通知住户门锁可能卡住/故障，建议手动检查

The front door lock exhibited a mechanical actuator fault (failure to engage latch) at 01:15, evidenced by repeated failed lock commands and a DoorLockAlarm, although it recovered for subsequent operations later in the day.

Explanation: Analysis of Chunk C00 reveals that at 01:15, two consecutive 'LockDoor' commands resulted in the lock remaining in the 'unlocked' state (LockState=2).

Explanation: Following these failures, a 'DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)' was triggered, which is direct evidence of a device-level fault or inability to reach the target state.

Explanation: This pattern (Command -> State Unchanged -> Alarm) indicates a mechanical binding, motor stall, or similar actuator issue rather than a simple configuration error.

Explanation: While subsequent chunks (C04, C09, C12) show successful locking operations, suggesting the device recovered or the issue was transient (e.g., environmental), the initial event constitutes a confirmed hardware/actuator anomaly.

Explanation: The contact sensor and light in the entrance area functioned correctly during other events (C04, C09, C12), isolating the fault to the lock mechanism.

C00: `front_door_lock | Command: LockDoor` followed by `LockState = 2` (Unlocked) twice.

C00: `front_door_lock | Event: DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)` indicating failure to lock.

C04/C09/C12: Successful lock/unlock cycles with correct contact sensor correlation, proving general system health but highlighting the specific failure window in C00.

Inspect the front door lock mechanism for physical obstructions, debris, or misalignment that may have caused the jam at 01:15.

Check battery levels and motor performance of the front door lock, as intermittent weakness can cause such transient failures.

Monitor future lock attempts to determine if the alarm recurs, which would indicate a persistent defect requiring replacement.

判断 entrance 区域的传感器（及关联设备）是否工作正常，若异常说明故障类型。

Missing telemetry for specific device types (contact sensor, light) in the target room.

Presence of lock events without corresponding contact state changes or light triggers.

C04: Shows a manual lock operation event. Critical for checking if contact sensor or light responded to this action.

The entrance area sensors (contact sensor, light) and the door lock are functioning correctly. The initial failure in C00 was a transient mechanical jam or temporary power glitch that resolved itself, while subsequent operations in C04, C09, and C12 demonstrate normal actuator response and sensor reporting.

In C04 (07:19), the front_door_lock successfully executed an unlock command, followed by immediate contact sensor state changes (false->true) and a successful auto-lock sequence with no alarms.

In C09 (18:12), the lock unlocked manually, triggering the contact sensor (false) and turning on the entrance light, indicating correct integration between devices.

In C12 (21:50), the system performed an auto-lock after the contact sensor reported 'true' (door closed), showing consistent logic flow.

The contact sensor reports stable boolean transitions (true/false) corresponding to physical door states in multiple chunks.

Does not fully explain why the first attempt in C00 failed despite no obvious external obstruction visible in logs, though this could be attributed to a one-time event like a draft or minor misalignment.

The front door lock has a persistent actuator fault (mechanical binding or motor weakness) that causes intermittent failure to engage the latch, requiring retries. This is distinct from a total failure as it eventually succeeds or is bypassed by manual intervention later.

In C00 (01:15), two consecutive 'LockDoor' commands resulted in LockState=2 (Unlocked) and triggered a DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0). AlarmCode=0 typically indicates a generic lock failure or inability to reach the locked state.

The retry pattern (Command -> State=Unlocked -> Command -> State=Unlocked -> Alarm) suggests the device attempted to move but failed to achieve the target state, characteristic of a mechanical bind or weak motor.

Although later events (C04, C09, C12) succeeded, the presence of a hard fault alarm in C00 constitutes direct evidence of a hardware/actuator anomaly that requires investigation, even if it didn't persist throughout the day.

The fault did not recur in subsequent major interactions (C04, C09, C12), making it difficult to distinguish between a permanent defect and a transient environmental factor (e.g., ice, debris, or wind pressure at 01:15 AM).

The entrance contact sensor has a reporting delay or gap during specific transition windows, potentially masking the true state of the door for automation triggers.

In C00, there were no contact sensor logs during the lock failure window, which might indicate the sensor was offline or not polled, but this is inconclusive without pre-fault context.

In C04, the contact sensor reported 'false' (open) immediately after the manual unlock, then 'true' (closed) shortly before the auto-lock. While this looks normal, the tight timing (seconds apart) leaves little room for error detection if the door was left ajar briefly.

No explicit 'sensor_malfunction' evidence exists, but the absence of continuous telemetry makes it impossible to rule out brief state drops.

The sensor clearly works in C04, C09, and C12. There is no evidence of stuck values or complete dropout in the provided chunks. This hypothesis is weak compared to the lock actuator fault.

C00: `front_door_lock | Event: DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)` following two failed lock attempts. This is the strongest evidence of a device fault.

C04: Successful manual unlock and auto-lock cycle with correct contact sensor correlation (`false` then `true`), proving the system generally works.

C09: Manual unlock triggering light and contact sensor change, confirming integration health.

Logs from C01-C03 to determine if the lock was operational immediately before the C00 failure (to check for prior degradation).

Detailed diagnostic logs for the front_door_lock to interpret `AlarmCode=0` specifically (e.g., is it 'jammed', 'motor stall', or 'timeout'?).

Verify if the 'DoorLockAlarm' in C00 was a transient environmental issue (e.g., wind/draft) or a persistent mechanical fault by checking subsequent lock attempts in C04-C12.

Confirm if the contact sensor and light are functioning correctly in all other chunks (C04, C09, C12) to isolate the fault to the lock actuator only.

Check for any other alarm events or state contradictions in the missing afternoon/evening chunks (C05-C08) that might indicate intermittent connectivity or power issues affecting multiple devices.

The investigator correctly identified a potential fault in the front door lock based on the `DoorLockAlarm` in C00. However, concluding 'normal' or 'abnormal' requires distinguishing between a one-time transient failure (e.g., jammed by debris/wind) and a persistent hardware defect.

The current evidence shows successful operations in C04, C09, and C12, which suggests the device recovered. This makes the 'fault' status ambiguous without ruling out external factors.

The investigation missed chunks C05-C08, which cover the critical transition period from morning to evening. While C04/C09/C12 show success, we need to ensure no other anomalies occurred in the gaps.

False alarm risk is medium because the conclusion relies heavily on interpreting a single alarm event as a 'fault' despite subsequent normal behavior. If the alarm was due to a temporary obstruction, labeling it a 'device fault' is misleading.

Refine investigation to explicitly address the nature of the C00 alarm and confirm stability across the full day.

Entrance sensors (contact and light) are functioning normally. The lack of frequent logging is due to low activity in the entrance area compared to other rooms, and the specific events logged show correct state transitions.

In C04, a manual unlock event at 07:19:21 is immediately followed by the contact sensor reporting 'false' (open) at 07:19:23, then 'true' (closed) at 07:19:29 after the auto-lock engaged. This sequence confirms the contact sensor correctly detects door position changes.

In C09, a manual unlock at 18:12:00 triggers the entrance light to turn on at 18:12:11, indicating the automation or sensor logic for the light is working.

In C12, the entrance light turns off at 21:50:05, and the contact sensor reports 'true' (closed) at 21:50:33, consistent with the door being closed and secured.

The structured signals indicate only 19 activity events for the entrance room, which is significantly lower than living_room (399) or bedroom (356), explaining the sparse logs.

Does not account for why the lock alarm fired in C00 without corresponding contact/light activity, though this may be a lock-specific issue rather than a general sensor failure.

Front door lock has a potential fault or configuration issue where it triggers an alarm (AlarmCode=0) during normal locking operations, potentially causing false alarms or indicating a mechanical/electrical fault in the lock mechanism itself.

In C00, between 01:15:00 and 01:15:15, the front_door_lock receives two LockDoor commands. After the second command, the LockState becomes 2 (locked/unlocked depending on enum interpretation, but context suggests locked state transition) and an Event: DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0) is generated.

AlarmCode=0 typically indicates a generic or unspecified alarm in Matter/Thread specs, often triggered by failed attempts, tampering, or internal faults. Triggering this during what appears to be a standard locking sequence (two rapid commands) suggests the lock might be struggling to engage or detecting an anomaly internally.

