CO 报警是严重安全事件，不同于烟雾报警

紧急通知所有住户撤离，开窗通风，联系燃气公司

The front door lock failed to auto-lock after a manual unlock and door close event, leaving the entry point insecure for over two hours.

Explanation: At 08:30, a manual unlock occurred at the front door. The door contact sensor reported 'closed' (true) shortly after (08:30:02), indicating the door was shut.

Explanation: In a previous similar event (C04, 06:55), the system successfully executed an auto-lock within seconds of the door closing. This establishes that the auto-lock feature is likely enabled and functional under normal conditions.

Explanation: In the current event (C06), despite the door being closed, no auto-lock command was issued, and the lock state remained 'unlocked' (raw=2) through the end of the provided logs (11:05).

Explanation: This inconsistency between the expected behavior (auto-lock on close) and the observed behavior (persistent unlock) constitutes a device malfunction or configuration failure, creating a security vulnerability.

Explanation: While an intruder hypothesis exists, the lack of movement away from the entrance and the specific failure of the automated safety mechanism points more strongly to a lock/system fault than a successful intrusion.

Manual unlock at 08:30 followed by door close (contact=true) but no subsequent lock event.

Comparison with C04 (06:55) where manual unlock was immediately followed by auto-lock, proving the feature works.

Door remained in 'unlocked' state for >2 hours without recovery or alarm.

Verify if the resident manually locked the door after the logs ended.

Check the smart lock's configuration settings to ensure auto-lock is enabled and has not been disabled.

Inspect the lock hardware for mechanical jams or battery issues that might prevent actuation.

Review motion sensor data in other rooms to rule out unauthorized presence lingering near the entrance.

判断入户门锁的状态变化（解锁操作）是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

Occupancy Transition (Unoccupied to Occupied)

Potential Unauthorized Access vs. Normal Resident Activity

C06 contains the critical event: a manual lock operation and state change to 'unlocked' at 08:30, which is the primary trigger for the security assessment.

判断入户门锁的状态变化（解锁操作）是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

Authorized Resident Exit with Auto-Lock Failure (User Negligence)

At 08:30, a manual unlock event occurred at the front door.

Immediately after, the door contact sensor reported 'false' (open) and entrance occupancy was 'occupied', consistent with someone exiting.

The living room light turned on shortly after (08:30:17), suggesting the person moved into the house or another room, but given the door was just opened, it is more likely they exited and the system misinterpreted the sequence or the person re-entered immediately? No, looking at C06, the living room occupancy goes to occupied *after* the door opens. This suggests the person might have entered? But the lock state went from locked to unlocked. If they were inside, why unlock? Perhaps they were leaving.

Crucially, the auto-lock did not engage after the door closed (contact became true at 08:30:02). The door remained unlocked for over an hour (until end of logs at 11:05+).

This pattern fits a resident leaving the house manually, closing the door, but failing to trigger the auto-lock (either by configuration or user error), leaving the home insecure.

Does not explain why the auto-lock didn't fire if configured to do so.

Assumes the person left; if they stayed inside, unlocking the door while inside is unusual unless checking it or letting someone in (but no entry log follows).

Normal Morning Routine with Delayed/Failed Auto-Lock Configuration

The time (08:30) aligns with typical morning departure times.

Occupancy patterns show normal activity in other rooms (kitchen, bedroom) throughout the day, indicating residents are present.

The lack of subsequent lock events suggests the auto-lock feature might be disabled or set to a very long delay that hasn't triggered yet, or the door was never fully closed/latched properly to trigger the contact sensor's 'closed' state reliably for auto-lock logic.

No evidence of forced entry or struggle.

Leaves the front door unlocked for hours, which is a security risk even if unintentional.

Unauthorized Access / Tailgating Event

At 08:30, the door was manually unlocked and opened.

The entrance occupancy remained 'occupied' continuously from 08:30 through 11:05.

If the resident had left, we would expect entrance occupancy to drop to 'unoccupied' once they cleared the threshold, unless they lingered outside or the sensor is stuck.

However, the living room occupancy also went to 'occupied' at 08:30:10. If the person exited, why did living room occupancy increase? It's possible the person entered from outside (intruder) or the resident was already inside and just checked the door.

If an intruder entered, they would remain inside (entrance occupied) and potentially move to other areas. The continuous 'occupied' state at the entrance without a corresponding 'unoccupied' transition is suspicious for an intrusion where the person stays near the door or the sensor fails to clear.

The door remained unlocked for >2 hours. An intruder would likely leave the door open or close it without locking it to avoid detection or noise.

Living room occupancy increased simultaneously, which could imply the person was already inside or entered. If they entered, why unlock first? Maybe they used a key/fob and the manual operation was just the final step.

Entrance occupancy staying 'occupied' for hours is abnormal for a transient visitor but normal for a resident lingering. Without knowing who lives there, this is ambiguous.

No evidence of movement away from the entrance to other rooms specifically linked to the entrance event.

Lock Mechanism Malfunction (Auto-Lock Failure)

In C04 (06:55), a similar manual unlock event was followed by an automatic lock event (06:55:12) within seconds.

In C06 (08:30), the same manual unlock event occurred, but NO automatic lock event followed, despite the door contact reporting 'closed' (true) at 08:30:02.

This inconsistency between two nearly identical sequences (manual unlock -> door close) suggests a device fault or configuration change rather than user behavior alone.

The door remained physically unlocked (state=2) for the remainder of the observed period.

Could be a configuration change (user disabled auto-lock) rather than a hardware fault.

Requires assuming the auto-lock *should* have fired based on the previous event, which implies knowledge of default settings.

Comparison of 06:55 event (C04) vs 08:30 event (C06): Both involve manual unlock, but only the first resulted in an auto-lock. This points to a change in system state (fault or config) rather than pure user action.

Door Contact State: At 08:30:02, contact became 'true' (closed), but LockState remained 'unlocked'. In a healthy auto-lock system, this should trigger a lock command.

Duration of Unlocked State: The door has been unlocked for over 2 hours (08:30 to 11:05+), which is a significant security vulnerability window.

Configuration status of the auto-lock feature (is it enabled?).

Identity of the person performing the manual unlock (resident vs. unknown).

Post-11:05 logs to see if the door eventually locks or if an alarm triggers.

Motion sensor data near the entrance to confirm if anyone actually passed through the threshold.

At 08:30, a manual unlock event occurred at the front door.

Immediately after, the door contact sensor reported 'false' (open) and entrance occupancy was 'occupied', consistent with someone exiting.

The time (08:30) aligns with typical morning departure times.

Occupancy patterns show normal activity in other rooms (kitchen, bedroom) throughout the day, indicating residents are present.

No evidence of forced entry or struggle.

Unauthorized Access / Tailgating Event

At 08:30, the door was manually unlocked and opened.

The entrance occupancy remained 'occupied' continuously from 08:30 through 11:05.

The door remained unlocked for >2 hours. An intruder would likely leave the door open or close it without locking it to avoid detection or noise.

In C04 (06:55), a similar manual unlock event was followed by an automatic lock event (06:55:12) within seconds.

In C06 (08:30), the same manual unlock event occurred, but NO automatic lock event followed, despite the door contact reporting 'closed' (true) at 08:30:02.

The door remained physically unlocked (state=2) for the remainder of the observed period.

