FG-04-FP: 低电量报警但传感器仍正常工作

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

The kitchen smoke alarm has a low battery condition (BatteryAlert=1), compromising its ability to reliably detect and alert on fire hazards, which is critical given the transient smoke event detected during cooking.

Explanation: Evidence from C00 explicitly logs 'kitchen_smoke_alarm | SmokeCoAlarm.BatteryAlert = 1' at 21:58. This is a direct device fault indicator for a primary safety system.

Explanation: Evidence from C18 shows a transient smoke detection event ('SmokeState = 1') at 22:08 while the cook surface was active. Although it cleared quickly (likely steam/minor smoke), the fact that the alarm functioned suggests it was still operational despite the low battery warning.

Explanation: The combination of a known device fault (low battery) and a recent hazardous trigger (smoke detection) creates a significant safety risk: the alarm may fail in a future, more serious incident.

Explanation: While there is a potential unattended cooking risk (C15/C16 show high temps before explicit 'on' log), the telemetry gap makes this less certain than the confirmed device fault. The device fault is the most robustly supported anomaly.

C00: kitchen_smoke_alarm | SmokeCoAlarm.BatteryAlert = 1

C18: kitchen_smoke_alarm | SmokeCoAlarm.SmokeState = 1

Replace the batteries in the kitchen smoke alarm immediately.

Verify the cause of the smoke/steam event at 22:08 to ensure no food was left unattended or burnt.

Check other smoke alarms in the home for similar low battery warnings.

Low battery alert on smoke alarm (potential device fault)

Kitchen temperature spike coinciding with cooking activity (potential fire risk or sensor anomaly)

Frequent door lock state flips (potential security concern or routine usage)

C19: Shows the end of the cooking session (cook surface off) and subsequent smoke alarm state check, allowing assessment of whether the earlier temperature spike triggered an alarm or if the system recovered safely.

Normal Evening Routine with Controlled Cooking and Appliance Usage

C15: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 18:51, followed by a temperature spike in the kitchen sensor (26-27°C) consistent with cooking heat. Occupancy detected in living room and entrance.

C16: Cook surface turned off at 19:50 after ~1 hour of use. Kitchen temperature returned to baseline (~22.7°C) shortly after. Dishwasher started at 20:00, a common post-dinner activity.

C18: Second cooking session began at 21:58. Smoke alarm triggered briefly at 22:08 (likely steam or minor smoke from cooking), then cleared at 22:18. Cook surface turned off at 22:13.

C19: All temperatures stabilized around 22.5°C. No further alarms or hazardous states observed.

The brief smoke alarm trigger during the second cooking session suggests some combustion or steam was present, requiring monitoring but not necessarily indicating a fault if it cleared quickly.

Low Battery Fault on Kitchen Smoke Alarm

C00: Explicit log entry '[2026-06-07T21:58:00] kitchen_smoke_alarm | SmokeCoAlarm.BatteryAlert = 1' indicates a low battery condition for the primary fire safety device in the kitchen.

This is a device health issue rather than an immediate active threat like fire or intrusion, but it compromises the safety net for the cooking activities observed later.

Transient Smoke/Steam Event During Second Cooking Session

C18: At 21:58, the kitchen cook surface was turned ON again. At 22:08, the kitchen smoke alarm reported 'SmokeState = 1'. This occurred while the cook surface was still active (turned off at 22:13).

C19: The smoke state cleared ('SmokeState = 0') at 22:18, shortly after the cook surface was turned off, suggesting the event was transient and likely related to the cooking process itself (steam/fat smoke) rather than a structural fire.

The event resolved quickly without escalation. However, the presence of smoke detection during active cooking warrants attention to ensure ventilation or cooking habits are safe, especially given the low battery status of the alarm (A1).

C00: 'kitchen_smoke_alarm | SmokeCoAlarm.BatteryAlert = 1' confirms a specific device fault.

C18: 'kitchen_smoke_alarm | SmokeCoAlarm.SmokeState = 1' at 22:08 coincides with active cooking, distinguishing between a false alarm, steam, or actual smoke.

C16: 'kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = off' at 19:50 and C19: 'kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = off' at 22:13 confirm the duration of heat sources, refuting the previous hypothesis of unattended cooking for >3 hours.

Verification of whether the smoke alarm's audio/visual alert was acknowledged by occupants.

Confirmation of the exact cause of the smoke/steam event (e.g., burnt food vs. normal cooking vapor) via visual inspection or additional sensor data (CO levels if available).