Unlike the contact sensor and light which show clear cause-and-effect relationships with user actions in other chunks, this lock behavior is isolated and unexplained by external factors (no forced entry signs).

The lock eventually reaches a stable state (LockState=2). Without repeated occurrences or explicit error codes like 'jamming' or 'motor fault', it's hard to distinguish between a transient glitch and a persistent malfunction.

The raw code '2' for LockState needs careful interpretation; if 2 means 'unlocked' while the command was 'LockDoor', that would be a critical failure. However, standard Matter enums often use 1=Locked, 2=Unlocked, 3=Unknown. If State=2 means Unlocked after a Lock command, that is a major fault. If the log implies 'locked' via label, we must check consistency. In C04, LockState=2 is labeled 'unlocked'. In C09, LockState=2 is labeled 'unlocked'. In C12, LockState=1 is labeled 'locked'. Therefore, in C00, LockState=2 means the door ended up UNLOCKED after a LockDoor command. This is a definitive actuator failure.

The front door contact sensor may have a delay or reporting gap relative to the lock state, or the lock failure in A1 caused a state mismatch that wasn't fully captured by the contact sensor's immediate response.

In C00, the lock fails to secure (ends in Unlocked state 2) and triggers an alarm, yet there is no corresponding contact sensor update in that specific 15-second window in the provided chunk. While the contact sensor works in other chunks, the absence of data during the critical failure moment makes it impossible to confirm if the door was physically open or closed during the failed lock attempt.

If the door was physically closed but the lock failed to engage, the contact sensor would read 'true' (closed) while the lock reads 'unlocked'. This discrepancy is a safety risk (door appears closed but isn't secured) and wasn't explicitly logged as a conflict in C00 because the contact sensor didn't report during that interval.

The contact sensor is not required to report continuously; its absence during the short failure window doesn't prove it's broken, just that it didn't report.

C00: front_door_lock Command: LockDoor followed by LockState = 2 (which corresponds to 'unlocked' based on C04/C09/C12 labels) and DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0). This indicates a failed lock actuation.

C04: Clear correlation between manual unlock, contact sensor 'false', and subsequent auto-lock/contact sensor 'true'.

C09: Correlation between manual unlock, contact sensor 'false', and entrance light 'on'.

C12: Contact sensor 'true' and lock 'locked' (State=1) occurring together.

Confirmation of the exact meaning of LockState raw value 2 vs 1 across all devices to ensure consistency (though C04/C09/C12 strongly suggest 2=Unlocked, 1=Locked).

Logs from the exact second of the C00 lock failure to see if the contact sensor reported a state change (e.g., if the door was bumped open during the failed lock attempt).

History of previous lock failures to determine if this is a recurring pattern (actuator wear) or a one-time glitch.

In C12 (21:50), the system performed an auto-lock after the contact sensor reported 'true' (door closed), showing consistent logic flow.

The contact sensor reports stable boolean transitions (true/false) corresponding to physical door states in multiple chunks.

No explicit 'sensor_malfunction' evidence exists, but the absence of continuous telemetry makes it impossible to rule out brief state drops.

Verify if the 'LockDoor' command in C00 was a retry due to a previous failed attempt (check C01-C03 for prior unlock/lock states).

Confirm if the contact sensor reported state changes immediately preceding or following the lock alarm in C00 to rule out mechanical binding vs. sensor reporting gap.

Check for any other DoorLockAlarm events in adjacent chunks to determine if this is an isolated glitch or a persistent actuator failure.

The investigator correctly identified a potential fault in the front door lock (Command: LockDoor resulted in State=2/Unlocked and AlarmCode=0), which constitutes direct evidence of a malfunction (actuator failure or jamming).

However, the conclusion relies heavily on a single event window (C00) without sufficient context from the preceding hours (C01-C03) to establish if this is a recurring issue or a one-time transient error.

The investigator's hypothesis A2 regarding the contact sensor is weak; the absence of logs during a 15-second window does not prove sensor malfunction, especially given the strong evidence of correct operation in C04, C09, and C12.

To confirm 'device-health' status definitively, we need to see if the lock behaves normally in subsequent interactions or if the alarm persists. The current evidence suggests a fault but lacks the longitudinal data to distinguish between a permanent hardware failure and a temporary glitch.

Therefore, the investigation should be refined by checking the immediate pre-fault context to understand the trigger conditions better.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 399,
    "bedroom": 356,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 59,
    "entrance": 19
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 224,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "LockState": 6,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 6,
  "occupancy_events": 224,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-02T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-02T01:40:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 25,
      "bedroom": 25,
      "kitchen": 21,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "entrance": 5
    },

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "contact_sensor",
      "door_lock",
      "onoff_light"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 entrance 区域的传感器（及关联设备）是否工作正常，若异常说明故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "entrance_contact_sensor",
    "entrance_light"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C04",
    "C09",
    "C12"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Missing telemetry for specific device types (contact sensor, light) in the target room.",
    "Presence of lock events without corresponding contact state changes or light triggers."
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Contains the only other significant block with 'entrance' activity (5 events), including front_door_lock. Establishes baseline presence/absence of logs.",
    "C04: Shows a manual lock operation event. Critical for checking if contact sensor or light responded to this action.",
    "C09 & C12: Contain minor 'entrance' counts (4 events each). Checking these helps determine if the lack of contact/light logs is consistent across the day or if there are sporadic failures.",
    "Comparing these chunks allows distinguishing between 'device offline/broken' and 'device not triggering/logged due to no activity'. Since no contact/light logs appear in any chunk despite lock activity, it suggests a potential configuration or reporting issue rather than a transient fault."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{


LockDoor 命令后 LockState 未变为 Locked
DoorLockAlarm (LockJammed) 触发
门锁故障意味着家庭物理安全降级

通知住户门锁可能卡住/故障，建议手动检查

The front door lock experienced a mechanical or actuator failure at 21:24, triggering a DoorLockAlarm and remaining unlocked for approximately 30 minutes before recovering via auto-lock.

Explanation: Evidence of Fault: At 21:24:15, the `front_door_lock` explicitly triggered a `DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)` following repeated `LockDoor` commands. This is direct evidence of a device-level fault or inability to execute the command.

Explanation: State Inconsistency: Despite the alarm, the `LockState` remained 'unlocked' (raw=2) from 21:24:05 until 21:55:45. This represents a prolonged security gap where the lock failed to engage despite user commands.

Explanation: Recovery vs. Health: Although the lock eventually succeeded in auto-locking at 21:55:45, the initial failure and the explicit alarm indicate that the device was not functioning correctly during the critical window. The recovery proves the mechanism is not permanently stuck, but the event itself constitutes a malfunction.

Explanation: Sensor Status: The contact sensor reported 'true' (closed) just before the successful lock, suggesting the door was physically ready to be locked, which points towards an internal lock mechanism/actuator issue rather than a simple 'door open' safety block, although low battery or obstruction cannot be ruled out without more data.

[C14] Event: DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0) at 21:24:15

[C14] LockState = 2 (unlocked) persisting from 21:24:05 to 21:55:45

[C14] Command: LockDoor at 21:24:00 and 21:24:10 failed to change state

Inspect the front door lock mechanism for physical obstructions, misalignment, or worn parts.

Check and replace the batteries in the front door lock to rule out power-related actuator failure.

Monitor future lock attempts to see if the alarm recurs, indicating a persistent hardware defect.

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.

Missing contact sensor telemetry in entrance chunks

Potential lock mechanism fault or false alarm

C04 shows a successful manual lock followed immediately by a successful auto-lock at 07:28:26, establishing baseline operational capability.

C14 shows the lock eventually reached a 'locked' state (raw=1) via auto-lock at 21:55:45, proving the actuator is not permanently stuck.

The contact sensor reported 'true' (closed) at 21:55:44, just before the successful lock, suggesting the door was physically in the correct position for locking at that time.

Does not explain why the explicit LockDoor command at 21:24:10 failed with an alarm while the state remained 'unlocked'.

Assumes the 30-minute gap between failure and success was due to user intervention or environmental change without evidence of such changes in the logs.

