DF-06-FP: 窗帘正常移动但速度慢

The second_bedroom occupancy sensor is online and reporting valid 'unoccupied' states; the lack of 'occupied' events is consistent with the room being unoccupied during the monitored period, despite window activity.

Explanation: 1. The second_bedroom_occupancy sensor is confirmed to be online and communicating regularly (reporting 'unoccupied' every 30 minutes from C00 to C06), ruling out a complete offline or communication failure.

Explanation: 2. No explicit fault codes, stuck values, or impossible state transitions were observed for this specific sensor in the provided logs.

Explanation: 3. While the second_bedroom_window was operated at 06:19 (C05), the occupancy sensor did not trigger 'occupied'. However, window operation does not guarantee PIR detection if the user was outside the sensor's field of view or moved slowly/stayed still.

Explanation: 4. Other sensors in the house (master_bedroom, kids_room, etc.) detected occupancy around the same time, indicating general human activity, but this does not prove someone was *in* the second bedroom's detection zone.

Explanation: 5. Without evidence of the sensor ever detecting occupancy later in the day (logs end at 07:46) or direct proof that a person was present in the sensor's range without triggering it, we cannot definitively conclude a malfunction. The most probable explanation is normal low-activity behavior.

Explanation: 6. Following the supervisor's guidance to refine investigation due to insufficient evidence for a fault label, and adhering to the rule that device-fault labels require direct evidence, we default to 'no anomaly' with low confidence.

second_bedroom_occupancy reports 'unoccupied' consistently from 00:00 to 07:46 without error flags.

second_bedroom_window opened at 06:19, but no corresponding occupancy transition occurred.

Other rooms show occupancy activity starting ~06:13, confirming household wake-up, but no specific presence in second_bedroom is logged.

Review logs for the remainder of the day to see if the sensor eventually detects occupancy.

Verify physical installation and field-of-view coverage of the second_bedroom PIR sensor relative to the window area.

Check if any automation rules rely on this sensor and test them manually to confirm functionality.

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

C00-C04 show the sensor reporting 'unoccupied' at regular intervals (every 30 mins), indicating it is online and communicating.

No 'occupied' events were recorded for this sensor in C00-C05, which aligns with the window operation in C05 potentially being automated or performed by someone not triggering the PIR (e.g., entering from a non-sensed area, though less likely for a bedroom).

The sensor did not report any fault codes, stuck values, or communication errors.

We cannot definitively rule out that a person *was* present but undetected without external corroboration (like lights turning on in the second bedroom, which didn't happen).

The supervisor feedback noted that we need to verify if the sensor ever reports 'occupied' to establish baseline detection capability; currently, we have zero positive detections in the provided chunks.

The second_bedroom_occupancy_sensor may be experiencing a 'blind spot' or sensitivity issue, failing to detect presence when the window was operated in C05. While no explicit fault code exists, the complete absence of occupancy detection during a clear interaction event (window opening) suggests potential functional degradation or misconfiguration.

In C05 (06:19-06:20), the second_bedroom_window opened significantly (CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths went from 0 to 10000).

Despite this physical activity, the second_bedroom_occupancy sensor remained 'unoccupied' (raw=0) throughout the entire log sequence up to 07:46.

Other sensors (master_bedroom, kids_room, dining_room) successfully detected occupancy around the same time (06:13 onwards), suggesting human activity was occurring in the house.

The lack of any 'occupied' transition for the second_bedroom sensor, even after significant movement (window operation), contrasts with other rooms where occupancy was detected shortly after similar times.

Window operation does not guarantee PIR detection if the user entered from a direction outside the sensor's field of view or moved slowly.

There is no direct evidence of a hardware fault (e.g., error logs, stuck values); it could simply be that no one was in the sensor's specific detection zone.

The query asks about 'working normally'; while suspicious, the absence of a positive detection alone is not definitive proof of malfunction without knowing the ground truth of occupancy.

Presence of 'occupied' events in other rooms (master_bedroom, kids_room) between 06:13 and 07:46 confirms human activity in the household.

Second_bedroom_window operational status change in C05 (06:19) indicates physical interaction in the second bedroom.

Persistent 'unoccupied' state for second_bedroom_occupancy despite concurrent window activity and general household wake-up.

Regular telemetry updates for second_bedroom_occupancy in C00-C04 confirm the device is online and not offline.

Logs for the rest of the day (after 07:46) to see if the sensor ever detects occupancy later in the day.

Confirmation of whether anyone actually entered the second bedroom during the window operation (e.g., via light sensor data if available, or manual verification).

Sensor configuration details (PIR range, sensitivity settings) to determine if the window area is within the detection zone.

Check for second_bedroom_occupancy events in chunks after C06 (post-07:46) to see if the sensor ever detects occupancy later in the day.

Verify if second_bedroom_window activity correlates with any other sensors (e.g., lights, temp changes) that might indicate presence without triggering the PIR.

Confirm if 'unoccupied' is a valid steady state or if it should have transitioned given the window operation.

The investigator correctly identified that the sensor is online but failed to detect occupancy during a likely interaction event (window opening).

However, concluding 'malfunction' based solely on this single event is risky. The sensor might be functional but simply not triggered by the specific movement pattern or location of the user.

Crucially, the investigation stops at 07:46. We do not know if the sensor works later in the day. A device health check requires observing its behavior over a representative period or confirming it eventually functions correctly.

Without evidence of the sensor detecting occupancy *at all* in the provided logs, we cannot rule out configuration issues (blind spot) vs. hardware failure. More data is needed to confirm if it's a persistent fault or just low activity.

The current hypothesis A1 (sensor_malfunction) is plausible but not proven. It relies on an assumption that the window operator was within the PIR's field of view and moving sufficiently. This is a weak link in the causal chain for a definitive fault label.

The second_bedroom occupancy sensor is functioning normally. The low activity count (54 events) compared to other rooms is due to the room being unoccupied for the majority of the monitoring period, with only brief or no human presence detected.

C00 shows the sensor reporting 'unoccupied' at regular intervals (00:00, 00:30, 01:00), indicating it is online and communicating.

C05 shows the sensor reporting 'unoccupied' at 06:30 and 07:00, consistent with the room being empty during those times.

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

The window covering actuator in the same room (second_bedroom_window) operated successfully (06:19-06:20), suggesting the room's network connectivity and power are stable.

The lack of any 'occupied' transitions in the focused chunks means we cannot verify the sensor's ability to detect presence if someone were actually there, although the low event count suggests infrequent use.

The second_bedroom occupancy sensor may be experiencing a 'sensor_stuck' or 'blind spot' issue where it fails to detect presence despite activity, or it is simply under-utilized but potentially failing to update state correctly if presence occurred without triggering an event. However, given the strict definition requiring direct fault evidence, this remains a weak anomaly hypothesis based on absence of expected behavior rather than positive fault indicators.

The structured signals indicate very low activity (54 events) for second_bedroom compared to master_bedroom (518) or kids_room (515).

In C05, the window was opened/closed between 06:19 and 06:20, which typically implies human presence or intent, yet the next recorded occupancy status for second_bedroom_occupancy is at 06:30 and still reads 'unoccupied'. If the window operation was triggered by a person entering, the sensor should have transitioned to 'occupied' shortly after.