Verify if the door lock state changed after C08 (logs end at 11:05). The current evidence shows an 'unlocked' state persisting for >2 hours without confirmation of it being re-locked or an alarm triggering.

Check for explicit fault/alarm events from the lock device itself, rather than inferring malfunction solely from the absence of an auto-lock event.

Corroborate the 'intruder' hypothesis with motion sensor data in other rooms (living room, kitchen) to see if movement patterns suggest a transient visitor vs. a resident lingering.

Confirm if the 'auto-lock' feature was actually enabled/configured, as the investigator assumes it should have fired based on C04, but configuration changes are possible.

The investigation correctly identifies the critical anomaly (manual unlock followed by no auto-lock and prolonged unlocked state).

However, the conclusion relies heavily on the *absence* of an expected event (auto-lock) and the *duration* of the unlocked state, which fits the 'lock_malfunction' high false-alarm risk criteria (story rests mainly on delayed auto-lock/long unlocked interval without explicit failed attempt or contradictory final state).

The logs provided end at 11:05. We do not know if the door was eventually locked, if an alarm triggered, or if the resident returned. A verdict of 'security threat' or 'malfunction' cannot be finalized without knowing the resolution of this state.

The 'intruder' hypothesis is speculative due to lack of movement evidence away from the entrance. The 'resident negligence' hypothesis is plausible but unconfirmed.

Need chunks C09/C10 to see the post-11:05 status. If the door remains unlocked or an alarm triggers, the risk profile changes significantly. If it locks automatically later, it might just be a configuration delay or user error, reducing the 'malfunction' severity.

Normal resident activity: A resident manually unlocked the front door (likely to let someone in or go out) and subsequently occupied the entrance and living room areas. The lock state change is consistent with manual operation, and the subsequent occupancy patterns indicate normal presence within the home.

At 08:30:00, `front_door_lock` reports `LockOperationType=1` (Manual) and `LockState=unlocked`.

Immediately after unlocking (08:30:02), `front_door_contact` reports `false` (door open).

From 08:30:03 onwards, `entrance_occupancy` remains `occupied` (raw=1) continuously through the end of the logs.

Living room and bedroom occupancy also remain consistently `occupied`, indicating residents are present in the house.

No error codes, fault flags, or contradictory lock states (e.g., locked but contact open without motion) are observed.

Does not account for *who* unlocked the door if it was an unauthorized person, though the subsequent behavior suggests a resident.

Potential Unauthorized Access / Tailgating: An intruder or unauthorized individual manually unlocked the door and entered. While the occupancy sensors show 'occupied', this could be the intruder themselves, or the system fails to distinguish between a resident and an intruder based solely on binary occupancy. The lack of immediate re-locking or alarm triggers is a risk factor.

The door was manually unlocked at 08:30:00.

The door remained open (`BooleanState=false`) and the entrance area remained occupied for over an hour without any record of the door being closed/locked again in the provided chunks.

If the resident was already inside (suggested by other rooms being occupied), an unlock event might indicate tailgating or an intruder entering while the door was left ajar.

No automatic re-locking mechanism triggered immediately after the door opened, which might be expected if configured for security.

Occupancy sensors in multiple rooms (living, bedroom, kitchen) were already active before the unlock, suggesting residents were likely home. If residents were home, they likely performed the unlock.

There is no evidence of forced entry (no break-in alarms), nor is there evidence of the door remaining open indefinitely (logs stop at 10:11, but the pattern is stable).

Manual unlock is a standard operation; without context of who initiated it, it is ambiguous.

Device Fault / Lock Malfunction: The lock failed to auto-lock or report a secure state after being manually operated, or the contact sensor is stuck/unreliable, creating a false sense of security or masking an actual open door.

The lock state changed to 'unlocked' at 08:30:00.

The door contact sensor reported 'false' (open) at 08:30:02.

There is no subsequent log entry showing the lock returning to 'locked' or the door contact returning to 'true' (closed) in the provided timeframe (up to 10:11).

If the door was intended to be secured, the prolonged 'unlocked/open' state without intervention could indicate a failure to engage the latch or a sensor reporting error.

Manual unlocks often require manual re-locking; absence of auto-lock logs doesn't prove malfunction if the user didn't re-lock.

No explicit fault codes or repeated retry attempts are visible.

The temperature and other sensor data appear normal, reducing likelihood of a widespread device communication failure.

The `LockOperationType=Manual` flag confirms human interaction rather than an automated script or glitch.

The continuous `OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied` in the entrance and other rooms from 08:30 onwards strongly supports the 'Normal Resident Activity' hypothesis over intrusion, as an intruder would typically try to avoid detection or the scenario would involve a period of unoccupied status before entry.

The lack of any 'Locked' state transition or 'Closed' contact state in the ~40 minutes following the unlock is the key ambiguity: it implies either the door was left open intentionally (resident activity) or the system failed to update (fault).

Logs showing the state of the door lock and contact sensor *before* 08:25:00 to establish the baseline (was it locked/closed?).

Logs showing the state of the door lock and contact sensor *after* 10:11:00 to see if the door was eventually closed/locked.

User identity/authentication logs associated with the manual unlock command (if available) to confirm if it was a known resident.

Configuration details regarding whether the lock is set to auto-lock after a certain time or upon closing.

At 08:30, a manual unlock event occurred at the front door.

Immediately after, the door contact sensor reported 'false' (open) and entrance occupancy was 'occupied', consistent with someone exiting.

The time (08:30) aligns with typical morning departure times.

Occupancy patterns show normal activity in other rooms (kitchen, bedroom) throughout the day, indicating residents are present.

No evidence of forced entry or struggle.

Unauthorized Access / Tailgating Event

At 08:30, the door was manually unlocked and opened.

The entrance occupancy remained 'occupied' continuously from 08:30 through 11:05.

The door remained unlocked for >2 hours. An intruder would likely leave the door open or close it without locking it to avoid detection or noise.

In C04 (06:55), a similar manual unlock event was followed by an automatic lock event (06:55:12) within seconds.

In C06 (08:30), the same manual unlock event occurred, but NO automatic lock event followed, despite the door contact reporting 'closed' (true) at 08:30:02.

The door remained physically unlocked (state=2) for the remainder of the observed period.

At 08:30, a manual unlock event occurred at the front door.

Immediately after, the door contact sensor reported 'false' (open) and entrance occupancy was 'occupied', consistent with someone exiting.

The time (08:30) aligns with typical morning departure times.

Occupancy patterns show normal activity in other rooms (kitchen, bedroom) throughout the day, indicating residents are present.

No evidence of forced entry or struggle.

Unauthorized Access / Tailgating Event

At 08:30, the door was manually unlocked and opened.

The entrance occupancy remained 'occupied' continuously from 08:30 through 11:05.

The door remained unlocked for >2 hours. An intruder would likely leave the door open or close it without locking it to avoid detection or noise.

In C04 (06:55), a similar manual unlock event was followed by an automatic lock event (06:55:12) within seconds.

In C06 (08:30), the same manual unlock event occurred, but NO automatic lock event followed, despite the door contact reporting 'closed' (true) at 08:30:02.

The door remained physically unlocked (state=2) for the remainder of the observed period.

Pre-event state of front_door_lock (was it locked before 08:30?)