Intermittent Lock Mechanism Fault / Sensor-Actuator Mismatch. The front_door_lock experienced a failure to engage at 21:24 despite receiving a command, triggering a DoorLockAlarm. This may indicate a mechanical jam, low battery causing insufficient torque, or a discrepancy between the lock's internal state and the contact sensor reading (though the contact sensor showed closed later).

C13 ends with a 'Command: LockDoor' at 21:24:00.

C14 shows 'LockState = 2' (unlocked) at 21:24:05 and again at 21:24:15 after a second 'Command: LockDoor' at 21:24:10.

C14 explicitly records 'Event: DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)' at 21:24:15, indicating the device detected a fault during the locking attempt.

The lock remained in an 'unlocked' state for over 30 minutes (from 21:24 until 21:55), representing a prolonged period where the security perimeter was compromised compared to normal operation seen in C04.

Lacks direct telemetry on battery level at the time of the event to confirm power-related causes.

Does not have pre-21:24 contact sensor data in C13 to definitively prove if the door was physically open or closed at the moment of the first command (though the alarm suggests a conflict).

Contact Sensor Latency or Drift. The contact sensor might have been reporting 'false' (open) or unstable leading up to 21:24, preventing the lock from engaging (if safety logic prevents locking an open door), but then stabilized to 'true' by 21:55 allowing the auto-lock to succeed.

In C04, the contact sensor transitioned from false to true rapidly (07:28:19 to 07:28:25) before a successful lock.

In C14, the contact sensor only reports 'true' at 21:55:44, long after the failed lock attempts. If it had been 'true' earlier, the lock might have succeeded.

The absence of contact sensor updates in C13 (20:10-21:24) leaves the door status ambiguous during the critical failure window.

No explicit 'sensor error' or 'drift' events are logged.

The lock alarm (AlarmCode=0) is typically associated with the lock mechanism itself rather than just the contact sensor state, though they are correlated.

C14: 'Event: DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)' at 21:24:15 following repeated 'Command: LockDoor' attempts.

C14: 'LockState = 2' (unlocked) persisting from 21:24:05 through 21:24:15, confirming the commands did not take effect.

C14: Successful 'LockOperation' and 'LockState = locked' at 21:55:45, proving eventual recovery but highlighting the 30-minute anomaly window.

Battery level telemetry for the front_door_lock around 21:24 to rule out power-induced actuator failure.

Contact sensor status ('BooleanState.StateValue') specifically at 21:24:00-21:24:10 to determine if the door was physically open or closed during the failed lock attempt.

Any user interaction logs (e.g., app unlock/lock history) between 21:24 and 21:55 to see if a manual override occurred.

Verify if the 'DoorLockAlarm' at 21:24 was a transient event that cleared or persisted.

Check for any subsequent lock/unlock commands or state changes in C15 to confirm full recovery and absence of recurring faults.

Confirm if the contact sensor remained stable after 21:55 to rule out intermittent wiring/sensor issues.

The investigator correctly identified a fault event (DoorLockAlarm) and a prolonged unlocked state, which constitutes direct evidence of a malfunction. However, concluding the device is 'working normally' based solely on eventual recovery (C14 end) ignores the severity of the alarm and the 30-minute security gap.

The investigation lacks post-recovery data (C15) to ensure the fault did not recur or leave the device in an unstable state. Without C15, we cannot confirm the device is currently healthy or if the issue was resolved permanently.

Risk of false alarm is medium because the anomaly (alarm + stuck unlock) is real, but the conclusion ('normal') might be premature without verifying the stability of the recovery phase.

Entrance sensors (contact and lock) are functioning normally. The DoorLockAlarm event in C14 was a transient false positive or a result of the door being physically obstructed/jammed during the auto-lock attempt, which resolved itself by the next interaction.

In C04, the front_door_contact sensor correctly transitions from false to true (door closed) immediately after the manual unlock, showing normal responsiveness.

In C14, despite the alarm at 21:24:15, the system successfully executes an auto-lock command at 21:55:45, resulting in a 'locked' state (raw=1). This indicates the actuator is not permanently stuck.

The contact sensor reports 'true' (closed) at 21:55:44, consistent with the successful locking event.

Does not fully explain why the initial lock command failed and triggered an alarm code 0 without immediate user intervention to clear it.

Assumes the alarm was benign rather than indicative of a mechanical fault that requires maintenance.

The front door lock mechanism has a functional fault (lock_malfunction), specifically failing to engage on the first automatic attempt due to obstruction or motor failure, triggering a safety alarm.

At 21:24:10, a 'LockDoor' command is issued while the lock state is already 'unlocked' (raw=2).

At 21:24:15, the lock state remains 'unlocked' (raw=2) five seconds after the command.

Crucially, at 21:24:15, a 'DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)' event is generated immediately following the failed state transition. In Matter/Smart Home standards, this explicitly indicates a lock operation failure (e.g., bolt did not extend/retract as expected).

The subsequent successful lock at 21:55:45 suggests the issue might be intermittent (e.g., door misalignment, low battery causing weak torque, or temporary obstruction) rather than a total hardware death, but the device health is compromised.

The fault appears isolated to one specific time window in the provided logs; we do not see repeated failures to confirm a chronic mechanical defect versus a one-time event.

Contact sensor data does not show contradictory states (e.g., locked but door open) during the alarm, so we cannot definitively say the door was left insecure for a long period based solely on these chunks.

C14: Event: DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0) at 21:24:15 occurring immediately after a LockDoor command where the LockState remained 'unlocked' (raw=2). This is direct evidence of a lock operation failure.

C04: Successful manual lock/unlock cycle with corresponding contact sensor changes, proving the devices are generally connected and responsive.

Logs for the entrance area between 08:30 (end of C04) and 21:24 (start of C14) to determine if the lock malfunction is a recurring pattern or an isolated incident.

Battery level status of the front_door_lock, as low power is a common cause of intermittent lock_malfunction alarms.

Physical inspection data to rule out external obstructions (e.g., debris in the strike plate) that would cause a mechanical jam rather than an electronic fault.

C13 ends with a 'Command: LockDoor' at 21:24:00.

In C04, the contact sensor transitioned from false to true rapidly (07:28:19 to 07:28:25) before a successful lock.

Check C13 for the state of the front_door_lock and contact sensor immediately preceding the 21:24:10 LockDoor command to confirm if the door was physically open or if the lock was already in an inconsistent state.

Check C05 (or subsequent chunks after C04) to see if the auto-lock at 07:28:26 completed successfully and if there were any immediate follow-up alarms or retries, establishing a baseline for 'normal' auto-lock behavior.

Verify if the 'AlarmCode=0' is consistently associated with failure in this system's logs or if it can be triggered by other conditions (e.g., jammed bolt vs. motor timeout).

Check for battery level telemetry for the front_door_lock around the time of the incident.

The investigator correctly identified the critical fault evidence (DoorLockAlarm) in C14 but drew a conclusion based on limited context.

The hypothesis that the device is 'generally functioning' because it locked later (21:55:45) ignores the fact that the initial failure might be due to a specific condition (e.g., door ajar, low battery) that needs verification.

Crucially, we lack the pre-incident state in C13. Did the user try to lock an already locked door? Was the door actually closed? Without C13, we cannot distinguish between a mechanical fault and a user error/condition-based alarm.

Similarly, checking C05 helps establish if the earlier successful auto-lock was truly normal or if there were hidden warnings.

The current evidence suggests a potential intermittent fault or environmental issue, not necessarily a permanent hardware death, but more data is needed to classify the severity and type accurately.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 402,
    "bedroom": 510,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 55,
    "entrance": 19
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 377,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "LockState": 6,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 6,
  "occupancy_events": 377,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

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

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "contact_sensor",
      "door_lock",
      "onoff_light"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 entrance 区域的传感器（及关联设备）是否工作正常，若异常说明故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "entrance_contact_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C14"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "LockState alarm event (DoorLockAlarm)",
    "Missing contact sensor telemetry in entrance chunks",
    "Potential lock mechanism fault or false alarm"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 is the first chunk showing entrance activity (6 events) and includes 'front_door_lock' in top devices, providing baseline context for lock usage.",
    "C14 contains explicit evidence of a potential fault: 'Event: DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)' following a lock command, which is critical for diagnosing device health. It also shows the lock state transitions."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The entrance sensors (contact and lock) are functioning correctly. The 'DoorLockAlarm' at 21:24 was a transient environmental or mechanical interference (e.g., door slightly ajar, wind gust, or bolt obstruction) that resolved itself by 21:55 when the auto-lock succeeded.",
      "evidence": [
        "C04 shows a successful manual lock followed immediately by a successful auto-lock at 07:28:26, establishing baseline o


运动传感器高频率周期性触发 该房间无其他活动迹象（灯关、无门窗事件） 周期性极其规律（不像人类活动的随机性）

Bedroom sensors are functioning normally within the observed windows; no device faults detected.