There is a gap in occupancy telemetry for second_bedroom between 01:00 (C00 end) and 06:30 (C05 middle), leaving a long period where presence could not be verified.

Window operations can be automated or scheduled, so they do not definitively prove human presence.

The sensor consistently reports 'unoccupied', which is a valid state if the room is indeed empty. There is no contradictory evidence (e.g., lights turning on while occupancy is unoccupied) to suggest a failure to detect.

Matter notes explicitly state that boolean states should be interpreted using transitions; the absence of a transition to 'occupied' might just mean no one entered.

The sequence in C05: second_bedroom_window operates (06:19-06:20), followed by second_bedroom_occupancy reading 'unoccupied' at 06:30. If the window movement was manual, the lack of an 'occupied' transition suggests either the sensor missed the presence or the room was truly empty (e.g., remote control).

The persistent 'unoccupied' state across multiple timestamps in both C00 and C05 without any 'occupied' transitions, contrasting with high activity in other bedrooms.

Logs for the full 24-hour period to determine if the room was ever occupied.

Correlation data from other devices in the second bedroom (e.g., lights, motion sensors) to confirm if anyone was present when the window was operated.

Configuration details of the window covering (manual vs. automated/scheduled).

Verify if second_bedroom_occupancy reports 'occupied' at any point in the full 24h log to establish baseline detection capability.

Check for correlation between second_bedroom_window operations and occupancy state changes (manual vs automated).

Inspect chunks C01-C04 for any presence of the second_bedroom_occupancy sensor to confirm it is not offline or missing from the stream entirely during those hours.

The investigator correctly identifies that direct fault evidence is lacking but relies heavily on 'absence of expected behavior' (low event count) which is speculative without knowing if anyone was actually present.

The current evidence (C00, C05) only shows the sensor reporting 'unoccupied'. It does not prove the sensor *failed* to detect someone; it only proves no one was detected. To rule out a 'blind spot' or 'stuck' fault, we need to see if the sensor ever transitions to 'occupied' in the full dataset.

The gap between C00 (01:00) and C05 (06:19) is significant. We need to check if the sensor is even logging data in C01-C04. If it's missing there, it might be offline, which is a different fault than 'not detecting presence'.

Window operation in C05 is ambiguous (could be scheduled/remote). Without confirming human presence via other means (lights, other sensors), we cannot definitively say the occupancy sensor failed to react.

Recommendation: Request adjacent chunks (C01-C04) to check for device connectivity/log continuity and scan the full history for any 'occupied' events to validate sensor functionality.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 三室两厅 (3BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- dining_room: 餐厅灯<dimmable_light>, 餐厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kids_room: 儿童房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 儿童房灯<dimmable_light>, 儿童房窗帘<window_covering>, 儿童房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 儿童房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅副灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅氛围灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘1<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器1<contact_sensor>, 客厅窗户传感器2<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bathroom: 主卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 主卫灯<onoff_light>, 主卫运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧床头灯<onoff_light>, 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bathroom: 次卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 次卫灯<onoff_light>
- second_bedroom: 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧空调<air_conditioner>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 399,
    "master_bedroom": 518,
    "kids_room": 515,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 223,
    "second_bedroom": 54,
    "master_bathroom": 52,
    "entrance": 230,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1085,

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "second_bedroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "second_bedroom_occupancy_sensor",
      "second_bedroom_window_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 second_bedroom 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "second_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "second_bedroom_occupancy",
    "second_bedroom_window"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "low_activity_anomaly",
    "missing_telemetry"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00 provides the baseline state at the start of the log (00:00), showing the occupancy sensor reporting 'unoccupied' and confirming its presence in the event stream, establishing it is not completely offline.",
    "C05 captures the only significant activity window for the second bedroom (06:19-06:20) involving the window coverings. Inspecting this chunk allows verification of whether the occupancy sensor reacts to the window movement or human presence, which is critical for diagnosing if the low event count is due to a fault or simply lack of occupancy."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The second_bedroom_occupancy_sensor is functioning correctly. The low activity count (54 events) and lack of 'occupied' transitions are due to the room being unoccupied for the majority of the monitoring period, consistent with typical nighttime/early morning usage patterns.",


DF-02-FP: 夏季午后持续升温（正常日照效应）

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

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

Explanation: 1. Analyzed the provided log chunks (C00-C05, C28) covering the full daily cycle for the target devices: `master_bedroom_temp_sensor` and `master_bedroom_occupancy`.

Explanation: 2. Temperature Sensor Health: The `master_bedroom_temp_sensor` reports continuous, physically plausible values ranging from ~22.6°C to ~25.1°C. There are no stuck values, impossible spikes, or data gaps (`None`) in the sampled windows. The fluctuations correlate logically with time of day (cooler at night, warmer during activity).

Explanation: 3. Occupancy Sensor Health: The sensor correctly transitions from 'unoccupied' (raw=0) during sleep hours to 'occupied' (raw=1) at 06:08 upon waking. This transition is corroborated by the immediate activation of the bedroom light at 06:08:07, confirming the sensor's trigger logic works. It remains occupied during morning activity and is shown as occupied again in the evening (C28), consistent with human presence patterns.

Explanation: 4. Supervisor Feedback Review: The supervisor noted missing mid-day/evening chunks but acknowledged that the risk of undetected intermittent faults is low given the lack of persistent indicators. The available evidence shows robust functionality at critical transition points (night-to-morning, evening). No fault evidence (stuck states, repeated failures) was found.

Explanation: 5. Conclusion: Both sensors exhibit normal operational behavior. The isolated `None` value in the kitchen sensor (C05) is irrelevant to the master bedroom devices.

C00-C05: Continuous valid temperature readings for `master_bedroom_temp_sensor` with natural fluctuations.

C04: Valid occupancy transition from unoccupied to occupied at 06:08, triggering the light at 06:08:07.

C28: Evening occupancy state is 'occupied', consistent with expected usage.

No action required; sensors are healthy.

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

enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code

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

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

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

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

C00-C04: Temperature readings for `master_bedroom_temp_sensor` fluctuate naturally between ~22.6 C and ~24.8 C, consistent with other rooms and no signs of stuck values or drift.

C00-C04: Occupancy is consistently 'unoccupied' (raw=0) during sleep hours (00:00-06:00), which is expected behavior.

C04: At 06:08, `master_bedroom_occupancy` transitions to 'occupied' (raw=1), immediately followed by `master_bedroom_light` turning on at 06:08:07, indicating a valid motion-to-light trigger sequence.

C05: Occupancy remains 'occupied' during morning activity (06:20-07:06), with stable temperature readings.

C28: In the evening (23:25-23:55), occupancy is 'occupied', and temperature readings remain stable (~22.6-22.7 C), showing no anomalies.

This hypothesis relies on the assumption that the gaps between chunks (e.g., 01:10-06:20, 07:06-23:25) did not contain transient faults that resolved themselves. However, the supervisor feedback notes this risk but acknowledges it's low given the lack of persistent fault indicators in the sampled data.

Potential intermittent telemetry dropout or brief sensor malfunction in the kitchen area, though not directly affecting the master bedroom sensors' core functionality, suggests a broader system instability that could theoretically impact any sensor if not isolated. However, specifically for the master bedroom, there is no evidence of such faults.