Verification of the 'kitchen_cook_surface' state prior to 18:51 (C15) to rule out unattended cooking starting earlier.

Analysis of the 'kitchen_temp_sensor' data dropout at 18:52 and 19:51 in C15/C16 to determine if it correlates with specific events or is a sensor fault.

Confirmation that the smoke alarm battery alert (C00) did not prevent the smoke detection event (C18), i.e., checking if the alarm functioned correctly despite low battery.

The investigator correctly identified the low battery fault (A1) and the transient smoke event (A2). However, the analysis relies heavily on C15 for the start of the cooking session. The query asks for a comprehensive safety assessment. To fully assess 'unattended cooking' risk, we need to see the state of the cook surface immediately preceding the first temperature spike in C15. If the cook surface was already ON before 18:51, the risk profile changes significantly. Chunk C14 likely contains this pre-cooking context. Additionally, the investigator notes a 'None' value for temperature at 18:52; while dismissed as minor, in a safety context, gaps in critical sensor data during active hazards should be explicitly checked against other indicators (like CO or smoke) to ensure no data loss obscured a worsening situation. The current evidence is strong for the *end* of the event but slightly weak on the *beginning* context.

The home is in a safe state with normal evening activity. The kitchen temperature spike was caused by routine cooking, and the system recovered safely without incident.

C15 shows kitchen_temp_sensor rising from ~26°C to ~27°C between 18:20 and 18:40, coinciding with living_room_occupancy=occupied and entrance_occupancy=occupied, suggesting human presence nearby.

At 18:51:30, kitchen_cook_surface turns on, correlating with the sustained elevated temperature (26-27°C) observed prior to this timestamp, indicating the heat source was active during the measurement window.

At 22:13:00 (C19), kitchen_cook_surface turns off, and kitchen_temp_sensor returns to baseline (~22.4°C) by 22:15:00, showing normal cooldown behavior.

SmokeCoAlarm.SmokeState = 0 at 22:18:00 (C19), confirming no fire or smoke event occurred despite the earlier heat spike.

Living room occupancy remains high throughout the evening (C15, C19), indicating supervision of the kitchen area.

Does not fully address the low battery alert on the smoke alarm, which reduces safety redundancy.

Assumes the cook surface was attended; logs do not explicitly track user attention, only device state.

Safety Device Failure: The kitchen smoke alarm has a low battery, compromising its ability to detect potential fires, especially given the recent cooking activity that generated significant heat.

C00 (2026-06-07T21:58:00) explicitly logs 'kitchen_smoke_alarm | SmokeCoAlarm.BatteryAlert = 1', indicating a low battery condition.

This alert persists through the subsequent chunks (C15, C19) where no replacement or reset is logged.

During C15, the kitchen experienced a temperature spike to 27.17°C while the cook surface was active, creating a scenario where a functional smoke alarm would be critical.

Although no fire occurred, the failure of the primary detection device during a high-risk activity (cooking) represents a latent safety risk.

Low battery alerts are common maintenance issues and do not constitute an immediate emergency if addressed promptly.

No evidence suggests the alarm failed to function *during* a fire, only that it was in a degraded state.

Potential Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk: The cook surface was left on for an extended period (approx. 3+ hours) with only indirect supervision (living room occupancy), raising the risk of unattended cooking incidents.

C15 shows kitchen_cook_surface turning on at 18:51:30.

C19 shows kitchen_cook_surface turning off at 22:13:00.

This implies a duration of over 3 hours of continuous heating.

While living_room_occupancy=1 suggests someone was home, they were in a different room (living room vs kitchen).

Kitchen_temp_sensor showed a significant thermal load (26-27°C) during this period, indicating sustained heat output.

There is no explicit 'user present in kitchen' signal during the entire cooking duration, relying solely on proximity in the living room.

Cooking for 3 hours is plausible for certain meals (stews, roasts) and does not inherently imply negligence.

The system recovered safely (temp dropped, smoke alarm clear), so no actual hazard materialized.

Occupancy sensors may have missed brief entries into the kitchen, making 'unattended' status ambiguous.

C00: SmokeCoAlarm.BatteryAlert = 1 (Direct safety device fault indicator)

C15: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff = on (18:51:30) AND kitchen_temp_sensor ~27°C (18:20-18:40) (Correlation of heat source and thermal rise)

C19: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff = off (22:13:00) AND SmokeCoAlarm.SmokeState = 0 (22:18:00) (Confirmation of safe shutdown and no fire)

Whether the low battery on the smoke alarm was replaced or acknowledged after C00.