Explanation: The temperature sensor (`bedroom_temp_sensor`) shows consistent, physically plausible reporting with gradual drifts (e.g., 21.70°C to 24.46°C in C00-C04) and no stuck values or dropouts in the provided chunks (C00-C04, C09, C15).

Explanation: The occupancy sensor (`bedroom_occupancy`) reports logical state transitions: unoccupied during early morning/daytime, occupied upon user entry (~06:26), and subsequent transitions that correlate with brief movements or exits (e.g., ~06:55, ~07:25, ~22:36). These are consistent with normal PIR sensor behavior rather than malfunction.

Explanation: Although there is a data gap between 08:35 and 14:45 (Chunks C05-C08 missing), the supervisor's recommendation to refine investigation does not constitute evidence of an anomaly. The available evidence supports normal operation.

Explanation: No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or impossible state transitions were observed.

Continuous temperature reporting in C00-C04 and C09 with no stuck values.

Logical occupancy transitions in C03 (morning entry) and C15 (evening activity) matching expected human patterns.

Absence of error logs or contradictory device states.

Retrieve missing chunks C05-C08 to verify continuous telemetry coverage for a definitive 'healthy' verdict over the full day.

Monitor evening occupancy flickering (C15) against lighting status to rule out sensitivity issues if automation failures occur.

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

C00-C04: Continuous temperature reporting from 00:00 to 08:35 with gradual increases (21.70°C to 24.46°C) consistent with morning heating or solar gain. No stuck values or dropouts.

C09: Temperature continues to report normally in the afternoon (23.41°C to 22.93°C). Occupancy remains unoccupied as expected for daytime absence.

C15: Evening activity shows valid occupancy transitions (occupied at 22:34, unoccupied at 22:36, occupied again later implied by context though logs show brief unoccupancies). Temperature remains stable around 21.5-21.6°C.

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or impossible state transitions (e.g., locked/unlocked conflicts) were observed in the provided chunks.

The analysis is based on sampled chunks (C00, C01, C02, C03, C04, C09, C15). While these cover key periods, there are gaps (e.g., between C04 and C09, and within C09/C15 boundaries) where intermittent faults could theoretically exist but were not captured.

Supervisor feedback noted that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' over the full day, specifically regarding potential drift or intermittent failures in unobserved windows.

Potential intermittent sensor dropout or communication instability in the bedroom temperature sensor during the mid-day gap (approx. 08:35 - 14:45). While no direct fault is visible, the lack of continuous telemetry coverage requested by the supervisor leaves a blind spot where a transient failure could have occurred without recovery evidence.

Gap in provided logs between C04 (ends 08:35) and C09 (starts 14:45).

Supervisor explicitly flagged missing checks for 'Continuous telemetry coverage between the sampled chunks... to detect intermittent faults or drift.'

No data exists to rule out a temporary loss of connectivity or sensor reset during this ~6 hour window.

This is a hypothesis based on missing data rather than positive evidence of failure. The available data points (start and end of the gap) show normal behavior, making a catastrophic failure unlikely.

Intermittent issues are harder to diagnose without the specific chunk data covering the event.

Occupancy sensor false negative or rapid transition error in the evening (C15). The sensor reports 'unoccupied' at 22:36 and 23:06 shortly after being 'occupied', which might indicate sensitivity issues or user movement patterns causing flickering, though this could also be normal behavior if the user left briefly.

C15: `bedroom_occupancy` transitions to `occupied` at 22:34:22, then back to `unoccupied` at 22:36:00 (within ~2 minutes).

C15: Another transition to `unoccupied` at 23:06:00 and 23:36:00.

If the occupant remained in the room, these transitions suggest the PIR/motion sensor is too sensitive or has a short timeout, potentially affecting automation logic (e.g., lights turning off unexpectedly).

The user may have genuinely left the room for short periods (e.g., to use the bathroom, check something else). Without motion logs or light status correlation showing lights staying on while occupancy is zero, it's ambiguous.

Light status in C15 shows `bedroom_light` off at 22:33:00, before the first occupancy spike, so we don't see if lights reactivate. This limits the ability to confirm an automation failure.

Continuous temperature logs in C00-C04 and C09 showing no stuck values or extreme outliers.

Occupancy transitions in C15 (22:34-23:36) showing multiple occupied/unoccupied flips, which requires verification against user presence/lighting to distinguish between normal behavior and sensor sensitivity issues.

The significant gap in provided data between 08:35 and 14:45, preventing a definitive 'healthy' verdict for the entire day.

Chunks C05-C08 and C10-C14 to fill the mid-day gap and verify continuous telemetry.

Correlation data for bedroom lighting and HVAC activity during the evening occupancy fluctuations (C15) to determine if the occupancy changes caused any unintended system states.

Explicit device health flags or maintenance logs for the bedroom sensors.

Continuous telemetry verification for bedroom_temp_sensor between 08:35 and 14:45 to rule out intermittent dropout or stuck values.

Correlation of bedroom_occupancy transitions with bedroom_light state in C15 to distinguish between sensor sensitivity issues (false negatives) and actual user movement patterns.

Verification of 'stuck value' hypothesis by checking if temperature readings remain constant for extended periods without physical cause.

The investigator correctly identified that the provided chunks (C00-C04, C09, C15) show normal behavior within their specific windows but failed to address the significant data gap (C05-C08) which is critical for a 'device-health' conclusion over a full day.

The 'anomaly' hypotheses are currently speculative due to missing evidence. A definitive health check requires confirming continuity across the entire timeline.

Please retrieve chunks C05 through C08 to verify continuous reporting from the bedroom sensors during the mid-day period.

Re-evaluate the occupancy flickering in C15 only after confirming the temperature sensor's general health and connectivity stability.

Bedroom temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally. The temperature readings show expected diurnal variation (cooling at night, warming during the day) with no stuck values or impossible jumps. Occupancy transitions align with typical human activity patterns (sleeping/unoccupied at night, brief presence/absence during the day).

C00: Temperature rises gradually from 21.70 C to 22.22 C between 00:00 and 01:50, consistent with a sleeping room warming up slightly or HVAC cycling.

C09: Temperature drops from 23.41 C to 22.93 C between 14:45 and 16:15, consistent with daytime cooling or AC operation.

C15: Temperature stabilizes around 21.5-21.6 C in the evening, consistent with nighttime conditions.

Occupancy events in C09 and C15 show clear transitions (unoccupied -> occupied -> unoccupied) with reasonable durations, indicating the sensor is detecting presence changes correctly.

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or repeated non-recovery states observed.

The analysis relies on sampled data points; high-frequency glitches between samples might be missed, though the provided chunks cover key periods.

Temperature values change logically over time across all three chunks (C00, C09, C15), ruling out 'sensor_stuck' or 'sensor_drift'.

OccupancySensing.Occupancy transitions occur multiple times (e.g., C09: 14:55 unoccupied, C15: 22:34 occupied, 22:36 unoccupied), proving the sensor is responsive and not failing to report state changes.

Raw integer values (e.g., 2170, 2341) correspond correctly to Celsius values when divided by 100, confirming proper data formatting.

None required for this specific health check based on the provided logs.

Continuous telemetry coverage between the sampled chunks (C00, C09, C15) to detect intermittent faults or drift.

Verification of sensor response time and stability during rapid occupancy transitions.

Cross-checking temperature trends against HVAC activity logs if available, to rule out environmental causes for apparent sensor anomalies.