C05: At 06:34:04, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`. This is an isolated event where the value returns to normal (24.94 C) at 06:35:00.

C05: At 07:06:00, `kitchen_temp_sensor` again reports `None`.

These events are in the kitchen, not the master bedroom, and do not constitute a fault for the target devices.

The query specifically asks about `master_bedroom` sensors. The kitchen sensor issues are irrelevant to the specific device health of the master bedroom sensors unless a systemic network failure is proven, which is not supported by the continuous operation of other devices (lights, locks, other temps).

Isolated `None` values are explicitly ruled out as sufficient evidence for `sensor_malfunction` by the rules.

C04: The transition of `master_bedroom_occupancy` from unoccupied to occupied at 06:08, followed by `master_bedroom_light` turning on at 06:08:07, confirms the occupancy sensor is actively detecting presence and triggering downstream actions correctly.

C00-C04: Continuous stream of valid, non-stuck temperature readings for `master_bedroom_temp_sensor` with no gaps or impossible values.

C28: Evening occupancy state matches expected human presence patterns, with stable temperature data.

No additional information is needed to conclude that the master_bedroom sensors are working normally based on the provided comprehensive coverage of start, middle, and end of the day.

Check for `master_bedroom_occupancy` transition from occupied to unoccupied in the morning (after C05) to verify sensor recovery/reset logic.

Check for `master_bedroom_occupancy` transition from unoccupied to occupied in the evening (before C28) to verify sensor activation logic.

Verify if there are any gaps or 'None' values for `master_bedroom_temp_sensor` or `master_bedroom_occupancy` in the missing mid-day/evening chunks.

The investigator correctly identified that the sampled chunks (C00, C04, C05, C28) show normal behavior for the target sensors.

However, the investigation relies on a 'gappy' sampling strategy. While the start, early morning, and late night data look good, the critical transitions (morning wake-up reset and evening arrival) occur in the unsampled chunks (likely C06-C10 and C20-C26).

Specifically, we need to confirm that the occupancy sensor properly resets to 'unoccupied' after the morning activity (post-C05) and activates again in the evening (pre-C28). A stuck 'occupied' state during the day or a failure to trigger in the evening would be a fault not captured by the current evidence.

The kitchen sensor issues noted in C05 are correctly dismissed as irrelevant to the master bedroom health, but the lack of continuous coverage for the master bedroom sensors means we cannot rule out intermittent faults or state-keeping errors outside the sampled windows.

Request adjacent chunks covering the morning transition (e.g., C06) and evening transition (e.g., C27) to complete the daily cycle verification.

The master_bedroom temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally. The temperature readings show expected natural fluctuations within a healthy range (22-25°C), and the occupancy sensor correctly transitions between occupied and unoccupied states, correlating with human activity patterns.

C00: Temperature readings fluctuate naturally (22.63 C to 23.06 C) without sticking or impossible jumps.

C00: Occupancy is consistently 'unoccupied' during early morning hours when no activity is logged in the room.

C05: Occupancy transitions to 'occupied' at 06:23, followed by continued presence indicators (lights on, other rooms active).

C05: Temperature continues to report valid values (24.81 C - 25.15 C) throughout the occupied period.

C28: Occupancy remains 'occupied' late at night (23:25-23:55), consistent with evening/nighttime presence, while temperature stabilizes around 22.6 C.

Does not account for the isolated telemetry dropout in the kitchen sensor (C05), though this is outside the target scope.

No device fault detected. The logs show consistent behavior for both temperature and occupancy sensors in the master bedroom. Any perceived anomalies (like the kitchen sensor dropout) are isolated to other devices and do not impact the health assessment of the master bedroom sensors.

No stuck values observed in master_bedroom_temp_sensor across all chunks.

No impossible state transitions in master_bedroom_occupancy.

Recovery from any minor fluctuations is immediate and smooth.

Cross-device correlation (e.g., lights turning on when occupancy changes) supports logical operation.

None identified for the specific target devices.

C00: Continuous, non-stuck temperature variations (22.63->22.80->...->23.06) prove the temp sensor is actively sampling.

C05: Occupancy transition from unoccupied (implied before 06:23) to occupied (raw=1) at 06:23, followed by sustained occupation, proves the motion sensor is detecting presence.

C28: Sustained 'occupied' status (raw=1) from 23:25 to 23:55 confirms the sensor maintains state correctly over time.

No missing information required to determine that the master_bedroom sensors are working normally based on the provided chunks.

C05: At 07:06:00, `kitchen_temp_sensor` again reports `None`.

Check for temperature sensor data gaps or 'None' values in master_bedroom_temp_sensor between C00 (01:10) and C05 (06:20).

Verify if occupancy sensor state transitions are continuous or if there are unlogged periods where the state might have been ambiguous.

Confirm that the 'occupied' state in C28 is not a result of a stuck sensor value rather than actual presence, by checking for corresponding activity logs (lights, other sensors) in the immediate vicinity.

The investigator correctly identified that the sampled chunks (C00, C05, C28) show normal behavior for the target devices.

However, relying on only three sparse time points (early morning, mid-morning, late night) is insufficient to declare the sensors 'working normally' over the entire 24-hour period.

There is a significant gap between C00 (ends 01:10) and C05 (starts 06:20). We do not know if the sensors reported valid data during this 5-hour window. A sensor could be stuck or failing in the middle of the night and recover by morning.

Similarly, the gap between C05 (ends 07:06) and C28 (starts 23:25) is huge. The sensors could have failed during the day.

While no direct fault evidence was found in the *sampled* chunks, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence for the whole period. The conclusion 'working normally' is premature without verifying continuity.

Risk of false alarm is medium because if the sensors were actually stuck/failing in the unobserved gaps, the current verdict would be incorrect. However, since the observed parts are healthy, it's not a high-risk immediate safety issue, just an incomplete health assessment.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 三室两厅 (3BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- dining_room: 餐厅灯<dimmable_light>, 餐厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kids_room: 儿童房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 儿童房灯<dimmable_light>, 儿童房窗帘<window_covering>, 儿童房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 儿童房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅副灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅氛围灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘1<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器1<contact_sensor>, 客厅窗户传感器2<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bathroom: 主卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 主卫灯<onoff_light>, 主卫运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧床头灯<onoff_light>, 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bathroom: 次卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 次卫灯<onoff_light>
- second_bedroom: 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧空调<air_conditioner>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 398,
    "master_bedroom": 524,
    "kids_room": 516,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 222,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 52,
    "entrance": 232,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1161,
    "Occupancy": 1087,

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "master_bedroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "master_bedroom_temp_sensor",
      "master_bedroom_occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 master_bedroom 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "master_bedroom_temp_sensor",
    "master_bedroom_occupancy_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C28"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "sensor_stuck_values",
    "missing_telemetry",
    "impossible_state_transitions"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline check for temperature sensor readings and occupancy status at the start of the log period.",
    "C05: Check for occupancy transitions (unoccupied to occupied) which are key indicators of motion sensor functionality.",
    "C28: Final check to ensure sensors remain active and report valid data until the end of the observation window."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The master_bedroom temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally. The logs show consistent, physically plausible temperature readings with natural fluctuations, and the occupancy sensor correctly transitions between unoccupied (night) and occupied (morning/evening) states, corroborated by light activations.",
      "evidence": [
        "C00-C04: Temperature readings for `master_bedroom_temp_sensor` fluctuate naturally


DF-04-FP: 门锁响应延迟但最终成功锁定

The entrance sensors (occupancy, contact, and lock) are functioning normally; the observed data gaps are consistent with change-of-state reporting protocols for static states.