Explicit presence data inside the kitchen (e.g., motion sensor in kitchen) to confirm if the cook was actually attending the stove or just in the adjacent room.

Carbon monoxide levels, as prolonged gas/electric cooking can produce CO even without visible smoke.

C19: All temperatures stabilized around 22.5°C. No further alarms or hazardous states observed.

Verify the exact duration of the cook surface being ON. The investigator claims >3 hours (18:51 to 22:13), but C15 only covers up to 19:15. Chunks C16-C18 are required to confirm if the device remained on for the alleged duration or turned off earlier.

Check for any intermediate smoke alarms or CO alerts between C00 and C19 that might have been triggered during the cooking period.

Confirm if 'Kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None' at 18:52:00 indicates a sensor fault or just a missing data point in the log stream.

The investigator's primary anomaly hypothesis (A2: Unattended Cooking) relies on a time gap between C15 (ends 19:15) and C19 (starts 22:10). Without chunks C16, C17, and C18, we cannot verify if the cook surface was actually on for 3+ hours. It is possible it turned off shortly after 19:15, making the 'unattended' risk much lower.

The 'Low Battery' alert in C00 is a valid device-health issue, but the investigation conflates this with immediate fire risk without sufficient temporal context for the cooking event.

The claim of '3+ hours' is speculative based on the available chunks. We must see the intermediate state to validate the 'unattended' narrative.

False alarm risk is medium because the 'fire risk' conclusion depends heavily on the unverified duration of the heat source. If the source was off for most of that time, the risk profile changes significantly.

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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: 两室一厅 (2BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- 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>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<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>, 客厅落地灯<onoff_light>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bedroom: 次卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "kitchen": 303,
    "living_room": 400,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "bathroom": 54,
    "entrance": 229
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1154,
    "Occupancy": 470,
    "OnOff": 16,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "SmokeState": 2,
    "BatteryAlert": 1,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 470,
  "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"
  }
}

##

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "living_room",
      "entrance",
      "bathroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "kitchen_smoke_alarm",
      "kitchen_cook_surface",
      "kitchen_temp_sensor",
      "entrance_door_lock",
      "water_leak_detector"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_alarm",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "entrance_door_lock",
    "entrance_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C15",
    "C19"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Low battery alert on smoke alarm (potential device fault)",
    "Kitchen temperature spike coinciding with cooking activity (potential fire risk or sensor anomaly)",
    "Frequent door lock state flips (potential security concern or routine usage)"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Contains the explicit 'BatteryAlert' for the kitchen smoke alarm, which is a direct safety device fault indicator. Also establishes baseline night-time conditions.",
    "C15: Shows a significant temperature spike in the kitchen (26-27°C) while occupancy is detected, correlating with the cook surface being active. This is the primary candidate for a fire/safety hazard.",
    "C19: Shows the end of the cooking session (cook surface off) and subsequent smoke alarm state check, allowing assessment of whether


FG-04-FP: 低电量报警但传感器仍正常工作

The kitchen cook surface was left on for approximately 43 minutes with no direct evidence of supervision in the kitchen, creating a potential fire risk, compounded by a low battery alert on the smoke alarm.

Explanation: The kitchen cook surface was turned ON at 19:03:30 and remained ON until 19:46:00 (approx. 43 minutes).

Explanation: During this entire window, there are no 'kitchen_occupancy' events logged; occupancy is only confirmed in the living room and entrance. While someone was likely in the home, the lack of specific kitchen presence logs means continuous supervision cannot be verified from the data.

Explanation: The kitchen temperature rose significantly (peaking at 26.83°C) during this period, consistent with active cooking, but the transient 'None' readings suggest sensor saturation or intermittent connectivity under thermal load, reducing telemetry reliability.

Explanation: A critical safety device, the kitchen smoke alarm, has an active BatteryAlert (C00), which compromises the home's ability to detect a fire if one were to occur during this unsupervised cooking event.

Explanation: Although the cook surface was eventually turned off, preventing a catastrophic outcome, the sequence represents a plausible unattended cooking scenario where safety monitoring was degraded.

C15/C16: Cook surface ON (19:03:30) -> OFF (19:46:00) with no kitchen occupancy logs.

C00: SmokeCoAlarm.BatteryAlert = 1 indicating compromised fire detection capability.