The investigator correctly identified that the provided samples (C00, C09, C15) show normal behavior. However, concluding 'normal' based solely on three sparse, non-contiguous time windows is insufficient for a definitive device-health verdict.

Gaps exist between 01:50 and 14:45, and between 16:15 and 22:30. A sensor could be failing intermittently or drifting in these unobserved periods.

Per protocol, 'device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence... Scaled temperature values alone are not enough.' While the current data shows no fault, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence over the full day.

Request adjacent chunks to ensure continuous monitoring coverage and rule out transient failures missed by the sampling strategy.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 399,
    "bedroom": 360,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 222,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 391,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 391,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

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

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "bedroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "bedroom_temp_sensor",
      "bedroom_occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 bedroom 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "bedroom_temp_sensor",
    "bedroom_occupancy_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C09",
    "C15"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "sensor_stuck_values",
    "missing_telemetry",
    "state_transition_failure"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline check for normal temperature reporting and initial occupancy state (unoccupied) in the early morning.",
    "C09: Check for occupancy transitions (unoccupied at 14:55) and continued temperature reporting to verify sensor responsiveness during daytime activity.",
    "C15: Check for occupancy transitions (occupied/unoccupied around 22:34-22:36) and temperature stability in the evening to confirm ongoing health."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The bedroom temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally. The telemetry shows consistent reporting intervals, logical state transitions for occupancy (unoccupied -> occupied -> unoccupied), and physically plausible temperature drifts that correlate with ambient conditions and minor occupancy events.",
      "evidence": [
        "C00-C04: Continuous temperature reporting from 00:00 to 08:35 with gradu


状态 vs 实际位置不一致

Bedroom sensors (temperature, occupancy, window) are functioning normally based on available evidence.

Explanation: The investigator's initial hypothesis that sensors are normal is supported by the sampled chunks (C00, C05, C13).

Explanation: Temperature sensor `bedroom_temp_sensor` shows consistent reporting intervals and physically plausible values (21-24°C range) with no stuck values or impossible jumps in all observed chunks.

Explanation: Occupancy sensor `bedroom_occupancy` correctly reflects human presence/absence patterns, transitioning between occupied and unoccupied states logically corresponding to light switches and other room activities.

Explanation: Window sensor `bedroom_window` successfully executed a command and reported position changes, proving actuator and reporting mechanisms are functional.

Explanation: Although the supervisor noted gaps in the timeline (C06-C12), there is no evidence of fault codes, connectivity drops, or erratic behavior in the provided samples to suggest a malfunction. The absence of evidence in the missing chunks does not constitute positive evidence of an anomaly for this device-health query.

Explanation: Therefore, the best conclusion is that the sensors are working normally.

C00-C05 & C13: `bedroom_temp_sensor` maintains regular reporting cadence without gaps or erratic values.

C03 & C13: `bedroom_occupancy` correctly reflects human presence/absence patterns.

C05: `bedroom_window` successfully executed a close command and reported position change.

Continue routine monitoring; if intermittent issues are suspected, review full continuous logs for the gap period (C06-C12).

Temperature logs for `bedroom_temp_sensor` show consistent 5-minute intervals with physically plausible values (21-24°C range) across all chunks (C00-C05, C13). No stuck values or impossible jumps.

Occupancy logs for `bedroom_occupancy` show expected transitions: unoccupied during night/early morning, occupied during late evening (C13), and brief activity in the morning (C03).

Window sensor (`bedroom_window`) shows active behavior in C05: it received a 'DownOrClose' command and updated its position from 0 to 5000 (50%), indicating the actuator and reporting mechanism are working.

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or connectivity drops were observed for any bedroom sensor.

The investigation relies on sampled chunks. While representative, it does not cover every single minute of the day, though the patterns observed are consistent with normal daily usage.

C05: `bedroom_window` successfully executed a close command and reported position change, proving the contact/actuator sensor is functional.

C03 & C13: `bedroom_occupancy` correctly reflects human presence/absence patterns corresponding to light switches and other room activities.

Battery status diagnostics for the sensors (though no low-battery warnings were logged).

Full continuous log stream (supervisor noted gaps, but the sampled data is sufficient to rule out gross malfunction).

Verify continuous operation of bedroom sensors during the unexamined daytime period (approx. 10:50 - 22:29).

Check for any intermittent connectivity drops or reporting gaps in the missing chunks.

Confirm no fault events occurred in the unobserved timeframe.

The investigator correctly identified that the sampled chunks (C00, C05, C13) show normal behavior for the bedroom sensors.

However, the investigation is incomplete because it ignores the majority of the log timeline (C06-C12). A device health assessment requires verifying consistency across the entire observation window, not just isolated samples.

There is a significant gap between the last check in C05 (10:50) and the first check in C13 (22:29). We must ensure no faults occurred during this ~12-hour period.

The conclusion 'sensors are functioning normally' cannot be finalized without evidence from the missing chunks.

No protocol misunderstandings or false-alarm risks were detected in the current analysis; the values were interpreted correctly.

Bedroom sensors (temperature and occupancy) are functioning normally. The temperature readings show expected diurnal variation and stable reporting intervals, while occupancy transitions align with logical human presence patterns.

C00: bedroom_temp_sensor reports consistent values (~21.7-22.2 C) every 5 minutes from 00:00 to 01:50, matching the pattern of other rooms.

C05: bedroom_temp_sensor continues normal reporting (~24.3-24.6 C) during morning hours, showing gradual warming consistent with ambient changes.

C13: bedroom_occupancy correctly transitions to 'occupied' (raw=1) at 22:31:18 and back to 'unoccupied' (raw=0) at 22:58:43 and 23:28:43, indicating responsive sensing.

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or stuck values are present in any chunk for bedroom devices.

The query asks specifically about 'sensors', which could include contact sensors (window). While window commands were logged, no direct contact state logs (Open/Closed boolean) were explicitly shown in the focused chunks, though operational status was reported.

Consistent 5-minute reporting intervals for bedroom_temp_sensor across all three time blocks (C00, C05, C13) without gaps or impossible jumps.

OccupancySensing.Occupancy transitions in C13 (22:31:18 occupied -> 22:58:43 unoccupied) demonstrate active, responsive detection rather than a stuck sensor.

Temperature values remain within physically plausible ranges for a bedroom (21-24 C) and correlate logically with time of day.

Explicit 'ContactSensor' state logs (e.g., ContactState = Open/Closed) for the bedroom window, although OperationalStatus and position commands were observed in C05.

Battery level diagnostics for the sensors, if available, to rule out low-power warnings.

ContactSensor (window) state logs: The query explicitly lists 'contact_sensor' as a target device. The investigator notes its absence in focused chunks but does not verify if it exists or functions in other chunks.

Battery/Power status: Low battery is a common cause of sensor malfunction; no diagnostic data was checked.

Full temporal coverage: The investigation relies on three sparse snapshots (night, morning, night). Gaps between these periods (e.g., mid-day activity) are unverified, making it impossible to rule out intermittent faults or connectivity issues that might only manifest during specific usage patterns.

The investigator correctly identifies that temperature and occupancy sensors appear functional in the sampled chunks.

However, the conclusion of 'normal' is based on insufficient sampling. The query asks about 'sensors' (plural), including contact sensors which were not verified in the provided chunks.

Relying on three disjointed time blocks (00:00-01:50, 09:05-10:50, 22:29-23:52) leaves large gaps where faults could exist undetected.

To definitively state sensors are working normally, we need to see continuous or representative coverage of all listed sensor types (temp, occupancy, contact) across different times of day, especially checking for the contact sensor's presence and behavior.

No protocol-format misunderstandings detected regarding scaled values.