Post-event state of front_door_lock and door contact (did it re-lock or close after 10:11?)

Verification of auto-lock configuration to distinguish between user negligence and device fault.

The investigator correctly identified the manual unlock event and the subsequent occupancy patterns.

However, the conclusion relies heavily on the assumption that 'occupancy = resident' and 'no re-lock = intentional'. Without C05 (pre-08:25) to confirm the door was previously locked, we cannot establish a security breach (unauthorized entry vs. authorized exit).

Without post-10:11 logs, we cannot rule out that the door was eventually closed/locked, which would mitigate the 'prolonged open' risk.

The 'lock_malfunction' hypothesis is weak because there is no evidence of failed attempts or contradictory states, only a lack of re-locking. This requires context on whether auto-lock was expected.

Request C05 to establish baseline security state and any chunks after 10:11 to determine final state.

## 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": 537,
    "bathroom": 58,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 941,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 21,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "COState": 1,
    "ExpressedState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 941,
  "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,

## 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"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断入户门锁的状态变化（解锁操作）是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Manual Lock Operation at 08:30",
    "Occupancy Transition (Unoccupied to Occupied)",
    "Potential Unauthorized Access vs. Normal Resident Activity"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06 contains the critical event: a manual lock operation and state change to 'unlocked' at 08:30, which is the primary trigger for the security assessment.",
    "C07 provides the immediate context following the unlock, showing occupancy patterns in the entrance and other rooms to determine if the unlock was followed by normal resident activity or suspicious behavior."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Authorized Resident Exit with Auto-Lock Failure (User Negligence)",
      "evidence": [
        "At 08:30, a manual unlock event occurred at the front door.",
        "Immediately after, the door contact sensor reported 'false' (open) and entrance occupancy was 'occupied', consistent with someone exiting.",
        "The living room light turned on shortly a


灶具开启状态 + 厨房无人（occupancy=0）持续超过5分钟
厨房温度持续异常上升
最终烟雾报警器触发

立即提醒住户关闭灶具，如无法联系则自动关闭（如支持远程关闭）

The door lock state changes and occupancy patterns are consistent with a routine morning departure by a resident, with no evidence of intrusion or device malfunction.

Explanation: The sequence at 06:56 shows a manual unlock followed by an auto-lock engagement within 5 seconds, triggered by the door contact sensor reporting 'closed'. This is a standard 'secure-on-close' behavior for smart locks.

Explanation: There are no error codes (e.g., jam, motor fault) associated with the auto-lock event, and the logical state successfully transitioned to 'locked', indicating the mechanism likely engaged correctly.

Explanation: Occupancy logs show continuous presence in internal rooms (kitchen, bedroom) before and after the event, supporting the hypothesis that a resident was present and exited via the front door, rather than an intruder entering while the house was empty.

Explanation: The supervisor's concern about missing pre-event context (C01) is mitigated by the strong coherence of the C03-C04 sequence: residents woke up, moved through the house, and then one person exited. The lack of prior 'unlocked' anomalies suggests the door was secure until manually opened.

Explanation: Alternative anomaly hypotheses (intrusion, mechanical failure) are less probable because they require assuming either a successful physical breach without detection or a silent mechanical failure despite logical success, whereas the routine departure explanation fits all data points without contradiction.

C04: LockOperation Manual at 06:56:06, DoorContact closed at 06:56:10, LockOperation Auto at 06:56:11.

C03-C04: Occupancy transitions from unoccupied to occupied in bedrooms/kitchen starting 05:27, indicating residents were home and active.

Absence of any 'Jam' or 'Error' events during the lock cycle.

No immediate action required; this appears to be normal operation.

Verify auto-lock timer settings if desired, but current behavior is functional.

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.

判断入户门锁的状态变化是否构成安全威胁

Occupancy transitions from unoccupied to occupied in early morning

Potential unauthorized entry or routine wake-up

C05 shows continued occupancy in entrance and kitchen, confirming presence.

C06 provides context for subsequent activity to rule out transient errors or isolated incidents.

判断入户门锁的状态变化是否构成安全威胁

C04 logs show `LockOperation` with `OperationSource=Manual` at 06:56:06, followed immediately by `LockState = unlocked`.

At 06:56:10, `front_door_contact` reports `true` (closed).

At 06:56:11, `LockOperation` with `OperationSource=Auto` occurs, and `LockState` returns to `locked`.

The duration of the unlocked state was only ~5 seconds, which is consistent with a user walking through or checking the door before it latches.

Subsequent occupancy logs (C04-C07) show continuous presence in kitchen/bedroom/living room, indicating residents are home and likely just left via this door for a short errand or commute.

No fault codes or jamming events were recorded.

Does not explain why the door was unlocked at all if no one was present (though C03 shows bedroom/bathroom activity starting at 05:27, implying someone was up and moving towards the entrance area by 06:56).

Potential unauthorized entry or tailgating where an intruder exploited the brief manual unlock window, or the auto-lock failed to engage physically despite logical reporting.

The door was manually unlocked (`OperationSource=Manual`) while the house was transitioning from 'unoccupied' to 'occupied' states, creating ambiguity about who initiated the action.

Although the lock reported 'locked' at 06:56:11, Matter logical state does not guarantee mechanical engagement; a jammed bolt could report locked while remaining insecure.

If the auto-lock failed mechanically, the perimeter remained insecure for an extended period (from 06:56 until the next manual interaction at 08:32), posing a significant security risk.

Entrance occupancy remained high during this window, but without camera verification, we cannot distinguish between a resident returning quickly vs. an intruder entering and staying.

There is no explicit evidence of forced entry (no alarm, no rapid successive unlocks).

The auto-lock event occurred very quickly (2s), making mechanical failure less likely than a successful operation.

Occupancy patterns are consistent with normal morning routines (kitchen activity, lights on), reducing the likelihood of an intruder hiding in plain sight without triggering other anomalies.

Sensor drift or false positive in door contact causing premature auto-lock trigger, potentially leaving the door ajar if the physical latch didn't catch.

The transition from `contact=false` (open) to `contact=true` (closed) happened at 06:56:10, triggering the auto-lock at 06:56:11.

If the contact sensor was faulty (e.g., bouncing or misaligned), it might have signaled 'closed' prematurely while the door was still slightly ajar, leading the lock to attempt locking into a gap.

No subsequent error logs confirm this, but the lack of a 'jam' error doesn't rule out a partial engagement.

Single instance of this behavior is insufficient to claim malfunction.

The system recovered logically (state returned to locked).

No repeated failures observed in C05-C07.

C04: The precise 5-second window (06:56:06 to 06:56:11) between manual unlock and auto-lock re-engagement.

C04: `front_door_contact` state change from false to true at 06:56:10, directly preceding the auto-lock command.

C04: Absence of any 'LockOperation' errors or 'Jam' events during the 06:56 sequence.

C03-C07: Continuous occupancy in internal rooms (Kitchen, Bedroom) suggests residents are present, supporting the 'routine departure' narrative over 'intrusion' unless the intruder is currently inside undetected.

Physical verification of the lock mechanism status (is the bolt fully extended?).

Camera footage of the entrance area at 06:56 to identify the actor performing the manual unlock.

Configuration details of the auto-lock timer (was it set to 2 seconds? This is unusually fast for many systems, suggesting a specific 'secure-on-close' setting rather than a timed delay).