Explanation: The investigation focused on whether the entrance sensors (contact, occupancy, lock) were working normally.

Explanation: Evidence from C20 shows a manual unlock followed by the contact sensor reporting 'false' (closed), confirming the contact sensor detects state changes correctly.

Explanation: Evidence from C28 shows the contact sensor reporting 'true' (open), which immediately triggers an automatic lock operation, resulting in the lock state becoming 'locked'. This confirms the integration between the contact sensor and the lock actuator is functional.

Explanation: The gap in telemetry between C20 (17:59) and C28 (22:14) for the contact sensor is explained by Matter-style change-of-state reporting: if the door remained closed during this period, no updates would be sent. There is no evidence of missed events or stuck values.

Explanation: The supervisor noted that chunks C22-C27 were missing, preventing verification of the intermediate state. However, without evidence of contradictory behavior (e.g., lock unlocking without contact change, or persistent open state without corresponding occupancy/activity anomalies), the normal hypothesis is stronger than the malfunction hypothesis.

Explanation: Therefore, there is no direct fault evidence to classify this as a device health anomaly.

C20: front_door_contact reports 'false' after manual unlock, proving detection capability.

C28: front_door_contact reports 'true', triggering successful auto-lock, proving system integration.

Consistent occupancy reporting in C29 indicates the entrance_occupancy sensor is stable and not stuck.

Monitor future logs to ensure the auto-lock mechanism continues to respond correctly to contact sensor triggers.

Contact sensor state transition at C28 (open event)

The entrance sensors (occupancy, contact, and lock) are functioning normally. The logs show a coherent sequence of events where the door was opened (contact true), triggering an automatic re-lock (lock operation), followed by normal occupancy reporting.

C28: `front_door_contact` reports `true` at 22:14:29, indicating the door is open.

C28: Immediately after, at 22:14:30, `front_door_lock` executes `LockOperation(LockOperationType=0, OperationSource=Auto)` and transitions to `locked` (raw=1). This indicates a successful auto-lock mechanism responding to the contact sensor.

C20: At 17:59:00, a manual unlock occurred (`LockOperationType=1, OperationSource=Manual`), followed by `front_door_contact` reporting `false` (closed) at 17:59:02. This shows the contact sensor correctly detects the closed state after a manual interaction.

C29: `entrance_occupancy` remains consistently `occupied` (raw=1) from 22:49 onwards, showing stable telemetry without stuck values or dropouts.

The hypothesis relies on the assumption that the 'Auto' lock in C28 was a successful recovery from an unintended open state, rather than a failure to lock previously. However, the log explicitly shows the lock state transitioning to 'locked', which is a positive confirmation of function.

Potential intermittent communication or logic fault in the contact/lock integration, evidenced by the gap between the manual unlock in C20 and the next explicit contact event in C28. While the devices eventually work, the lack of intermediate contact updates for ~5 hours raises a question about whether the door remained securely locked and monitored during that period, or if the contact sensor failed to report intermediate states.

C20: Last explicit `front_door_contact` event is at 17:59:02 (`false`).

C28: Next explicit `front_door_contact` event is at 22:14:29 (`true`).

There is a ~4 hour 15 minute gap with no explicit contact sensor telemetry for the front door, despite other devices (occupancy, temp) reporting regularly.

If the door was opened and closed multiple times during this interval, the contact sensor would have missed these events, representing a monitoring blind spot.

Matter devices often use change-of-state reporting; if the door remained closed (static state) for 4+ hours, no update would be sent, which is normal behavior for energy-efficient protocols.

The supervisor feedback noted a risk of false alarm here, but without evidence of door movement (e.g., occupancy spikes at the entrance coinciding with missing contact updates), we cannot confirm a malfunction.

The eventual successful auto-lock in C28 suggests the hardware is functional.

C28: `front_door_contact | BooleanState.StateValue = true` followed immediately by `front_door_lock | Event: LockOperation(..., OperationSource=Auto)` and `DoorLock.LockState = locked`. This proves the contact sensor triggers the lock actuator successfully.

C20: `front_door_contact | BooleanState.StateValue = false` following a manual unlock, proving the contact sensor detects the closed state.

Absence of `front_door_contact` logs between 17:59 and 22:14, which is consistent with static state reporting but creates uncertainty about continuous monitoring.

Logs for the `front_door_contact` device specifically between 18:00 and 22:14 to verify if it remained silent due to static state or if it failed to report changes.

Any `DoorLock.LockState` changes between 18:00 and 22:14 to see if the lock was manually operated or if it remained in the 'locked' state established in C20/C28.

Verify `front_door_contact` and `front_door_lock` telemetry in chunks C22-C27 to confirm if the door remained closed/locked or if there were unreported state changes during the gap.

Check for any explicit fault/alarm events from the contact sensor or lock in the missing chunks.

Confirm if the 'Auto' lock operation in C28 was a recovery from an open state or a routine cycle, by checking the lock state immediately preceding C28.

The investigator correctly identified that the contact sensor and lock functioned nominally at the specific moments observed (C20 and C28).

However, the investigation relies heavily on the assumption that the ~4.5 hour gap between C20 (17:59) and C28 (22:14) represents a static, secure state without evidence. The focused chunks provided (C00, C28, C29) skip this critical interval entirely.

Without reviewing chunks C22-C27, we cannot rule out intermittent communication failures, missed state updates, or unauthorized access that went unlogged due to sensor silence.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis raised by the investigator is speculative because it assumes the gap implies malfunction rather than normal change-of-state reporting. This requires verification against the actual logs in the missing chunks.

Therefore, the evidence is insufficient to definitively declare the sensors 'working normally' over the entire period, nor can we confirm a fault. Further investigation of the gap is required.

Entrance sensors (occupancy, contact, lock) are functioning normally. The logs show expected state transitions: occupancy detecting presence, the contact sensor reporting the door open state, and the lock executing an auto-lock command immediately after the contact event, returning to a locked state.

C00 shows `entrance_occupancy` reporting `unoccupied` (raw=0) consistently during the early morning hours when no activity is recorded for that room.

C28 shows `entrance_occupancy` transitioning to `occupied` (raw=1) at 22:14:03, coinciding with other rooms becoming occupied, indicating the sensor is responsive to presence.

C28 shows `front_door_contact` reporting `true` (raw=True) at 22:14:29, which logically follows the entry/occupancy event.

C28 shows `front_door_lock` executing `LockOperation` with `OperationSource=Auto` and resulting in `LockState = locked` (raw=1) at 22:14:30, demonstrating successful actuation following the contact trigger.

C29 continues to show `entrance_occupancy` as `occupied`, consistent with the person remaining in or near the entrance area.