False alarm risk is medium because concluding 'all normal' without seeing the contact sensor logs or full-day coverage is premature.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 401,
    "bedroom": 358,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 53,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 217,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 3,
    "OperationalStatus": 3,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 217,
  "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": "2026-06-26T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-26T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "bedroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "temperature_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensor",
      "contact_sensor",
      "dimmable_light",
      "window_covering"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 bedroom 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "bedroom_temp_sensor",
    "bedroom_occupancy",
    "bedroom_window",
    "bedroom_light"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C13"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "sensor_missing_logs",
    "partial_device_activity"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline check for bedroom temperature and occupancy sensors at the start of the log period to verify normal reporting intervals.",
    "C05: Check for presence of window sensor (contact_sensor) activity, which is a key part of the 'sensors' query but often sparse; also verify continued temp/occupancy health.",
    "C13: Late-night check to ensure sensors remain functional during low-activity periods and to look for any final status anomalies."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Bedroom temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally. The contact sensor (window) is present and operational, as evidenced by successful state reporting and command execution in C05.",
      "evidence": [
        "Temperature logs for `bedroom_temp_sensor` show consistent 5-minute intervals with physical


温度传感器读数漂移（drift）

温度读数持续单向偏移，不符合正常日间温度曲线 其他传感器或空调自带温度显示不一致（如果可以交叉验证）

The living room temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally throughout the entire log period.

Explanation: 1. **Scope Verification**: The investigation covers the full timeline from C00 to C16 (00:00 to 08:30), addressing the supervisor's concern about incomplete coverage.

Explanation: 2. **Temperature Sensor Health**: The `living_room_temp_sensor` reports consistent, physically plausible values ranging from ~22.67°C to ~25.45°C. The transitions between readings are gradual and smooth, with no stuck values, impossible jumps, or scaling errors. A single empty value at 08:00:00 is an isolated transient dropout that immediately recovers at 08:05:00, which does not constitute a malfunction pattern.

Explanation: 3. **Occupancy Sensor Health**: The `living_room_occupancy` sensor consistently reports 'unoccupied' (raw=0) at all check intervals. This state is corroborated by the complete absence of any actuator events (lights, locks) in the living room zone, confirming that the lack of occupancy detection is consistent with the environment's actual state (no human presence).

Explanation: 4. **System Context**: Other rooms (bedroom, kitchen, bathroom) show active occupancy transitions and device operations, proving the Matter network and other sensors are operational. The living room's silence is due to inactivity, not system failure.

Explanation: 5. **Conclusion**: There is no direct evidence of fault (stuck values, repeated failures, explicit alarms). The behavior is normal for an unoccupied room.

Continuous, smooth temperature readings from 22.67°C to 25.45°C with no stuck states.

Consistent 'unoccupied' status across all timestamps, supported by zero actuator activity in the living room.

Active activity in other rooms confirms global system health, isolating the living room's state as validly unoccupied.

No immediate action required; sensors are operating within normal parameters.

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。

Both the temperature sensor and occupancy sensor in the living room are functioning normally. The temperature readings show smooth, physically plausible variations consistent with a stable indoor environment. The occupancy sensor consistently reports 'unoccupied' (0), which is corroborated by the complete absence of any other activity events (lights, locks, or other device triggers) in the living room throughout the entire log period.

Temperature values for `living_room_temp_sensor` range from 22.67 C to 25.45 C with gradual changes between samples, showing no stuck values, impossible jumps, or scaling errors.

`living_room_occupancy` remains at raw=0 (unoccupied) at every check point (e.g., 00:00, 00:30, ..., 08:00).

No `OnOff` events for `living_room_light` or any other actuator in the living room zone occurred during the monitoring window, supporting the 'unoccupied' status.

Other rooms (bedroom, bathroom, kitchen) show active occupancy transitions and light operations, confirming that the system is generally operational and not globally offline.

Relies on the assumption that no human presence occurred; if a person was present but undetected, it would indicate a blind spot rather than a total failure, though this is less likely given the lack of any secondary triggers.

The living room occupancy sensor may have a 'blind spot' or sensitivity issue, failing to detect a person who was present but did not trigger other devices. However, without evidence of presence (like lights turning on), this cannot be confirmed as a fault.

The occupancy sensor never transitions to 'occupied' despite the passage of several hours where other rooms were active, which might suggest a static state if the room was actually used.

There is a single isolated timestamp at 08:00:00 where `living_room_temp_sensor` has an empty value field before resuming normal reporting at 08:05:00, though this is a minor telemetry gap and not sufficient for a malfunction claim.

Lacks positive evidence of human presence to contradict the 'unoccupied' reading.

No correlated events (e.g., motion-activated lights) exist to prove the sensor missed an event.

The supervisor feedback explicitly notes that 'unoccupied' is a valid state and absence of conflicting evidence makes the fault claim weak.

The single missing temperature value is an isolated incident and does not constitute a pattern of failure.

Consistent 'unoccupied' (raw=0) readings from `living_room_occupancy` across all timestamps.

Absence of any `OnOff` or other activity logs for living room devices, which supports the unoccupied status.

Smooth, continuous temperature data from `living_room_temp_sensor` with no stuck values or impossible transitions.

Active activity in other rooms (bedroom, kitchen) confirms the system is recording data correctly, isolating the living room's silence as likely due to lack of activity rather than system-wide failure.

Ground truth regarding whether anyone was actually present in the living room during the monitored period (e.g., from user logs or external cameras).

Configuration details of the occupancy sensor (e.g., detection radius, sensitivity settings) to rule out physical blind spots.

Verification of temperature sensor continuity and value validity for timestamps after C04 (08:30 onwards).

Verification of occupancy sensor status in living_room for the entire duration, specifically checking for any transitions to 'occupied' that might have been missed or if it remained unoccupied.

Check for any explicit fault/alarm events from the sensors in the remaining chunks.

The investigator has only analyzed chunks C00-C04. The query requires a check of the 'living_room' sensors over the 'device state history'. The provided 'Available Chunk IDs' list goes up to C16, implying a much longer log exists.

The investigator correctly identified that the sensors appear normal in the first ~8.5 hours (C00-C04), noting a single transient empty value at 08:00 which was deemed insufficient for a fault claim.

However, concluding the device is 'working normally' based on only the first part of the log is premature. There could be faults occurring later in the timeline (e.g., stuck values, communication drops, or drift) in chunks C05-C16.

The 'anomaly_hypothesis' A1 regarding a 'blind spot' is speculative and weakly supported by the current data (lack of other activity). It does not constitute a confirmed malfunction.

To provide a definitive health check, the investigation must cover the full scope of the available logs. The current evidence is insufficient to rule out intermittent failures or late-stage faults.

No protocol-format misunderstandings were detected; the investigator correctly interpreted Matter-scaled temperatures and boolean states.

The living room temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally. The temperature readings show expected gradual fluctuations consistent with a passive indoor environment, and the occupancy sensor correctly reports 'unoccupied' throughout the entire log period, which aligns with the lack of any activity events in that specific zone.

Temperature values for `living_room_temp_sensor` fluctuate smoothly between 22.67 C and 25.13 C over the 7-hour window (C00-C03), showing no sudden jumps, plateaus, or impossible values.

Raw integer values (e.g., 2279, 2466) are consistently formatted as centi-degrees Celsius, matching the protocol definition.

`living_room_occupancy` remains at raw=0 (unoccupied) at every check-in point (00:00, 00:30, ..., 07:00).

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or connectivity drops are recorded for the living room devices.

The hypothesis assumes that 'no activity' is the correct state; if there were unrecorded movements, the sensor might be failing to detect presence, but this cannot be confirmed without external ground truth.

Potential Occupancy Sensor Failure (False Negative / Blind Spot): The living room occupancy sensor may be malfunctioning by failing to detect presence, resulting in a persistent 'unoccupied' status despite potential human activity in the home (indicated by activity in other rooms like bedroom and bathroom). While not a direct hardware fault code, this represents a functional anomaly where the sensor does not reflect reality.

Other sensors in the house (`bedroom_occupancy`, `bathroom_occupancy`) show transitions to 'occupied' (raw=1) starting around 06:40-06:45, indicating people are awake and active in the house.

Despite concurrent activity elsewhere, `living_room_occupancy` remains strictly 'unoccupied' (raw=0) even during times when occupants might reasonably be moving through or near the living room (e.g., morning routine after 06:40).

There is a complete absence of any `OnOff` or motion-triggered events for the living room, unlike the bedroom and bathroom which show light activations correlated with occupancy changes.

It is plausible that the living room was genuinely empty while others were in private spaces (bedroom/bathroom), so the 'unoccupied' status could be accurate.

No explicit error logs or stuck-value patterns exist for the sensor itself.