C15/C16: Kitchen temperature spike to 26.83°C correlating with the cooking event.

Replace the battery in the kitchen smoke alarm immediately.

Review smart home automation rules to ensure cook surfaces can be automatically disabled after a set duration if not manually turned off.

Verify if kitchen occupancy sensors are functioning correctly or if they are simply not logging transitions.

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.

Low battery alert on smoke alarm (potential false negative risk)

Door lock state transitions (manual unlock vs auto lock)

Occupancy patterns indicating presence/absence for security context

Normal evening routine with supervised cooking and standard security protocols. The kitchen temperature spike was caused by active cooking, which was properly managed (lights on, cook surface turned off) before the resident left the immediate area or went to sleep. The smoke alarm battery alert is a maintenance issue but not an immediate safety failure as the device remained functional.

C15: Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 19:03:30, followed by lights ON at 19:03:00, indicating active use.

C16: Cook surface turned OFF at 19:46:00, approximately 42 minutes after activation, suggesting supervision.

C16: Kitchen temperature peaked at 26.83 C (raw=2683) around 19:25-19:30, consistent with cooking heat, then began to decline after the surface was turned off.

C19: Front door auto-locked at 22:14:27 after contact opened/closed, confirming security protocol execution.

C19: Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' throughout the evening until late night, suggesting residents were present in the home.

The 'None' reading for the kitchen temp sensor at 19:04:00 (immediately after turning on the cook surface) suggests a potential transient sensor glitch or saturation, though it recovered quickly.

No explicit confirmation that the resident was physically in the kitchen during the entire cooking duration, only inferred from general home occupancy.

Unattended Cooking Risk / Potential Fire Hazard. The cook surface was left on for ~43 minutes while the primary occupant presence shifted away from the kitchen (living room occupied, no specific kitchen occupancy logs). The kitchen temperature rose significantly (to ~26.8 C) and then dropped, but the initial 'None' reading and the lack of direct kitchen occupancy confirmation create a gap in verifying continuous supervision. Additionally, the smoke alarm has a low battery alert (C00), reducing its reliability if a fire were to occur.

C15-C16: No specific 'kitchen_occupancy' events logged during the cooking window (only entrance/living room), relying on absence of evidence for supervision.

C15: Kitchen temp sensor returned 'None' at 19:04:00, immediately after cook surface activation, potentially due to heat saturation or sensor fault.

C16: Cook surface turned OFF at 19:46:00, ending the event without an explicit 'user interaction' log other than the state change itself.

C00: Smoke alarm BatteryAlert = 1, indicating compromised safety monitoring capability.

C16: Kitchen temperature peaked at 26.83 C, a notable rise from baseline (~23 C), correlating with the cooking event.

The cook surface was eventually turned off, preventing a catastrophic outcome.

Living room occupancy was constant, so someone was likely nearby, even if not in the kitchen.

The temperature drop after 19:30 correlates with the cook surface being turned off later, but the peak was moderate (26.8 C), not indicative of a fire.

The 'None' reading was transient and resolved, not a persistent failure.

Sensor Malfunction / Data Integrity Issue. The kitchen temperature sensor exhibited erratic behavior ('None' value) immediately upon cook surface activation, and the temperature readings showed a sharp spike and subsequent drop that might indicate sensor saturation or a temporary communication error rather than just ambient heat. This raises questions about the reliability of the telemetry used to assess safety.

C15: Kitchen temp sensor reported 'None' at 19:04:00, right after cook surface turned ON.

C15-C16: Temperature jumped from 23.04 C (18:25) to 24.24 C (19:05) to 25.41 C (19:15) to 26.83 C (19:25), showing a rapid increase that stabilized and then decreased.

C16: Another 'None' reading at 19:47:00, shortly after the cook surface was turned off, suggesting intermittent connectivity or processing issues under thermal load.

The sensor recovered and provided stable readings afterwards, which is typical for transient glitches rather than permanent malfunction.

The temperature trend is physically plausible for a kitchen during cooking, making a pure sensor fault less certain without more data points.

C15/C16: Timeline of cook surface ON (19:03:30) -> Temp Spike/None (19:04-19:25) -> Cook Surface OFF (19:46:00).

C00: Persistent BatteryAlert on smoke alarm, indicating reduced safety margin.

C19: Successful auto-lock sequence, confirming lock health despite earlier manual unlock.

Direct kitchen occupancy logs to confirm if a person was present in the kitchen during the 43-minute cooking window.