Verify pre-event state of the door lock (was it already locked before 06:56?) to confirm the 'unlocked' event was a transition from a secure state.

Check for any 'Jam' or 'Error' events in C04 immediately following the auto-lock attempt to rule out mechanical failure despite logical success.

Corroborate the 'Manual' unlock source with entrance occupancy movement patterns (did someone actually enter/exit the sensor range at that exact second?).

The investigator correctly identified the critical window (C04) and proposed plausible hypotheses (routine departure vs. malfunction/intrusion).

However, the evidence is currently insufficient to definitively rule out a 'lock_malfunction' or 'intrusion' because we lack the immediate pre-context (C01/C02 end) to establish the baseline security state of the door before the manual interaction.

Specifically, if the door was already unlocked or in an indeterminate state prior to 06:56, the 'auto-lock' logic might be reacting to a different trigger than assumed.

Also, while no explicit fault codes are present, the reliance on 'logical state = locked' without physical verification or error logs leaves a medium risk of false alarm regarding the actual mechanical security of the door.

Requesting C01 (or the tail end of C02 if C01 is not available/provided) to see the state leading up to the morning routine.

Routine morning departure and re-entry sequence. The resident manually unlocked the door to leave (or let someone in), the door was left open briefly, and the auto-lock engaged after a short delay. Subsequent activity shows normal occupancy patterns.

[06:56:06] Manual unlock event at front_door_lock.

[06:56:08] Door contact opens (StateValue=false).

[06:56:11] Auto-lock engages (LockState=locked).

[06:56:09] Entrance occupancy becomes occupied immediately after unlock, consistent with someone passing through or standing near the door.

[07:30:00 onwards] Kitchen and Bedroom remain continuously occupied, indicating residents are home and active.

[08:32:00] Another manual unlock occurs later in the morning, followed by living room activity, suggesting a second departure/arrival or visitor.

The gap between the first unlock (06:56) and the next significant lock-related event (08:32) is long for a simple 'leave' if the person didn't return, but the continuous kitchen/bedroom occupancy suggests they stayed inside. If they left, who is in the kitchen?

The auto-lock timing (5 seconds) is standard, but the lack of immediate re-locking confirmation or further interaction during the 06:56-08:32 window leaves the exact movement path ambiguous.

Potential unauthorized entry or tailgating during the early morning window. A manual unlock occurred, the door remained open/unsecured for an extended period relative to typical quick exits, and subsequent occupancy signals show presence in key areas without clear correlation to a known resident's routine exit.

[06:56:08] Door contact indicates open state.

[06:56:11] Auto-lock engages, but this is only 3 seconds after opening. However, the critical ambiguity is what happened *between* 06:56 and 08:32.

[06:56:09] Entrance occupancy = 1. This confirms presence at the door.

[07:00:00 - 08:30:00] Kitchen and Bedroom occupancy remain high (raw=1), while Living Room is unoccupied. If the resident left at 06:56, the continued high occupancy in private rooms (Bedroom/Kitchen) contradicts a full household exit.

[08:32:00] Second manual unlock. If the first person had already left and locked up, why unlock again? If the first person never left, the 'auto-lock' might have been triggered by a sensor glitch or a partial close, leaving the door potentially vulnerable if not fully latched.

The pattern of 'Unlock -> Occupancy Spike -> Long Period of Internal Activity -> Unlock Again' is inconsistent with a single clean departure.

Auto-lock engaging at 06:56:11 technically secures the door. Unless the auto-lock failed to latch (which isn't evidenced by a 'failed lock' fault), the door was secure.

Occupancy sensors can be slow to update or have blind spots; the 'unoccupied' living room doesn't prove no one was there, just that the specific sensor didn't detect motion.

It is plausible the resident unlocked the door to check outside, let a pet out, or received a delivery, then re-entered and locked it, explaining the brief window.

Sensor or Actuator Fault causing false security state. The lock reports 'locked' but the door may have been physically ajar or the contact sensor misreported, leading to a false sense of security during the 06:56-08:32 window.

[06:56:10] Door Contact = true (closed).

However, if the mechanical bolt did not fully engage despite the electronic signal, or if the contact sensor is stuck/misaligned, the door could be insecure.

No explicit fault codes are present, but the rapid succession of events (Unlock -> Open Contact -> Locked -> Closed Contact) in 5 seconds is tight and prone to error if the user didn't fully close the door before triggering the auto-lock timer.

Matter logs show `LockState` changing to `locked`, which usually implies successful actuation.

No repeated failures or 'stuck' values observed in the lock state itself.

The contact sensor also updated correctly from false to true, corroborating the lock state.

The sequence at [06:56:06-06:56:11]: Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Auto Lock -> Door Closed. This is a complete cycle.

The continuous occupancy in Bedroom/Kitchen from [06:20] through [08:22] vs. Living Room being Unoccupied at [07:00]. This suggests the household did not fully vacate.

The second manual unlock at [08:32:00] coincides with Living Room occupancy becoming occupied ([08:32:06]), suggesting a new entry or exit event distinct from the first.

Physical verification of the door latch status at 06:56 and 08:32.

Video footage from the entrance camera to confirm if anyone actually passed through or if the door was merely opened/closed.

Context on whether the resident typically leaves the house in the early morning (06:56) and returns later (08:32).

Confirmation of the auto-lock configuration (timer duration) to see if 5 seconds is the expected behavior.

C04 logs show `LockOperation` with `OperationSource=Manual` at 06:56:06, followed immediately by `LockState = unlocked`.

At 06:56:10, `front_door_contact` reports `true` (closed).

At 06:56:11, `LockOperation` with `OperationSource=Auto` occurs, and `LockState` returns to `locked`.

No fault codes or jamming events were recorded.

The transition from `contact=false` (open) to `contact=true` (closed) happened at 06:56:10, triggering the auto-lock at 06:56:11.

No subsequent error logs confirm this, but the lack of a 'jam' error doesn't rule out a partial engagement.

Verify if the 'unlocked' state at 06:56 was followed by a successful re-lock or if it remained unlocked for an extended period (requires pre-06:56 context to establish baseline and post-06:56 logs to confirm duration).

Check for explicit 'LockOperation' events indicating failure or jamming during the 06:56 window.

Corroborate the 'auto-lock' timing with device configuration logs if available, or check if the door contact sensor reported 'closed' immediately after unlock (which would trigger auto-lock) vs. remaining open.

Distinguish between 'manual unlock' (user action) and 'forced entry' indicators (e.g., rapid successive unlocks, lack of manual source).

The investigator correctly identified the critical sequence (06:56 unlock -> lock) but relies heavily on inference about 'who is home' rather than direct evidence of the lock's physical state or security breach.

The hypothesis A1 (intrusion) is speculative because it assumes the door was insecure or that the occupancy patterns definitively rule out a resident leaving/returning. The logs show the door locked automatically at 06:56:11, which technically secures the perimeter unless the mechanism failed (no fault code present).

The hypothesis A2 (malfunction) is weak because there are no repeated failures or stuck states; the transition looks nominal in terms of state changes.

Crucially, Chunk C03 (pre-06:56) is missing. Without it, we cannot see if the door was already unlocked or if this was the first event of the morning. We also need to ensure the 'auto-lock' actually engaged successfully and didn't just report a state change without mechanical engagement (though Matter logs usually reflect logical state).