The analysis relies on a single sequence of events (C28). While coherent, it represents a limited sample size of the device's total operational history within the provided chunks.

Potential 'Sensor Stuck' or 'False Positive' on Contact Sensor if interpreted strictly by timing, though likely normal behavior given the context. However, looking for faults: There is no evidence of stuck values, repeated non-recovery, or impossible transitions. The contact sensor went from unreported (or implicitly closed/untriggered in C00) to open (C28), then triggered a lock. No fault evidence found.

No explicit fault codes or alarm events in any chunk.

Temperature values are within normal ranges and do not indicate sensor drift or malfunction.

Occupancy states transition logically between unoccupied and occupied without getting stuck in an invalid state.

This hypothesis is effectively null because no anomaly evidence exists. It is included to satisfy the requirement of checking for anomalies, but the conclusion is that no anomaly is present.

C28: `front_door_contact | BooleanState.StateValue = true` followed immediately by `front_door_lock | Event: LockOperation(...)` and `DoorLock.LockState = locked`. This sequence confirms the contact sensor successfully triggered the lock mechanism, proving both devices are communicating and acting correctly.

C00 vs C28: `entrance_occupancy` changes from `unoccupied` (C00) to `occupied` (C28), showing the sensor is not stuck in a single state.

Logs for the `front_door_contact` sensor in the early morning (C00) are absent or implicit. We assume it was closed/untriggered, but we don't see an explicit 'false' or 'closed' log entry for the contact sensor in C00, only for occupancy. However, this absence is typical for Matter logs where only changed attributes or periodic reports are logged, and does not constitute a fault.

Verify the 'LockOperation' event in C28 against the actual DoorLock state history to ensure it wasn't a failed attempt or a re-lock after an unintended unlock.

Check for explicit 'unlocked' states or access events immediately preceding the auto-lock in C28 to confirm the contact sensor correctly detected the door opening (triggering the lock) vs. just reporting a static open state.

Confirm if the contact sensor reported 'closed' (false) after the lock engaged, which would complete the cycle and prove full functionality.

The investigator concludes the sensors are normal based on a single coherent sequence in C28 where occupancy rises, contact opens, and lock engages. However, this is insufficient for a definitive 'device-health' verdict because:

1. The investigation relies heavily on C28 but ignores C20 (referenced in triage as containing 'Lock operation sequence'). C20 might contain critical context about how the lock was previously handled or if there were prior faults.

2. A single successful auto-lock does not rule out intermittent faults, stuck sensors, or communication issues that might appear in other timeframes.

3. The 'contact sensor' status transition from implicit closed (in C00/early logs) to open (C28) is noted, but we lack evidence of it returning to closed, which is part of a full functional test.

4. Risk of false alarm is medium: If C20 shows erratic behavior or if the lock in C28 was actually unlocking (and the log is misinterpreted), the conclusion changes. We need to see the broader context to be sure this isn't a lucky one-off or a misinterpretation of a fault recovery.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 三室两厅 (3BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- dining_room: 餐厅灯<dimmable_light>, 餐厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kids_room: 儿童房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 儿童房灯<dimmable_light>, 儿童房窗帘<window_covering>, 儿童房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 儿童房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅副灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅氛围灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘1<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器1<contact_sensor>, 客厅窗户传感器2<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bathroom: 主卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 主卫灯<onoff_light>, 主卫运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧床头灯<onoff_light>, 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bathroom: 次卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 次卫灯<onoff_light>
- second_bedroom: 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧空调<air_conditioner>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 401,
    "master_bedroom": 517,
    "kids_room": 516,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 222,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 222,
    "entrance": 231,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 1254,
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "OnOf

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "contact_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensor",
      "door_lock"
    ],
    "target_question": "Check if entrance sensors are working normally; if abnormal, specify fault type."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "front_door_contact",
    "front_door_lock"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C28",
    "C29"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Missing telemetry for contact sensor and door lock in early chunks (potential data gap or silence)",
    "Contact sensor state transition at C28 (open event)",
    "Lock operation sequence at C28/C20",
    "Occupancy sensor consistency check"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline chunk to check for early presence/absence of entrance device logs and initial occupancy status.",
    "C28: Contains the specific 'BooleanState.StateValue = true' event for the front door contact sensor and a LockOperation event, which is critical evidence for evaluating the contact sensor's functionality and the lock's response.",
    "C29: Follow-up chunk to verify if the entrance devices continue to report correctly after the events in C28, checking for recovery or persistent faults."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The entrance sensors (occupancy, contact, and lock) are functioning normally. The logs show a coherent sequenc


DF-04-FP: 门锁响应延迟但最终成功锁定

The entrance sensors are functioning normally; the observed long open-door intervals are consistent with user behavior rather than sensor failure.

Explanation: The investigation focused on whether the `front_door_contact` and `entrance_occupancy` sensors were working correctly based on logs from C06, C18, C19, and C20.

Explanation: In C06, a complete healthy cycle is observed: manual unlock -> contact false (open) -> occupancy occupied -> contact true (closed) -> auto-lock. This establishes that the sensors are capable of reporting state changes correctly.

Explanation: In C18 and C20, the door is unlocked and opened (contact false), and occupancy is detected, but no 'close' event (contact true) occurs within the provided log chunks. The supervisor noted this as potentially anomalous but highlighted the high risk of false alarm due to the plausible explanation that the user simply left the door open for an extended period (>40 minutes).

Explanation: Crucially, there is no evidence in the logs (such as a later 'close' event appearing after a gap, or contradictory motion data indicating the door was shut while the sensor reported open) to prove a sensor malfunction. The absence of a 'close' event is ambiguous between 'sensor stuck open' and 'door physically left open'.

Explanation: According to the rules, one cannot escalate to `sensor_malfunction` or `sensor_stuck` from missing logs alone or a single transient dropout without direct fault evidence like repeated retries, contradictory states, or explicit alarms.

Explanation: Since the most likely explanation is normal user behavior (leaving the door ajar) and there is no definitive proof of hardware failure, the sensors must be considered working normally.

C06 shows a successful full lifecycle (Open->Close->Lock), proving sensor responsiveness.

C18/C20 show prolonged 'open' states (contact=false) with continuous occupancy, which is consistent with a user leaving the door open rather than a sensor error, as no contradictory 'closed' signal appears later to suggest a missed report.

No explicit fault codes, battery warnings, or lock command failures were recorded.

Monitor future entries to see if the door eventually closes and locks automatically, which would confirm the sensor works but the user left it open.

If the door remains open indefinitely without closing, check physical door status or user habits.

Sensor data consistency check (Occupancy vs Contact)

All entrance sensors (occupancy, contact, lock) are functioning normally. The observed sequences show consistent state transitions: the door opens (contact false), occupancy is detected, and the door closes (contact true). Lock operations follow expected manual/auto patterns.

C06 (07:46): Manual unlock -> Contact becomes false -> Occupancy becomes occupied -> Contact becomes true (door closed) -> Auto-lock engages. This is a complete, healthy lifecycle.

C18 (16:33): Manual unlock -> Contact false -> Occupancy occupied. No close event in C18/C19, but this is consistent with the door remaining open for an extended period or the user not closing it immediately.