Confirmation of whether the 'None' readings were due to sensor saturation, network dropout, or hardware fault.

Status of the bathroom water leak detector (mentioned in query anchor but not observed in chunks).

Direct kitchen occupancy logs to confirm presence during cooking (19:03-19:46).

Status of bathroom water leak detector (mentioned in query anchor but missing from evidence).

Clarification on the 'None' temperature readings: are they sensor faults or valid data gaps?

Context for the low battery alert on the smoke alarm: is it a persistent fault or a transient event?

The investigator correctly identified the cooking event and the auto-lock sequence. However, the primary safety concern (unattended cooking) relies heavily on the *absence* of kitchen occupancy logs, which is weak evidence without corroboration.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis (A2) is flagged as high false-alarm risk because it rests on transient 'None' values that recovered immediately. This does not constitute a device fault under Matter semantics unless there is repeated failure or explicit alarm.

The investigation missed the 'bathroom_water_leak_detector' specified in the query anchor. While the current chunks don't show leaks, the absence of this check is a gap.

Crucially, the focused chunks (C15-C19) cover the evening routine, but the 'low battery' alert in C00 is isolated. We need to see if this alert persisted or was resolved. More importantly, we lack the specific 'kitchen_occupancy' events that would definitively prove or disprove supervision. The current chunks show entrance/living room occupancy but explicitly omit kitchen occupancy transitions, making the 'unattended' claim speculative.

Request adjacent chunks (C02-C05) if they contain earlier context or different device streams, but primarily, the analysis needs to address why kitchen occupancy data is missing or how to interpret its absence.

The home is in a normal evening routine state with active cooking and subsequent automatic security locking. The kitchen temperature spike is consistent with normal cooking heat output, and the smoke alarm battery alert is a maintenance issue rather than an immediate safety failure.

C15: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 19:03:30, followed by a gradual temperature rise from 23.65 C to 24.93 C by 19:10:00, which is typical for cooking activity.

C15: Occupancy sensors show 'occupied' status in Living Room and Entrance during the cooking period (18:23-19:10), indicating human presence and supervision.

C19: Front door lock executed an automatic lock operation at 22:14:27 after contact sensor triggered, confirming the security protocol functioned correctly.

C19: High occupancy counts in Living Room (397) and Master Bedroom (336) suggest residents are present and active in other parts of the house.

Does not fully address the gap in kitchen telemetry (None value) during the peak cooking time, though this could be due to sensor placement or reporting interval.

Assumes the battery alert was acknowledged or will be addressed, ignoring the potential for false negatives if the alarm fails during a real event.

Unattended Cooking Risk: The kitchen cook surface was activated, but the primary occupant supervision signal (Kitchen Occupancy) is missing or ambiguous, creating a window where cooking occurred without confirmed direct supervision in the hazard zone.

C15: Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 19:03:30.

C15: Kitchen Temperature spiked significantly from 23.65 C (19:00) to 24.93 C (19:10), indicating active heat source.

C15: At 19:00:00, Master and Second Bedroom occupancy were unoccupied. While Living Room was occupied, there is no explicit 'Kitchen Occupancy = 1' log entry immediately following the cook surface activation in the provided chunks, unlike the Entrance/Living room patterns.

C15: Kitchen temp sensor reported 'None' at 19:04:00, potentially indicating sensor saturation, relocation, or data loss during the critical heating phase.

Living Room occupancy remained high (1) throughout the evening, suggesting someone was likely nearby, even if not strictly in the kitchen.

The temperature rise, while noticeable, did not reach critical fire thresholds within the observed window.

The 'None' reading might be a transient telemetry glitch rather than evidence of abandonment.

Safety Device Degradation: The kitchen smoke alarm has a low battery alert, reducing its reliability as a primary fire detection mechanism during the observed cooking events.

C00: Explicit event 'SmokeCoAlarm.BatteryAlert = 1' recorded at 2026-05-31T06:33:00.

No subsequent 'BatteryAlert = 0' or replacement confirmation logs are visible in the focused chunks, implying the device remains in a degraded state during the evening cooking activities.

A low battery alert does not mean the alarm is non-functional; it may still trigger on smoke, just with reduced range or chirping warnings.

This is a maintenance issue rather than an active emergency, unless a fire actually occurs.

C15: Cook surface ON at 19:03:30 combined with Kitchen Temp spike to 24.93 C at 19:10:00.