The 'false alarm risk' is medium because the conclusion of 'potential unauthorized entry' rests on interpreting normal occupancy data as contradictory to a departure, which is ambiguous. However, the risk is not high because there is no obvious telemetry error (like impossible temperatures) driving the conclusion.

Refinement needed: Focus on confirming the *duration* of the unlocked state and whether any other access points were triggered simultaneously.

## 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": 530,
    "kitchen": 540,
    "bathroom": 61,
    "entrance": 231
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 945,
    "MeasuredValue": 872,
    "OnOff": 22,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1,
    "SmokeState": 1,
    "ExpressedState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 945,
  "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": "2026-06-22T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 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": [
      "door_lock"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断入户门锁的状态变化是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "kitchen",
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "door_lock",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "kitchen_occupancy",
    "bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C05",
    "C06"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "LockState flips (4 total)",
    "Occupancy transitions from unoccupied to occupied in early morning",
    "Potential unauthorized entry or routine wake-up"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the first occupancy events in kitchen and bedroom around 06:20-06:30, coinciding with the start of daily activity. This is the critical window where lock state changes might correlate with entry.",
    "C05 shows continued occupancy in entrance and kitchen, confirming presence.",
    "C06 provides context for subsequent activity to rule out transient errors or isolated incidents."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Routine morning departure with successful auto-lock. A resident manually unlocked the door to leave (or check outside) around 06:56, and the smart lock's auto-lock feature engaged successfully 2 seconds later after detecting the door closed.",
      "evidence": [
        "C04 logs show `LockOperation` with `OperationSource=Manual` at 06:56:06, follo


通知住户，如果有智能水阀则关闭总水阀

The event sequence represents a routine authorized entry by a resident, with no evidence of unauthorized access or device malfunction.

Explanation: 1. Analyze the primary event: At 08:23:00, the front door lock was manually unlocked (LockOperationType=1, Source=Manual). This is immediately followed by the door contact opening (StateValue=false) and occupancy sensors detecting presence in the entrance and living room. This sequence strongly indicates a person entering the home.

Explanation: 2. Evaluate for Intrusion/Unauthorized Access: The 'manual unlock' source typically implies a resident using a key, code, or app, rather than a forced entry or remote hack which might show different logs or lack manual interaction. There are no signs of forced entry (e.g., broken contacts, alarm triggers). The subsequent behavior (light turning on, movement to living room) is consistent with a resident returning home.

Explanation: 3. Evaluate for Device Malfunction (Lock Failure): The supervisor noted the absence of an explicit 'LockState = locked' log immediately after entry. However, comparing this to the previous cycle at 07:06:13 (C04), we see a successful auto-lock event logged (`LockOperationType=0`, `Source=Auto`). While the 08:23 event does not explicitly show the auto-lock log in the provided chunks, the lack of contradictory evidence (like the door remaining open indefinitely or repeated failed lock attempts) suggests the lock likely functioned normally but the specific status update log was either omitted from the snippet or occurred outside the immediate focus window. Matter devices often batch updates or only log state changes; the absence of a log is not proof of failure per protocol rules.

Explanation: 4. Address Supervisor's Concerns: The supervisor requested C05 to check for prior anomalies. C05 shows normal occupancy patterns and no lock activity until the 08:23 event. The '4 lock_state_flips' mentioned in triage likely refer to rapid state updates during the entry/exit cycle or other minor events, but without evidence of mechanical struggle or persistent insecurity, they do not constitute a threat. The continuous occupancy is explained by the resident staying inside.

Explanation: 5. Conclusion: The most probable explanation is a normal daily routine (resident coming home). The hypothesis of intrusion or malfunction relies on speculative gaps in logging rather than positive evidence of a threat.

C05/C06: Manual unlock followed by door open and occupancy detection indicates human entry.

C04: Previous cycle showed successful auto-lock, establishing baseline device functionality.

No forced entry indicators or alarm events present.

Monitor future entries to confirm if auto-lock logs appear consistently.

Verify user authentication logs if available to confirm the identity of the manual unlock.

Occupancy transitions at entrance/living room

C05 (08:23:00): `front_door_lock` shows `LockOperationType=1` (Unlock) with `OperationSource=Manual`. This is consistent with a user unlocking the door to enter.

C06 (08:23:02): `front_door_contact` changes to `false` (Open), confirming the door was physically opened shortly after unlocking.

C06 (08:23:03): `entrance_occupancy` becomes `occupied`, indicating someone entered.

C06 (08:23:04): `living_room_occupancy` becomes `occupied`, showing movement from entrance to living area.

C06 (08:23:12): `living_room_light` turns on, consistent with a resident entering their home in the morning.

The lock state stabilized to 'Locked' (raw=1) as seen in C07/C08 context (implied by lack of further unlock events and standard auto-lock behavior).

Does not explain the '4 lock_state_flips' mentioned in Structured Signals if they occurred outside this specific window or involve rapid re-locking attempts that aren't fully detailed in the sparse logs.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating. The manual unlock followed by immediate opening and sustained occupancy without a corresponding 'exit' or 're-lock' confirmation in the immediate vicinity might suggest an intruder who bypassed the auto-lock or a resident who left the door open/unsecured for a period.

C05 (08:23:00): Manual unlock event at the front door.

C06 (08:23:03-09:17:00+): `entrance_occupancy` remains continuously `occupied` (raw=1) for over 50 minutes. While this could be a resident lingering, it also fits the pattern of an intruder remaining inside.

Lack of explicit `DoorLock.LockState = locked` log entry in C06 immediately following the entry. If the auto-lock failed or was disabled, the house remained insecure during this period.

Structured signals mention '4 lock_state_flips'. If these flips involved failed locking attempts or rapid toggling before stabilization, it could indicate a mechanical fault or forced entry attempt.

No evidence of forced entry (no broken glass, no alarm).

The 'manual unlock' source suggests authorized access rather than brute force.

Occupancy sensors are passive; continuous occupancy is ambiguous between a resident staying home and an intruder hiding.

Missing direct `LockState` logs for the critical seconds after entry to confirm if the lock actually engaged.

Device malfunction (Lock Auto-Lock Failure). The lock may have failed to engage automatically after the door was closed, leaving the entry point unsecured.

C05 (07:06:13): Previous cycle showed successful auto-lock (`LockOperationType=0`, `Source=Auto`).

C05 (08:23:00): Current cycle shows manual unlock but no subsequent auto-lock event logged in C06 or C07 within the first few minutes.

If the lock did not re-engage, the security perimeter was compromised despite the door closing.

Absence of a log entry does not prove failure; the lock might have engaged silently or the log was missed.

No error codes or repeated retry attempts visible in the provided chunks.

C05 (08:23:00): `front_door_lock | Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=1, OperationSource=Manual)` - Confirms manual intervention.

C06 (08:23:02): `front_door_contact | BooleanState.StateValue = false` - Confirms door opened.

C06 (08:23:03): `entrance_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied` - Confirms entry.

Absence of `DoorLock.LockState = locked` or `LockOperationType=0` in C06 immediately post-entry - Critical gap to verify if the door secured itself.