C20 (18:01): Manual unlock -> Contact false -> Occupancy occupied. Consistent with entry behavior.

Occupancy sensor consistently reports 'occupied' during all door-open events across C06, C18, C19, C20, confirming responsiveness.

Does not fully explain why the door remained open from 16:33 to at least 18:01 without a 'closed' contact event, though this could be user behavior rather than sensor fault.

Potential sensor communication gap or delayed reporting on the front_door_contact sensor. In the sequence starting at C18 (16:33), the door is unlocked and opened, but no 'closed' (true) event is recorded until potentially much later or never within the provided chunks, despite the auto-lock feature being active in other instances (C06). This contrasts with the immediate close/lock cycle in C06.

C06 shows a fast cycle: Open (16:33:02) -> Close (16:33:33) -> Lock (16:33:34). Total open time ~31 seconds.

C18 shows Open at 16:33:02. No Close event in C18 (ends 17:15) or C19 (ends 18:01). Door remains 'open' (false) for >40 minutes.

C20 shows another Open at 18:01:02. No Close event in C20 (ends 18:41).

The absence of a 'close' event after such long durations, while the lock did not auto-lock (which might have triggered if the door was closed), suggests either the door was left physically ajar/open for a long time OR the contact sensor failed to report the closure if it did happen.

However, since no 'close' event appears, we cannot confirm a sensor *failure* vs. *user leaving door open*. But the lack of any recovery signal is anomalous compared to the tight loop in C06.

User behavior (leaving door open) is a plausible alternative explanation. Without evidence of the door actually being closed (e.g., via motion stopping or re-entry), we cannot definitively claim a sensor fault.

No explicit error codes or battery warnings found.

Lock mechanism configuration inconsistency or failure to auto-lock. In C06, the lock auto-locks shortly after closing. In C18 and C20, the lock remains 'unlocked' for extended periods (>40 mins) without auto-locking, even though the door was presumably interacted with (occupancy detected).

C06: Auto-lock occurs at 07:46:34, 9 seconds after contact closed.

C18: Unlock at 16:33:00. State remains 'unlocked' through end of C19 (18:01). No auto-lock event.

C20: Unlock at 18:01:00. State remains 'unlocked' through end of C20 (18:41). No auto-lock event.

If the door was closed in C18/C20 but the contact sensor didn't update, the lock wouldn't auto-lock. If the door was left open, the lock shouldn't auto-lock. The ambiguity points to a potential issue with the contact-to-lock trigger chain.

Auto-lock logic often requires the door to be fully closed AND latched. If the door was just pushed shut but not latched, or held open, auto-lock won't fire. This is a behavioral/config issue, not necessarily a hardware fault.

Comparison of C06 (fast open/close/lock cycle) vs C18/C20 (long open duration with no close event).

Presence of 'entrance_occupancy = occupied' during the long open intervals in C18/C19/C20 confirms the area was active, making the lack of a 'close' event suspicious if the door was indeed shut.

Absence of any 'front_door_contact = true' event between 16:33:02 and 18:41:03.

Logs for C21+ to see if the door eventually closes and locks after the 18:01 event.

Confirmation of physical door status (was it actually closed?) to distinguish between sensor failure and user error.

Configuration settings for auto-lock delay and conditions.

Verify if front_door_contact reports 'true' (closed) in chunks after C20 to confirm sensor recovery or persistent failure.

Check for any subsequent LockOperation events (auto-lock or manual lock) on front_door_lock to determine if the door was eventually secured.

Confirm if the lack of 'close' event is due to user behavior (door left open) or sensor fault by looking for occupancy leaving the entrance area without a corresponding contact close.

The investigator correctly identified that the front_door_contact sensor did not report a 'closed' state during the long intervals in C18-C20, contrasting with the healthy cycle in C06.

However, concluding potential malfunction based solely on missing 'close' events is risky because the logs do not show the door being closed. The user may have simply left the door open for an extended period (over 40 minutes).

Without evidence that the door *was* closed but the sensor failed to report it (e.g., via a later 'close' event appearing after a gap, or contradictory motion data), this remains ambiguous between 'user error/behavior' and 'sensor fault'.

The investigation needs to look at post-C20 chunks (C23+) to see if the door eventually closes and locks. If it does, the sensor likely worked but the door was just left open. If it never closes, we need more context on why.

Current evidence is insufficient to distinguish between a stuck sensor and normal user behavior of leaving a door ajar.

All entrance area sensors (occupancy, door contact, lock) are functioning normally. The logs show consistent state transitions corresponding to normal human activity and device operation.

entrance_occupancy consistently reports 'occupied' (raw=1) during periods where other room occupancy sensors also indicate presence or where door operations occur, showing no stuck-at-zero or stuck-at-one faults.

front_door_contact correctly transitions to 'false' (open) at 16:33:02 immediately following a manual unlock event at 16:33:00, demonstrating proper correlation with the lock state.

front_door_lock successfully executes a LockOperation and updates its LockState to 'unlocked' (raw=2), indicating the actuator is responsive.

No explicit fault events, alarm codes, or impossible state transitions (e.g., locked while open without intermediate steps) are observed in the provided chunks.

The analysis is limited to three specific time windows (morning, late afternoon, evening). A fault could exist outside these windows, though the sampled data covers distinct operational modes (static occupancy vs. active entry/exit).

C18: The tight temporal sequence of front_door_lock Unlock -> front_door_contact Open -> entrance_occupancy Occupied confirms that the physical door opening was detected by both the contact sensor and the occupancy sensor within seconds, validating sensor responsiveness and logical consistency.

C07 & C20: The entrance_occupancy sensor maintains a stable 'occupied' state for extended periods (e.g., 07:56-08:41 in C07) without erratic flipping, ruling out sensor noise or intermittent connection issues in this sample.

Logs covering potential failure states such as battery low warnings, network disconnection events, or forced override attempts.

Data from the 'second_bathroom' which shows only 1 activity count, potentially indicating a dead or disconnected device, but this is outside the target 'entrance' scope.

C20 (18:01): Manual unlock -> Contact false -> Occupancy occupied. Consistent with entry behavior.

C06 shows a fast cycle: Open (16:33:02) -> Close (16:33:33) -> Lock (16:33:34). Total open time ~31 seconds.

C20 shows another Open at 18:01:02. No Close event in C20 (ends 18:41).

C06: Auto-lock occurs at 07:46:34, 9 seconds after contact closed.

C18: Unlock at 16:33:00. State remains 'unlocked' through end of C19 (18:01). No auto-lock event.

C20: Unlock at 18:01:00. State remains 'unlocked' through end of C20 (18:41). No auto-lock event.

Check for 'unlocked' state persistence in front_door_lock after C18 (16:33) to verify if it re-locks or remains open.

Verify front_door_contact state transitions in C20 (18:01) and subsequent chunks to confirm it reports 'closed' (true) when the door is shut.

Check for any explicit fault events or battery warnings for entrance_occupancy, front_door_contact, or front_door_lock in surrounding logs.

The investigator correctly identified that the sampled chunks (C07, C18, C20) show normal operation for the specific events captured.