Temperature Sensor Drift or Calibration Issue: The living room temperature shows a steady upward trend from ~22.7 C to ~25.1 C over 7 hours without significant cooling, which might indicate a sensor drift or a localized heat source affecting the reading disproportionately compared to other rooms.

Living room temp rises from 22.79 C (00:00) to 25.13 C (07:10).

Bedroom temp rises more modestly from 21.74 C to 24.11 C.

Kitchen temp rises from 22.68 C to 25.06 C.

While all rooms warm up, the living room ends up slightly warmer than the kitchen and significantly warmer than the bedroom, which could suggest a calibration offset or placement near a heat source, though this is subtle.

The temperature changes are within normal physical limits for a house warming up overnight/early morning.

The pattern is consistent across all three monitored rooms, suggesting environmental factors rather than a single device fault.

The persistent 'unoccupied' (raw=0) status of `living_room_occupancy` contrasts with the 'occupied' (raw=1) status of `bedroom_occupancy` and `bathroom_occupancy` starting at 06:40, raising the question of whether the living room sensor is missing presence.

The smooth, continuous temperature data for `living_room_temp_sensor` with no gaps or spikes rules out communication failures or obvious hardware crashes.

Ground truth regarding actual human presence in the living room during the 06:40-07:10 window.

Configuration details of the occupancy sensor (e.g., sensitivity settings, blind spot coverage) to determine if the lack of detection is due to setup issues.

Historical baseline data to compare against the current temperature trend to rule out seasonal/environmental causes.

`living_room_occupancy` remains at raw=0 (unoccupied) at every check point (e.g., 00:00, 00:30, ..., 08:00).

The investigator correctly identifies that the temperature sensor is functioning normally (no stuck values, reasonable scaling).

However, the occupancy sensor analysis relies on 'absence of evidence' (no motion detected) rather than positive fault evidence. While A1 (Occupancy Sensor Failure) is a plausible hypothesis, it cannot be confirmed as a 'fault' without ground truth of human presence in the living room.

The query asks to judge if sensors are working *normally*. The current evidence shows the temp sensor is normal. The occupancy sensor is consistent with an unoccupied state, but the lack of transitions during a period when other rooms become occupied is suspicious. However, without explicit error logs or contradictory states (e.g., light on but occupancy off), we cannot definitively label it as faulty based solely on this log.

Crucially, the investigator has not checked for any other potential faults like connectivity drops or protocol errors which might affect the occupancy sensor's reporting frequency or reliability, although the logs seem regular.

The investigation is on-topic and correctly interprets Matter-scaled temperatures.

The 'normal' verdict for the temperature sensor is supported by smooth data.

The 'anomaly' hypothesis for the occupancy sensor is weak because it assumes presence without proof. In smart home diagnostics, 'unoccupied' is a valid state. Unless there is a correlated event (like a door opening or light turning on) that contradicts the occupancy reading, we cannot conclude a malfunction.

Since the logs provided (C00-C03) cover the entire relevant window and show no explicit faults, the most accurate conclusion is likely that the sensors are working normally (the living room was indeed empty). The investigator should be guided to consider that 'no activity' is a valid outcome, not necessarily a failure, unless external context proves otherwise.

Given the ambiguity and the fact that 'normal operation' includes remaining unoccupied, and no direct fault evidence exists, the case is effectively closed as 'Normal'. However, to be rigorous, I will mark it as needing refinement to explicitly rule out the 'blind spot' theory by confirming no other devices triggered in the living room zone (which they didn't, per logs).

Actually, looking closer: The logs show NO events in the living room at all (no lights, no locks, no occupancy changes). This strongly supports the 'unoccupied' status being correct. The investigator's A1 hypothesis is speculative. The N1 hypothesis is stronger.

I will recommend allowing a final verdict of 'Normal' because the absence of conflicting evidence (like a light turning on while occupancy is 0) makes the 'fault' claim very weak. But since the prompt asks to check for faults, and none were found, the answer is 'Normal'.

Wait, the rules say: 'If the evidence is still ambiguous... do not automatically convert that into a normal verdict.' Is it ambiguous? The investigator presents two hypotheses. One is strong (Normal), one is weak (Malfunction due to blind spot). The weak one lacks corroboration. The strong one is supported by the total silence of the device. This is sufficient for a 'Normal' verdict.

However, to ensure high quality, I will ask the investigator to explicitly state why the 'blind spot' theory is rejected (i.e., no other triggers in LR).

Let's stick to 'refine_investigation' to force the final distinction between 'sensor failed' vs 'room empty'. Once clarified, it can be closed.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 404,
    "bedroom": 508,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 57,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 374,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 374,
  "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": "2026-06-04T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-04T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices":

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "temperature_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 living_room 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "living_room_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C01",
    "C02",
    "C03",
    "C04",
    "C05",
    "C06",
    "C07",
    "C08",
    "C09",
    "C10",
    "C11",
    "C12",
    "C13",
    "C14",
    "C15",
    "C16"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "sensor_continuity_check",
    "value_staleness_detection",
    "occupancy_logic_validation"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "The query requires a comprehensive health check of living_room sensors over the entire log period. C00-C02 establish the baseline behavior (normal temperature updates, unoccupied status). C03-C15 cover the main activity period where occupancy transitions and temperature readings must be verified for consistency and continuity. C16 is included to ensure no final state anomalies exist at the end of the log window. Since no specific fault was pre-identified, inspecting all chunks is necessary to rule out intermittent failures or stuck values across the full timeline."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Both the temperature sensor and occupancy sensor in the living room are functioning normally. The t


通知住户该区域烟雾报警器失灵，建议立即更换，期间注意防火

The kitchen smoke alarm triggered a HardwareFaultAlert at 19:47, indicating a device-level failure, while the temperature sensor continued to operate normally.

Explanation: The query asks to check if sensors in the kitchen are working normally. The investigation identifies two primary devices: `kitchen_temp_sensor` and `kitchen_smoke_alarm`.

Explanation: Analysis of `kitchen_temp_sensor` logs (C09-C13) shows consistent, physically plausible temperature readings that respond correctly to appliance usage (cooking surface on/off). Although there were brief 'None' values at 19:04 and 19:35, these were transient and immediately recovered, which is insufficient evidence for a permanent malfunction or stuck sensor according to Matter notes and supervisor guidelines.

Explanation: Analysis of `kitchen_smoke_alarm` logs reveals an explicit fault event at 19:47:00 in chunk C11: `HardwareFaultAlert = true`, `ExpressedState = 5`, and `Event: HardwareFault()`. This constitutes direct evidence of a device fault as defined by the Matter notes.

Explanation: The supervisor noted that the post-fault status (recovery vs. persistent failure) was not fully visible in the provided chunks, leading to a recommendation for further investigation. However, the presence of the explicit fault event itself confirms an anomaly occurred during the monitored period.

Explanation: Since the fault is isolated to the smoke alarm and does not appear to have caused a cascading failure in other systems (like the temp sensor), the conclusion is specific to the safety device failure.

Explanation: Confidence is medium because we cannot confirm from the logs alone if the device has since recovered or remains in a failed state, but the occurrence of the fault is certain.

C11: kitchen_smoke_alarm | HardwareFaultAlert = true (raw=True)

C11: kitchen_smoke_alarm | Event: HardwareFault()

C11: kitchen_smoke_alarm | ExpressedState = 5

Inspect the physical kitchen smoke alarm for error indicators or low battery warnings.

Check the device's maintenance log or app interface to determine if the fault cleared after 21:10.

Replace batteries or reset the smoke alarm; if the fault persists, replace the unit.

判断 kitchen 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。

HardwareFaultAlert event on smoke alarm
Explicit fault event emission

Temperature readings follow logical physical patterns: rising from ~23°C to ~26°C when the cook surface is on (C10), then dropping back to ~22-23°C after it turns off (C11-C13).

The `HardwareFaultAlert` in C11 is isolated to the smoke alarm (`kitchen_smoke_alarm`) and does not affect the temperature sensor (`kitchen_temp_sensor`).

No evidence of shared bus failure; other sensors (living_room, bedroom) continue reporting normally throughout the period.

Does not address the root cause of the smoke alarm fault, only its lack of impact on the temperature sensor.

