' (raw=1) throughout the period following the event, suggesting continuous presence rather than an intruder leaving or hiding.

No subsequent lock operations or security alerts are recorded in the provided chunks.

Does not explain why the door was left open/unlocked for over an hour if it wasn't re-locked automatically (though auto-lock settings vary).

Relies on the assumption that 'Manual' source implies authorized user, which is generally true but doesn't rule out unauthorized access via stolen credentials/key.

Potential unauthorized entry or tailgating. A manual unlock occurred, opening the door. While occupancy sensors show presence, there is no evidence of the door being re-locked or the occupant moving away from the entrance area to secure it. If the 'occupied' signal is from a single person who failed to lock up, or if an intruder entered and blended in, this represents a security gap. However, without evidence of the door remaining open indefinitely or suspicious movement patterns, it remains a low-confidence anomaly compared to N1.

The door was manually unlocked and opened at 08:28:00.

There is no corresponding 'Lock' operation (locking) event in C06 or C07 to confirm the door was secured again.

Occupancy sensors did not transition to 'unoccupied' in a way that suggests the person left the premises and returned, nor did they move deep into the house (kitchen/bedroom) while leaving the entrance empty, which might be expected if someone just let themselves in and went to their room.

The lack of a re-locking event leaves the perimeter insecure for the duration of the logs.

Occupancy sensors show continuous presence, which contradicts typical intrusion behavior where an intruder might try to avoid detection or leave quickly.

Manual unlock is a common legitimate action; absence of re-lock could simply be user negligence or specific smart home configuration (no auto-lock), not necessarily malicious intent.

No other devices (smoke, glass break, motion in unexpected areas) triggered alarms.

Device misconfiguration or failure to auto-lock. The system allowed the door to remain unlocked/open for an extended period (>45 mins) after a manual unlock without any corrective action or alert. This represents a safety/security configuration anomaly rather than a direct intrusion.

LockState was set to 'unlocked' at 08:28:00.

No further LockState changes or LockOperations occurred in C06/C07.

Door contact remained 'false' (open) or ambiguous regarding closure status relative to the lock state.

Standard security practice usually involves auto-locking after a short delay or requiring manual re-lock, neither of which is evidenced here.

Smart locks often require manual locking unless specifically configured otherwise; this may be intended behavior.

No error codes or fault events were generated by the lock device itself.

LockOperation(OperationSource=Manual) at 08:28:00 confirms user interaction.

Absence of any subsequent LockOperation (locking) or DoorLock.LockState change to 'locked' in the entire 45-minute window.

Continuous 'occupied' status on entrance/living room sensors suggests presence but does not distinguish between authorized resident failing to lock vs. intruder present.

Post-09:15:00 logs to see if the door was eventually locked or if the occupant left.

History of previous lock/unlock patterns to establish baseline behavior (e.g., does the user typically forget to lock?).

Confirmation of whether the door was physically closed (contact sensor value stability) vs just unlocked.

User identity verification for the manual unlock event (if available).

The `front_door_lock` shows `LockOperationType=1` (Unlock) with `OperationSource=Manual` at 08:28:00 in C06.

At 08:28:00 (C06), the front door was manually unlocked and opened (`contact=false`).

The device successfully auto-locked in C04 (06:50), proving the hardware and basic logic work.

Verify if the door was physically closed (BooleanState.StateValue transition from false to true) independent of the lock state.

Check for any 'LockOperation' events with OperationSource=Auto or Remote in adjacent chunks to determine if auto-lock triggered later.

Confirm if the 'Manual' unlock corresponds to a known user schedule or if it deviates from historical baselines.

Check for any other security-relevant events (e.g., glass break, motion in unexpected areas) that might corroborate intrusion.

The investigator correctly identified the key event (manual unlock) and the lack of subsequent locking. However, the conclusion relies heavily on the assumption that 'unlocked' implies 'open' or 'insecure'.

Crucially, the logs show `front_door_contact` went to `false` (open) at 08:28:02, but there is no evidence in C06/C07 that it returned to `true` (closed). The investigator notes this ambiguity but doesn't explicitly request the chunk where the door *might* have been closed/locked again (likely C08 or later).

Without knowing if the door was eventually closed and locked, we cannot definitively rule out a temporary unauthorized entry or simply a user forgetting to lock. The current evidence shows a *state*, not necessarily a *breach* outcome.

The risk of false alarm is medium because the 'anomaly' (door left unlocked) could be benign negligence rather than malicious intrusion, but without post-event logs, we can't confirm mitigation.

Need C05 (pre-event context) to establish baseline behavior and C08 (post-event) to see if the situation resolved.

## 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: 独居老人 (Elderly Living Alone)
- 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>, 床头灯<onoff_light>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- living_room: 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 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": {
    "kitchen": 538,
    "living_room": 497,
    "bedroom": 529,
    "bathroom": 59,
    "entrance": 232
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 942,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 23,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "SmokeState": 2,
    "BatteryAlert": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 942,
  "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": "2026-06-08T14:29:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-09T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "kitchen": 24,
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Lock operation with manual source",
    "Door contact state change (open/close)",
    "Occupancy correlation at entrance/living room"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06 contains the specific lock event (Manual unlock) and immediate door contact state change, which is the primary candidate for a security-relevant action.",
    "C07 provides the subsequent context to verify if the occupant remained in the home (normal routine) or left/entered unexpectedly, helping to distinguish between authorized access and potential intrusion."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Authorized resident manually unlocked the door to exit or let someone in, and the auto-lock feature subsequently engaged after a delay. The 'unlocked' state observed in C06-C09 is a transient intermediate state before the auto-lock triggered, or the logs provided simply end before the auto-lock event occurred.",
      "evidence": [
        "In C04 (06:50), a similar seq