However, concluding 'all sensors are working normally' based solely on these snippets is insufficient for a comprehensive device-health check. Specifically:

1. In C18, the door is unlocked at 16:33:00. The contact sensor shows 'false' (open). We need to see if/when the door closes and if the contact sensor updates to 'true'. If the door stays open for hours without logging a close event, or if the lock doesn't auto-lock, this might indicate a configuration issue or a fault in the locking mechanism/contact sensor reporting.

2. In C20, the contact sensor shows 'false' (open) at 18:01:02. We need to verify if it returns to 'true' later. A stuck 'open' state would be a fault.

3. The current evidence only proves the sensors *responded* during the observed windows. It does not prove they didn't fail outside those windows or that they recovered from potential transient faults.

Requesting adjacent chunks (C19 between 17:15-18:01, C21 after 18:41) to observe the full lifecycle of the door operations initiated in C18 and C20.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 三室两厅 (3BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- dining_room: 餐厅灯<dimmable_light>, 餐厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kids_room: 儿童房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 儿童房灯<dimmable_light>, 儿童房窗帘<window_covering>, 儿童房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 儿童房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅副灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅氛围灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘1<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器1<contact_sensor>, 客厅窗户传感器2<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bathroom: 主卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 主卫灯<onoff_light>, 主卫运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧床头灯<onoff_light>, 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bathroom: 次卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 次卫灯<onoff_light>
- second_bedroom: 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧空调<air_conditioner>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 401,
    "master_bedroom": 516,
    "kids_room": 517,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 218,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 53,
    "entrance": 229,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1079,
    "OnOff

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "entrance_occupancy",
      "front_door_contact",
      "front_door_lock"
    ],
    "target_question": "Check if the sensors in the entrance area are working normally. If abnormal, explain the possible fault type."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "front_door_contact",
    "front_door_lock"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C07",
    "C18",
    "C20"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Sensor data consistency check (Occupancy vs Contact)",
    "Transient None values or missing logs",
    "State transition logic validation"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C07: Shows early morning activity with entrance_occupancy transitions to 'occupied', establishing a baseline for sensor responsiveness.",
    "C18: Contains a clear sequence of lock operation and contact sensor state change (unlocked/open), allowing verification of contact_sensor functionality and correlation with occupancy.",
    "C20: Shows another entry event with front_door_contact state change and subsequent occupancy confirmation, providing a second data point to confirm normal operation or identify intermittent faults."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "All entrance sensors (occupancy, contact, lock) are functioning normally. The observed sequences show consistent state transitions: the door opens


DF-05-FP: 烟雾报警器正常自检

有完整的自检流程（TestInProgress=true → SelfTestComplete → TestInProgress=false），不是HardwareFault

Insufficient evidence to confirm a sensor fault; the persistent 'unoccupied' state may reflect normal usage patterns or blind spots rather than a device malfunction.

Explanation: The living_room_temp_sensor is functioning correctly, reporting valid and fluctuating temperature values throughout the observed period (C00-C11).

Explanation: The living_room_occupancy sensor consistently reports 'unoccupied' (raw=0) from 00:00 to 11:45. While this contradicts the high activity in other rooms (dining, kitchen, bedrooms), it does not constitute direct evidence of a hardware fault such as a stuck value or communication failure, as the device is clearly communicating and updating its status periodically.

Explanation: The Supervisor correctly identified that the current logs only cover early morning to late morning, a time when the living room might genuinely be unused while other areas are active. Without evening logs (C12+) showing whether the sensor ever detects presence during likely occupancy periods, we cannot distinguish between a 'stuck' sensor and a 'genuinely unoccupied' room.

Explanation: According to Matter Notes and Supervisor guidelines, a device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence (e.g., explicit alarms, impossible transitions, or repeated non-recovery after known presence). The absence of an 'occupied' signal alone, without contradictory behavioral evidence (like lights turning on due to presence but failing to trigger because the sensor is offline/stuck), is insufficient to declare a fault.

Explanation: Therefore, the most prudent conclusion is that the device status is indeterminate based on the provided data, leaning towards normal operation until proven otherwise by broader temporal coverage.

living_room_occupancy reports 'unoccupied' (raw=0) continuously from 00:00 to 11:45 across chunks C00, C05, C06, C07, C08, C09, C11.

living_room_temp_sensor reports valid, changing temperatures, proving connectivity.

Other sensors (dining, entrance, master_bedroom) show active occupancy, indicating the network is functional and the house is occupied elsewhere.

No explicit fault codes or alarm events from the living_room_occupancy sensor.

Review evening/nighttime logs (C12+) to determine if the living_room_occupancy sensor ever transitions to 'occupied' when the household is likely fully assembled.

Check automation rules to see if any presence-based triggers were missed in the living room, which could indirectly suggest a detection failure.

Perform a physical inspection of the sensor placement to rule out blind spots.

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

The living room occupancy sensor is functioning correctly, and the living room was genuinely unoccupied throughout the observed period (00:00 - 11:45). The temperature sensor is also operating normally.

living_room_occupancy consistently reports 'unoccupied' (raw=0) at every check-in point across all chunks (C00, C05, C06-C11).

No actuator events (lights, HVAC adjustments triggered by presence) occurred in the living room that would contradict the 'unoccupied' state.

The living_room_temp_sensor reports valid, fluctuating temperature values consistent with ambient conditions, showing no signs of hardware failure or stuck values.

Other rooms (master_bedroom, kids_room, dining_room, entrance) show active occupancy transitions, indicating the network and other sensors are working, isolating the issue to the specific room's usage pattern rather than a global communication fault.

Relies on the assumption that the living room is not a high-traffic area during these hours. If family members were present but undetected, this hypothesis fails.

Does not account for potential 'blind spots' where motion exists but is not detected by the specific sensor placement.

The living room occupancy sensor is experiencing a 'stuck value' or 'failure to detect' fault. It remains persistently 'unoccupied' despite likely human presence in the house, as evidenced by activity in adjacent/connected rooms (dining, kitchen, entrance) and the lack of any 'occupied' transition even after extended periods.

Persistent 'unoccupied' (raw=0) status from 00:00 through 11:45 without a single transition to 'occupied'.

High activity in neighboring zones: dining_room_occupancy is 'occupied' continuously from ~06:50 onwards; entrance_occupancy shows frequent transitions (people leaving/entering); master_bedroom and kids_room show morning routines.

If the living room is a central hub (typical for smart homes), it is statistically unlikely to remain completely empty for nearly 12 hours while other parts of the house are active.

The sensor continues to report data (it is not offline), but the logical state contradicts the probable behavioral context of a occupied household.

Contrast with C00 where all rooms were unoccupied (nighttime), making the persistent unoccupied state in C05-C11 (morning/daytime) suspicious relative to the rest of the home's activity profile.

It is possible the residents strictly avoid the living room during these hours (e.g., using only bedrooms/kitchen/dining), though less common.

Lack of explicit error codes or alarm events from the sensor cluster itself.

Comparison of living_room_occupancy (persistently 0) vs. dining_room_occupancy (frequently 1) and entrance_occupancy (transitions) during the same timeframes (C05-C11).

Absence of any living_room actuator triggers (lights/HVAC) that typically correlate with occupancy in smart home automations.

Temperature sensor validity confirms the device is communicating, isolating the anomaly to the occupancy logic/sensor specifically.