The kitchen smoke alarm has a hardware fault (safety_device_failure). While the temperature sensor is normal, the query asks about 'sensors' in the kitchen area generally. The explicit HardwareFaultAlert indicates a device-level failure in one of the targeted devices.

C11 explicitly logs `kitchen_smoke_alarm | HardwareFaultAlert = true` and `Event: HardwareFault()` at 19:47:00.

The `ExpressedState = 5` likely corresponds to a specific fault code defined by the device manufacturer.

This is direct evidence of a device fault as per Matter notes requirements.

The fault appears transient or isolated to the smoke alarm; we do not see if it persists beyond C11 in the provided chunks (though C12-C13 don't show further smoke alarm events, they also don't show recovery).

Does not explain *why* the fault occurred (e.g., low battery vs. component failure).

The kitchen temperature sensor experienced a brief telemetry dropout or sampling error around 19:04 and 19:35, where `MeasuredValue = None`. This could indicate a minor communication glitch or sensor initialization issue, though it recovered immediately.

C10 shows `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:04:00.

C10 shows another `None` value at 19:35:00.

These dropouts coincide with appliance activity (cook surface on/off), suggesting potential interference or power fluctuation, but are not persistent.

The supervisor feedback explicitly states that a single transient `None` is not enough to claim `sensor_malfunction` without repetition or corroboration.

The values before and after are consistent with normal operation, making this likely a benign network/sampling artifact rather than a sensor defect.

C11: Explicit `HardwareFaultAlert` and `Event: HardwareFault()` for `kitchen_smoke_alarm`.

C10/C11: Continuous, physically plausible temperature data from `kitchen_temp_sensor` despite the smoke alarm fault.

C10: Two instances of `None` values for `kitchen_temp_sensor` (19:04, 19:35) which are brief and non-persistent.

Post-C11 status of the smoke alarm: Did the fault clear? Is `HardwareFaultAlert` still active in later chunks (not provided)?

Device documentation for `ExpressedState = 5` to determine if it is a recoverable warning (e.g., low battery) or permanent failure.

Context for the `None` values in C10: Was there a known network maintenance or device reboot at those times?

Post-fault status of kitchen_smoke_alarm (did HardwareFaultAlert clear?)

Verification of ExpressedState=5 meaning (low battery vs permanent failure)

Confirmation that no other safety devices in the kitchen were affected by the same fault event

The investigator correctly identified a direct device fault (HardwareFaultAlert) for the smoke alarm in C11, which satisfies the 'device-health' query requirement for abnormality.

However, the investigation is incomplete because it does not determine if this fault is transient or persistent. The logs end at C13 without showing the resolution of the smoke alarm fault.

Without C14 or subsequent data, we cannot confirm if the device recovered, entered a failed state permanently, or if the alert cleared. This ambiguity prevents a final 'health status' conclusion (e.g., 'currently healthy but had a past fault' vs 'currently faulty').

The temperature sensor analysis is robust and shows normal operation; the focus should remain on resolving the smoke alarm's current state.

Kitchen sensors are functioning normally; the smoke alarm fault was a transient hardware alert (e.g., low battery or self-test) that did not affect the temperature sensor's operation.

The kitchen_temp_sensor reports consistent, physically plausible temperature readings throughout the entire log period (C11 and C12), ranging from ~22.4°C to ~25.9°C with smooth transitions.

No 'stuck' values or impossible state transitions are observed in the temperature data for the kitchen sensor.

The HardwareFaultAlert on the smoke alarm is an isolated event at 19:47:00 with no subsequent recurrence or escalation into a safety breach (no fire detected).

Other devices in the home (living room, bedroom) show normal operational patterns, suggesting the network and general system health are stable.

Does not fully explain the root cause of the initial HardwareFaultAlert on the smoke alarm, though it assumes it was benign.

Relies on the assumption that the temperature sensor's continued reporting implies the smoke alarm's fault was non-critical.

Safety device failure: The kitchen smoke alarm experienced a confirmed hardware fault (HardwareFaultAlert) at 19:47:00. While the temperature sensor remains functional, the smoke alarm's status is compromised, representing a safety anomaly.

At 2026-06-16T19:47:00, the kitchen_smoke_alarm explicitly logs 'HardwareFaultAlert = true' and emits 'Event: HardwareFault()'.

The ExpressedState changes to 5 at the time of the fault, indicating a specific error state defined by the device protocol.

There is no subsequent 'ClearFault' or 'Normal' event logged for the smoke alarm in the provided chunks, leaving its post-fault status ambiguous but initially flagged as faulty.

The query specifically asks about the 'sensors' in the kitchen area, which includes the smoke alarm identified in the focus devices.

The temperature sensor component of the 'kitchen sensor suite' appears healthy, so labeling the entire area's sensors as 'abnormal' might be too broad if only the smoke alarm is at fault.

Without further logs showing the fault persisted or worsened, it is unclear if this is a permanent failure or a transient glitch requiring only maintenance (e.g., battery change).

[2026-06-16T19:47:00] kitchen_smoke_alarm | HardwareFaultAlert = true (raw=True)

[2026-06-16T19:47:00] kitchen_smoke_alarm | Event: HardwareFault()

Continuous valid temperature readings from kitchen_temp_sensor (e.g., 25.98 C -> 22.44 C) indicate the temperature sensing element is not stuck or failed.

Post-19:47:00 status updates for the kitchen_smoke_alarm to determine if the fault cleared or persisted.

Diagnostic details on the specific code for 'ExpressedState = 5' to understand the nature of the hardware fault (e.g., battery vs. sensor failure).

Confirmation of whether the user acknowledged or resolved the fault alert.

This is direct evidence of a device fault as per Matter notes requirements.

C10 shows `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:04:00.

C10 shows another `None` value at 19:35:00.

Check C10 (pre-19:47) for any pre-fault indicators or context regarding the smoke alarm.

Verify if 'ExpressedState = 5' corresponds to a recoverable state (e.g., low battery) or permanent failure based on device documentation or subsequent logs in C13+.

Confirm if the temperature sensor's data stream was uninterrupted during the fault event to rule out shared bus/network issues.

The investigator correctly identified the HardwareFaultAlert in C11 and noted the temperature sensor is functioning. However, concluding the status of the 'kitchen sensors' requires determining if the smoke alarm fault is transient or persistent.

The current evidence (C11-C12) shows the fault occurred but does not show recovery or persistence beyond the immediate timestamp. Without C10 (context before fault) or later chunks (C13+) showing if the fault cleared, we cannot definitively classify the device health as 'normal' or 'failed'.

The risk of false alarm is medium because labeling the system 'normal' might ignore a persistent hardware fault if it doesn't clear quickly, while labeling it 'abnormal' might be premature if it's a known transient self-test or low-battery warning that resolves itself.

Requesting C10 to check for pre-conditions and potentially C13+ to check for resolution is necessary for a robust device-health verdict.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 398,
    "bedroom": 356,
    "kitchen": 301,
    "bathroom": 55,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 219,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "HardwareFaultAlert": 1,
    "ExpressedState": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 219,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-16T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-16T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen":

## Query
请检查以下设备状态历史，判断 kitchen 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": [
      "kitchen"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "kitchen_temp_sensor",
      "kitchen_smoke_alarm"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 kitchen 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": [
    "kitchen"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "kitchen_smoke_alarm"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C11",
    "C12"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "HardwareFaultAlert event on smoke alarm",
    "Explicit fault event emission"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C11 contains the explicit HardwareFaultAlert and Event: HardwareFault() for the kitchen smoke alarm, which is direct evidence of a device fault.",
    "C12 provides the immediate follow-up context to check if the fault persists or if there is any recovery/stabilization behavior from the sensor suite."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The kitchen temperature sensor is functioning normally. The observed data stream shows consistent reporting with realistic physical behavior (temperature rise during cooking, stabilization after), and the smoke alarm fault was a transient event that did not impact the temperature sensor's operation.",
      "evidence": [
        "C09-C13 show continuous `kitchen_temp_sensor` updates every 5 minutes with no gaps or stuck values.",
        "Temperature readings follow logical physical patterns: rising from ~23°C to ~26°C when the cook surface is on (C10), then