Direct `DoorLock.LockState` attribute updates for the `front_door_lock` device between 08:23:00 and 08:25:00 to confirm if the lock returned to 'Locked' state.

Authentication logs (User ID) associated with the manual unlock at 08:23:00 to distinguish between a resident key/code and an unknown credential.

Logs for any other doors/windows opening around 08:23:00 to rule out simultaneous breach points.

Clarification on the '4 lock_state_flips' signal: Are these all from the 08:23 event, or do they include earlier/later events? If multiple rapid flips occurred at 08:23, it suggests a struggle or malfunction.

Verify if the '4 lock_state_flips' signal mentioned in Structured Signals corresponds to the C06 event or is a separate anomaly.

Check for explicit `LockState = locked` logs immediately following the door close in C06/C07 to confirm auto-lock success.

Review C05 (07:06-08:23) to establish baseline behavior and check for any prior failed lock attempts or configuration changes.

The investigator correctly identified the sequence of events (Unlock -> Open -> Occupancy) but relies heavily on the *absence* of a specific log entry ('LockState = locked') to hypothesize a security threat or malfunction.

Per protocol rules, 'Absence of a log entry does not prove failure'. The hypothesis that the lock failed to engage is speculative without direct evidence of a failed attempt or contradictory state.

The '4 lock_state_flips' signal is a critical piece of metadata referenced by the investigator but not fully analyzed against the raw logs. It could indicate rapid toggling (struggle/fault) or just multiple status updates. This needs clarification.

The current conclusion leans towards 'potential unauthorized access' based on weak evidence (missing log). This creates a high false-alarm risk. We need to see if the lock actually engaged (perhaps via a different log format or implicit state) or if there was indeed a fault.

Requesting C05 to check the previous cycle's behavior (which showed successful auto-lock at 07:06) and to look for any other anomalies in the preceding hour.

Routine morning entry and occupancy. The sequence shows a standard pattern of someone entering the home (front door contact opens, entrance occupancy detected), followed by normal movement through the house (living room, kitchen, bedroom occupancy). The lock state flips recorded in signals likely correspond to this legitimate entry/exit or internal re-locking behavior, which is consistent with daily life.

C06: `front_door_contact` changes from closed (`false`) to open (`true` implied by subsequent occupancy) at 08:23:02.

C06: `entrance_occupancy` becomes `occupied` immediately after door contact change.

C06: Subsequent occupancy reports in living room, kitchen, and bedroom show typical human movement patterns over the next hour.

Temperatures are stable and within normal residential ranges (24-25 C).

No explicit 'unauthorized access' or 'forced entry' flags in logs.

Does not fully explain the specific '4 lock state flips' mentioned in structured signals if they occurred outside the visible window or were rapid toggles not captured in detail in these chunks.

Relies on the assumption that the occupant is authorized, which cannot be proven solely from device logs without user identity context.

Potential unauthorized intrusion or tailgating. The 'lock_state_flips: 4' signal suggests multiple lock/unlock cycles. If these occurred rapidly or at unusual times, it could indicate forced entry attempts, credential theft, or tailgating where an intruder follows an authorized person. The lack of explicit 'alarm' events doesn't rule out a sophisticated breach or a mechanical failure exploited by an intruder.

Structured Signal: `lock_state_flips: 4`. This is a non-trivial number of state changes for a single entry event.

C06: Door contact opens at 08:23:02, followed by immediate occupancy. If the lock flipped multiple times before this, it might indicate picking or brute-forcing.

Absence of explicit 'intrusion_alert' or 'tamper' events does not confirm safety; it may mean the system didn't classify it as such yet.

The query specifically asks to judge if it's a security threat, implying suspicion around the access event.

The provided chunks (C06, C07) do not explicitly show the lock state transitions themselves, only occupancy and contact sensor data. We must infer lock activity from the 'structured signals' summary.

Occupancy sensors are present and active, making 'stealth' intrusion less likely unless the intruder is very quick or the sensors have blind spots.

No evidence of forced entry (e.g., broken glass, high-force impact) is visible in the text logs.

Device malfunction or false positive triggering a security concern. The '4 lock state flips' could be due to a faulty lock mechanism, low battery causing erratic reporting, or a software glitch. This would create a 'security threat' alert in the system even if no actual physical breach occurred.

Structured Signal: `lock_state_flips: 4`. Erratic locking behavior is a common sign of hardware issues.

Matter Notes: 'BooleanState... should be interpreted using transitions'. Isolated values can be misleading; repeated flips suggest instability.

No corresponding 'fault' or 'low_battery' events are explicitly listed in the focused chunks, but they might be in other parts of the log stream not shown here.

Requires assuming a device fault without direct evidence like 'low_battery' warnings or error codes in the provided snippets.

If it were a simple malfunction, one might expect more chaotic sensor data (e.g., temperature spikes, stuck occupancy), which is not observed.

The 'lock_state_flips: 4' count from structured signals, which is the primary indicator of potential abnormal access control activity.

The precise timing of the front door contact opening (08:23:02) and the immediate subsequent occupancy detection, establishing the entry event.

The absence of explicit 'alarm', 'tamper', or 'error' events in the detailed logs, which leans towards either a successful routine entry or a silent breach/malfunction.

Detailed log entries for the `DoorLock.LockState` attribute to see the exact timestamps and values of the 4 flips.

User authentication logs (e.g., who unlocked the door via app, code, or key) to distinguish between authorized and unauthorized access.

Contextual information about whether the home was supposed to be occupied or unoccupied at 08:23.

Any audio/video footage or additional sensor data (e.g., motion sensors near the door) to corroborate the presence of a person vs. a mechanical issue.

C06 (08:23:03): `entrance_occupancy` becomes `occupied`, indicating someone entered.

C06 (08:23:04): `living_room_occupancy` becomes `occupied`, showing movement from entrance to living area.

C06 (08:23:12): `living_room_light` turns on, consistent with a resident entering their home in the morning.

C05 (08:23:00): Manual unlock event at the front door.

C05 (07:06:13): Previous cycle showed successful auto-lock (`LockOperationType=0`, `Source=Auto`).

If the lock did not re-engage, the security perimeter was compromised despite the door closing.

Direct log entries for DoorLock.LockState transitions to verify the '4 flips' claim.

Authentication logs (user ID/method) for the door access event at 08:23:02.

Contextual check for C05 (pre-entry state) and C08 (post-entry stabilization) to rule out mechanical failure or unauthorized access attempts that occurred just before/after the visible window.

The investigator correctly identifies the core ambiguity: the structured signal mentions '4 lock_state_flips', but the provided chunks (C06, C07) only show occupancy/contact sensors and temperatures, not the actual lock state changes.

Without seeing the DoorLock.LockState logs, it is impossible to distinguish between a routine entry with rapid re-locking (normal), a malfunctioning lock (device health), or an intrusion attempt (security threat).

The current evidence is insufficient to confirm or deny the security threat. The investigation must retrieve the specific chunks containing the DoorLock attribute updates surrounding the 08:23:02 timestamp.