Evening/Nighttime logs (C12+) to see if the sensor ever detects presence when the household is likely fully assembled.

Automation rules configuration to determine if lights/HVAC should have triggered based on presence, providing indirect evidence of expected occupancy.

Physical inspection of sensor placement to rule out blind spots.

Check for evening/nighttime occupancy transitions in living_room_occupancy to determine if the 'unoccupied' state is a persistent fault or just a reflection of current usage patterns.

Verify if any automation rules (lights/HVAC) were triggered by other sensors but failed to act on living_room presence, which would confirm a logical fault rather than just physical absence.

Check for any explicit fault codes or communication errors in the living_room_temp_sensor logs that might correlate with the occupancy sensor's behavior.

The investigator correctly identifies that the temperature sensor is functioning normally and communicating.

The primary suspicion is on the occupancy sensor being 'stuck' or failing to detect presence. However, the evidence provided (C00-C11) only covers early morning to late morning. During this period, the house activity is concentrated in bedrooms, kitchen, and dining room, while the living room remains unoccupied in logs.

Without evening logs (C12+), it is impossible to distinguish between a sensor fault and a household pattern where the living room is genuinely unused during these hours. The 'anomaly' hypothesis relies heavily on statistical likelihood ('unlikely to remain empty') rather than direct contradiction (e.g., someone sitting in the living room while the sensor says 'unoccupied').

To confirm a fault, we need to see if the sensor ever reports 'occupied' when there is likely presence in the living room later in the day. If it never does, it's a fault. If it does, the morning data was normal.

Therefore, the investigation is incomplete and requires more chunks to cover a broader time range including potential living room usage times.

The living room sensors are functioning normally. The temperature sensor reports valid, fluctuating readings consistent with ambient changes, and the occupancy sensor correctly reports 'unoccupied' because no one was present in the living room during the sampled periods (early morning, mid-morning, late morning).

living_room_temp_sensor reports continuous, plausible temperature values (e.g., 22.77 C to 25.53 C) with normal fluctuations across all chunks.

living_room_occupancy consistently reports 'unoccupied' (raw=0) at timestamps 00:00, 00:30, 01:00, 06:30, 07:00, 11:00, and 11:30.

Other rooms (master_bedroom, kids_room, dining_room, entrance) show active occupancy transitions ('occupied') during the same periods, indicating that other sensors are working and people are present elsewhere in the house.

No explicit fault codes, alarms, or stuck-value patterns are observed for the living room devices.

The hypothesis relies on the assumption that the absence of occupancy events is due to lack of presence rather than sensor failure. However, given the high activity in adjacent/other rooms, a completely dead sensor would likely be flagged by system health checks if it stopped reporting entirely, but here it *is* reporting (just as unoccupied).

The living room occupancy sensor is experiencing a 'stuck value' or 'blind spot' fault, where it fails to detect presence despite people being in the vicinity or the room potentially being used, while still maintaining communication for periodic status updates.

In Chunk C05 (06:30-07:05), multiple other rooms (kids, master bedroom, dining, entrance) transition to 'occupied', yet living_room_occupancy remains 'unoccupied'. While this could mean the living room is empty, the proximity suggests potential cross-talk or missed detection if the sensor has a narrow field of view or is obstructed.

In Chunk C11 (11:00-11:45), similar pattern: dining_room, entrance, kids_room, and master_bedroom are all 'occupied', but living_room_occupancy stays 'unoccupied'. If the living room is a central hub, persistent non-detection during high-activity hours is suspicious.

The sensor continues to report 'unoccupied' repeatedly without transitioning, which fits the definition of a stuck state if we assume the room should have been occupied.

There is no direct evidence of people entering the living room itself (no lights turned on, no temp spikes correlated with body heat, no specific device interactions in the living room).

The temperature sensor works fine, so the device is not offline; it's just reporting a static occupancy state.

It is equally plausible that the living room was genuinely unused during these specific windows while family members were in bedrooms/kitchen/dining area.

Comparison of living_room_occupancy status against other rooms' occupancy during high-activity periods (C05 and C11).

Continuity of living_room_temp_sensor data vs. the static nature of living_room_occupancy data.

Absence of any living_room-specific actuator events (lights, HVAC adjustments triggered by presence) that would corroborate occupancy.

Logs covering the rest of the day (afternoon/evening) to see if the living room ever registers as 'occupied'.

Data from motion detectors or light switches specifically in the living room to confirm human presence independent of the occupancy sensor.

Configuration details of the occupancy sensor (e.g., field of view, sensitivity settings) to assess likelihood of missing presence.

Check for living_room_occupancy transitions in afternoon/evening chunks (C06-C10) to determine if the 'unoccupied' state is persistent or intermittent.

Verify if any living_room actuators (lights, HVAC) were triggered by presence during the day, which would contradict the sensor's report.

Check for explicit fault/alarm events from the occupancy sensor cluster.

The investigator correctly identified that the temperature sensor is functioning normally and the occupancy sensor is reporting 'unoccupied'.

However, the conclusion of 'normal' or 'stuck' relies heavily on the assumption that the living room *should* have been occupied during C05 and C11. While other rooms were active, this does not prove the living room was occupied.

Crucially, the investigation only covers early morning (C00), morning (C05), and late morning (C11). It completely misses the afternoon and evening periods (C06-C10+), which are critical for determining if the sensor ever detects presence at all.

Without data from later in the day, we cannot distinguish between a genuinely unused room and a faulty sensor. The current evidence is insufficient to rule out a 'blind spot' or 'stuck value' fault definitively.

Request additional chunks covering the rest of the day to observe full daily cycles.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 三室两厅 (3BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- dining_room: 餐厅灯<dimmable_light>, 餐厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kids_room: 儿童房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 儿童房灯<dimmable_light>, 儿童房窗帘<window_covering>, 儿童房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 儿童房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅副灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅氛围灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘1<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器1<contact_sensor>, 客厅窗户传感器2<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bathroom: 主卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 主卫灯<onoff_light>, 主卫运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧床头灯<onoff_light>, 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bathroom: 次卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 次卫灯<onoff_light>
- second_bedroom: 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧空调<air_conditioner>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 405,
    "master_bedroom": 516,
    "kids_room": 518,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 224,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 54,
    "entrance": 226,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1086,
    "On

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "living_room_occupancy_sensor",
      "living_room_temp_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 living_room 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "living_room_temp_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C11"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "occupancy_sensor_missing_data",
    "sensor_stuck_value",
    "intermittent_communication_failure"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline check for early morning. Occupancy is reported as 'unoccupied' (raw=0), which is a valid state, but we need to see if it transitions or if data stops later.",
    "C05: Mid-morning activity period. Preview shows occupancy events in other rooms but living_room_occupancy is not listed in top_devices and preview lines only show temp sensor. This suggests potential missing data or silence compared to other active sensors.",
    "C11: Late morning/noon. Preview explicitly shows 'living_room_occupancy | ... = unoccupied (raw=0)' at 11:00:00, while other rooms are occupied. This confirms the device is still reporting, but potentially stuck or failing to detect presence during high-activity hours."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The living room occupancy sensor is functioning correctly, and the living room was genu