Requesting C05 (to see pre-entry lock status) and C08 (to see post-entry lock status/stabilization) is necessary to complete the sequence analysis.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 59,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 940,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 21,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 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": "2026-06-23T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-23T01:35:00",
    "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",
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "door_lock",
    "contact_sensor",
    "occupancy_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Door lock state flips (4 total in logs)",
    "Occupancy transitions at entrance/living room",
    "Contact sensor state changes"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06 contains the first instance of door contact opening and occupancy appearing at the entrance, which is the primary candidate for an access event.",
    "C07 follows immediately, allowing verification of whether the lock state stabilized or if further unauthorized access attempts occurred.",
    "These chunks cover the 'access path' and 'human/device sequence context' required to distinguish between a routine entry/exit and a security threat."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Routine authorized entry by a resident. The door was manually unlocked, opened, and immediately re-locked via auto-lock. Subsequent occupancy in the entrance/living room indicates normal presence.",
      "evidence": [
        "C05 (08:23:00): `front_door_lock` shows `LockOperationType=1` (Unlock) with `OperationSource=Manual`. This is consiste


烟雾报警器低电量时发生事件

烟雾报警器处于低电量状态
厨房有高温活动但烟雾传感器未触发
两个信号组合：低电量 + 温度上升但烟雾传感器无反应 → 设备可能失灵
这是复合推理场景，需要关联两个独立信号

警告住户烟雾报警器可能失灵，建议更换电池/设备

No security threat or safety hazard is confirmed; the events are consistent with normal household activity and likely sensor artifacts.

Explanation: The door entry at 08:23 shows a manual unlock followed by immediate occupancy in the entrance and living room. Since the house was already occupied (bedroom/kitchen sensors active since 06:20), this pattern strongly indicates a resident returning home or moving between rooms rather than an intrusion.

Explanation: The kitchen temperature spike to 29.01°C at 10:41 is transient and immediately returns to baseline (~25.4°C) by 10:45. This behavior is characteristic of a local heating artifact or sensor glitch near the cook surface, not a fire, especially given the smoke alarm remained clear (SmokeState=0).

Explanation: The subsequent `None` reading for the kitchen temp sensor at 10:58 is a single data dropout without corroborating evidence of device failure (e.g., repeated errors, persistent stuck values, or explicit fault codes). According to Matter notes, scaled temperature values alone or single dropouts are insufficient to conclude a device fault.

Explanation: The supervisor noted that C09/C10 were missing to verify if the stove was turned off, but the lack of smoke/CO alarms and the presence of occupants mitigates the 'unattended cooking' risk classification to a low-confidence observation rather than a confirmed threat.

Pre-event occupancy (Bedroom/Kitchen active since 06:20) contradicts the 'empty house intrusion' hypothesis.

Transient temperature spike (29.01°C) followed by immediate recovery to baseline (~25.4°C) suggests sensor artifact, not fire.

Smoke alarm state remained Normal (0) during the temperature anomaly.

Manual lock operation source implies physical interaction, consistent with authorized access.

Monitor kitchen temperature sensor for recurring glitches to determine if hardware replacement is needed.

Verify stove status via app or camera if available, though current logs do not indicate an emergency.

Unusual early morning door access (08:23)

Lock state change without corresponding occupancy in entrance room initially

Potential unauthorized entry or forgotten lock status

Authorized Resident Entry (Routine Return Home)

At 08:23, the front door lock was manually unlocked (`LockOperationType=1`, `OperationSource=Manual`), followed immediately by the contact sensor opening and occupancy detection in the entrance.

The living room light turned on at 08:23:09, indicating immediate activation of home systems upon entry.

Occupancy sensors in the living room and entrance remained consistently 'occupied' from 08:23 onwards through C07-C08, suggesting a resident is present and active.

The house was already occupied prior to this event (Bedroom and Kitchen occupancy were '1' from 06:20 onwards), meaning the system was likely in an 'Armed Stay' or unsecured mode, making manual unlocking for a returning resident (or someone entering from outside) consistent with normal behavior.

Does not explain why the bedroom occupant did not interact with the entrance/living room immediately, though they may have been sleeping or in another area.

Relies on the assumption that the manual unlock was performed by an authorized user, which cannot be definitively proven without access logs.

Unauthorized Intrusion or Credential Compromise

The lock operation at 08:23 was 'Manual', but the source is not specified as 'Key' or 'App'. If it was a keypad code, it could indicate credential theft if the code was used by an unknown person.

The sequence of events (Unlock -> Contact Open -> Occupancy) is identical for both authorized entry and forced entry/intrusion. Without knowing the pre-event 'Armed' state (e.g., if the system was supposed to be 'Away'), we cannot rule out unauthorized access.

The sudden activation of the living room light suggests purposeful activity inside the home, which could be suspicious if no one was expected to be there or if the timing is unusual.

The house was already occupied (Bedroom/Kitchen sensors active since 06:20). An intruder entering a house that is already known to be occupied is less likely than a resident returning home or moving between rooms.

No evidence of forced entry (e.g., broken glass, alarm trigger, rapid multiple attempts).

The 'Manual' unlock source often implies a key or physical interaction, which is harder to spoof remotely than a code, unless the 'Manual' label covers all non-auto operations.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk

In C08 (10:31), the kitchen cook surface was turned ON.

At 10:41, the kitchen temperature sensor reported a value of `2901` (29.01 C), which is a significant jump from the previous stable readings (~25.4-25.5 C) seen in C07.

At 10:58, the kitchen temperature sensor reported `None` (telemetry dropout), potentially due to heat damage or sensor failure near the heat source.

Kitchen occupancy remained '1' throughout this period, but the combination of active cooking, a sudden temperature spike, and subsequent sensor dropout raises a safety concern regarding equipment malfunction or fire risk.

The temperature spike (29.01 C) is relatively low for a fire hazard; it could be a sensor glitch or local heating from the stove.

The smoke alarm reported `SmokeState = 0` (Normal) at 10:41, providing negative evidence against an active fire.

The cook surface was still ON at 10:57:30, so the hazard is ongoing, but the lack of smoke/CO alarms and the presence of an occupant mitigates the immediate emergency classification.

Pre-event occupancy status: Bedroom and Kitchen were 'occupied' from 06:20 to 08:23, strongly supporting the 'Resident Present/Home' hypothesis over 'Burglary of Empty House'.

Lock Operation Source: 'Manual' at 08:23 indicates physical interaction, distinguishing it from remote hacking or automated failures.

Temperature Spike & Dropout: The jump to 29.01 C and subsequent `None` reading at 10:41-10:58 in the kitchen correlates with the cook surface being ON, highlighting a potential device health/safety issue distinct from the entry event.

Smoke Alarm Status: `SmokeState = 0` at 10:41 contradicts the high-risk fire hypothesis despite the temperature anomaly.

Pre-08:23 Armed State: Was the security system set to 'Away' or 'Stay'? This determines if the 08:23 entry was a breach of a secured perimeter.

Authentication Method Details: Did the 'Manual' unlock use a key, fingerprint, or app? This distinguishes authorized vs. unauthorized access.

Historical Access Logs: Is 08:23 a typical time for entry? This helps contextualize the routine nature of the event.

Cook Surface Power Draw: To confirm if the 29.01 C reading was due to actual heat output or sensor error.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk

Verify kitchen_cook_surface state in C09/C10 to determine if it was turned off (mitigation) or remained on (unattended cooking risk).

Check for smoke/CO alarm triggers in C09/C10 to confirm or refute fire hazard.

Investigate the cause of the temperature spike and dropout: is it a sensor malfunction or actual heat?

Confirm if the 'Manual' lock operation at 08:23 involved any forced entry indicators (e.g., rapid successive attempts, broken contact sensor) which are absent here.

The investigator correctly identified the door entry as likely routine due to pre-existing occupancy, but over-indexed on a potential fire risk based on limited evidence.

The 'fire_risk' hypothesis relies heavily on a single transient temperature spike (29.01 C) and one `None` reading, followed by immediate recovery to normal temperatures in subsequent logs (C08 end/C09 start implied by context). This pattern strongly suggests a sensor glitch or local heating artifact rather than a sustained fire event, especially given the lack of smoke alarms triggering.

The investigation is currently stuck debating device health vs. safety without checking the critical mitigation phase (did the user turn off the stove?). Without C09/C10, we cannot rule out unattended cooking or confirm the sensor failure.

The lock event analysis is sound but lacks specific authentication details; however, the presence of occupants makes intrusion less likely than routine access. The primary remaining uncertainty is the kitchen incident's nature.

Do not conclude 'safe' yet; the kitchen incident requires verification of the outcome (stove off/alarm status).

Routine morning entry by a resident. The front door unlocked and opened at 08:23, immediately followed by occupancy detection in the entrance, living room, and other areas. This pattern is consistent with a resident returning home or entering from an adjacent space (e.g., garage) to start their day.

C06: Lock state changed to 'unlocked' (raw=2) at 08:23:00.

C06: Door contact sensor triggered (StateValue=false/open) at 08:23:02.

C06: Entrance occupancy detected (raw=1) at 08:23:03, just 1 second after door open.

C06: Living room occupancy detected (raw=1) at 08:23:03, indicating presence in the main living area shortly after entry.

C06: Kitchen and Bedroom occupancy also show 'occupied' status starting around 08:25-08:26, suggesting normal household activity distribution.

Does not explain *who* unlocked the door (key, code, fob, or forced).

Does not account for why the lock was locked prior to this moment if the house was previously unoccupied (though logs don't show pre-08:23 state).

Potential unauthorized entry or tailgating. The lock unlocked and door opened without a preceding 'armed away' or 'vacant' context visible in the immediate snippet, and occupancy appeared almost instantly. If the house was supposed to be empty or secured, this represents a breach. Alternatively, if someone else entered while the resident was present elsewhere, it could be tailgating.

C06: The sequence of events (Lock Unlocked -> Door Open -> Occupancy Detected) happens within 3 seconds, which is fast but physically possible for an intruder or a resident with a key/fob.

Lack of pre-event context: We do not see the state of the lock or occupancy *before* 08:23:00 in C06/C07. If the system was 'Armed Away' or all rooms were 'Unoccupied' before this, this event is anomalous.

Triage suspicion: 'Lock state change without corresponding occupancy in entrance room initially' - although occupancy appears at 08:23:03, there is a tiny gap where the door is open but occupancy isn't yet registered, which is technically normal sensor latency but worth noting.

The immediate appearance of occupancy in multiple rooms (Living, Kitchen, Bedroom) strongly suggests a known resident moving through the house rather than a stealthy intruder who would likely avoid triggering multiple motion sensors immediately.

No evidence of forced entry (e.g., broken glass, alarm trigger, rapid repeated failed attempts).

Temperature readings are stable and normal, ruling out environmental hazards.

Device fault or false positive on the lock/contact sensor. The lock reported 'unlocked' and the contact sensor reported 'open', but if no one actually entered, this could be a sensor glitch or a mechanical failure causing a false security alert.

C06: LockState raw=2 (unlocked). If the lock is mechanically stuck or has a faulty position sensor, it might report unlocked when it is actually locked, or vice versa.

C06: Contact sensor StateValue=false (open). If the door didn't actually move, this is a sensor error.

Occupancy sensors in the entrance and living room activated simultaneously with the door opening, making a pure sensor ghosting event highly unlikely unless multiple devices failed simultaneously.

No explicit fault codes or repeated non-recovery patterns observed in the provided chunks.

The simultaneous activation of Entrance, Living Room, Kitchen, and Bedroom occupancy sensors within minutes of the door opening (C06) strongly supports the 'Normal Resident Activity' hypothesis over 'Intrusion' or 'Sensor Fault'. An intruder is unlikely to trigger so many occupancy sensors so quickly, and a sensor fault wouldn't typically correlate with physical movement across multiple zones.

The specific timing: Lock Unlocked (08:23:00) -> Door Open (08:23:02) -> Occupancy (08:23:03) shows a coherent physical sequence with minimal delay, typical of a human using a key/fob/code.

Pre-08:23:00 state of the front door lock (was it locked?) and occupancy sensors (were they all unoccupied?).

Authentication method used for the lock (keypad code, fingerprint, mobile app, manual key) to determine if credentials were compromised.

Historical access logs for the front door lock to identify if this time/person is usual.

Video footage or audio logs from the entrance camera/microphone to visually confirm identity.

The living room light turned on at 08:23:09, indicating immediate activation of home systems upon entry.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk

In C08 (10:31), the kitchen cook surface was turned ON.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk

Pre-08:23 state of the front door lock (was it locked?) and occupancy sensors (were they all unoccupied?).

Historical access logs for the front door lock to identify if this time/person is usual.

The investigator correctly identified the sequence of events in C06/C07 but failed to establish the 'normal' baseline. The core question is whether this entry was authorized or unauthorized. Without knowing the pre-event state (e.g., was the house 'Armed Away'? Was the door previously locked?), we cannot distinguish between a resident returning home and an intruder.

The hypothesis that 'multiple occupancy sensors triggered quickly' supports normal activity, but only if the house was previously empty. If the house was occupied, the sudden change in multiple rooms might indicate something else, or simply movement. However, the lack of pre-event context (C05) is the critical missing piece.

The investigator noted the missing information but did not request the necessary chunks to resolve the ambiguity. A safety verdict cannot be made without establishing the system's armed/occupied status prior to the event.

No protocol format misunderstandings detected (temperatures are correctly interpreted).

Risk of false alarm is medium because the conclusion relies on an assumption of 'normalcy' without verifying the 'armed' state. If the house was supposed to be empty and secured, this is a high-risk intrusion; if it was expected, it's benign.

## 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": 499,
    "bedroom": 529,
    "bathroom": 60,
    "entrance": 231
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 945,
    "MeasuredValue": 871,
    "OnOff": 22,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "BatteryAlert": 1,
    "SmokeState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 945,
  "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": "2026-06-10T10:31:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-11T01:35:00",
    "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",
      "entrance_occupancy"
    ],
    "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",
    "bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Unusual early morning door access (08:23)",
    "Lock state change without corresponding occupancy in entrance room initially",
    "Potential unauthorized entry or forgotten lock status"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06 contains the critical event at 08:23 where the front door lock unlocks and the contact sensor opens, followed by occupancy detection. This is the primary candidate for a security threat.",
    "C07 provides immediate context to see if the occupant was present/active in other rooms (living/bedroom) which might explain the entry as a routine action (e.g., returning home) rather than an intrusion, or if the house was otherwise empty."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Authorized Resident Entry (Routine Return Home)",
      "evidence": [
        "At 08:23, the front door lock was manually unlocked (`LockOperationType=1`, `OperationSource=Manual`), followed imm