C15: Absence of explicit 'Kitchen Occupancy = 1' log entries immediately correlating with the cook surface activation, contrasting with clear Entrance/Living Room occupancy logs.

C00: Persistent BatteryAlert on the kitchen smoke alarm.

Direct 'Kitchen Occupancy' sensor logs for the period 19:00-19:15 to confirm if anyone was physically in the kitchen.

Status of the smoke alarm battery replacement or acknowledgment after the initial alert.

Logs for the bathroom water leak detector mentioned in the query anchor, as no specific leak events or sensor readings were found in the focused chunks.

C15: Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 19:03:30, followed by lights ON at 19:03:00, indicating active use.

C16: Cook surface turned OFF at 19:46:00, approximately 42 minutes after activation, suggesting supervision.

C19: Front door auto-locked at 22:14:27 after contact opened/closed, confirming security protocol execution.

C00: Smoke alarm BatteryAlert = 1, indicating compromised safety monitoring capability.

C16: Kitchen temperature peaked at 26.83 C, a notable rise from baseline (~23 C), correlating with the cooking event.

C15: Kitchen temp sensor reported 'None' at 19:04:00, right after cook surface turned ON.

Kitchen cook surface OFF state and timestamp to confirm if cooking was unattended or supervised.

Smoke alarm status (BatteryAlert resolution) after the initial alert in C00.

Bathroom water leak detector logs to address the specific device mentioned in the query anchor.

Confirmation of whether the 'None' temperature reading in C15 was a transient glitch or sensor failure.

The investigator correctly identified potential risks (unattended cooking, low battery) but relies heavily on negative evidence (absence of kitchen occupancy logs) and a single transient data gap ('None' value).

According to protocol guidelines, 'unattended_cooking' risk is high for false alarms if based mainly on missing occupancy logs while other rooms show presence. The investigation needs to verify if the cook surface was turned off and by whom/when.

The 'None' temperature reading is treated as significant evidence of abandonment/sensor saturation without corroboration from adjacent chunks showing recovery or continued anomaly.

The bathroom water leak detector, explicitly listed in the query anchor's target devices, has been ignored in the analysis despite being a key safety component.

Chunks C16-C18 are likely critical to determine the outcome of the cooking event (did it turn off? did anyone enter the kitchen?) and the smoke alarm status.

Do not conclude 'normal' or 'unsafe' yet; refine investigation to get the full sequence of the cooking event and check the ignored device.

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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: 两室一厅 (2BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- 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>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<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>, 客厅落地灯<onoff_light>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bedroom: 次卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "kitchen": 303,
    "living_room": 397,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "bathroom": 54,
    "entrance": 232
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1154,
    "Occupancy": 470,
    "OnOff": 16,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "SmokeState": 2,
    "BatteryAlert": 1,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 470,
  "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"
  }
}

##

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance",
      "kitchen",
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact",
      "kitchen_smoke_alarm",
      "bathroom_water_leak_detector"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety condition and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "kitchen",
    "living_room",
    "bathroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "kitchen_smoke_alarm",
    "bathroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C15",
    "C19"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Low battery alert on smoke alarm (potential false negative risk)",
    "Door lock state transitions (manual unlock vs auto lock)",
    "Occupancy patterns indicating presence/absence for security context"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Contains the initial BatteryAlert event for the kitchen smoke alarm, which is a critical safety device. Establishes baseline occupancy (unoccupied) and temperature.",
    "C15: Shows manual unlock operation at the entrance door during evening hours, providing context for access control and human activity.",
    "C19: Shows automatic locking sequence later in the evening, confirming if the security protocol executed correctly after the manual unlock or departure. Also shows high occupancy in living room, suggesting residents are present."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "composite-safety | device-health",
  "query_


FG-01-FP: 煲汤/慢炖（正常长时间开灶）

温度上升后稳定（不持续飙升），住户定期回来检查，烟雾传感器未触发

The kitchen cook surface was activated for extended periods (approx. 16 minutes in the morning) without corroborating occupancy evidence in the kitchen or immediate smoke alarm triggers, indicating a potential unattended cooking hazard.

Explanation: The kitchen cook surface was turned on at 06:41:39 and remained active until 06:58:00 (C05).

Explanation: During this 16-minute window, there are no 'kitchen_occupancy' logs. The only presence detected is in the master bedroom (06:43, 06:48, etc.), suggesting the occupant was not in the kitchen.

Explanation: While no fire occurred, the lack of direct supervision verification combined with the appliance being left on constitutes an unattended cooking risk profile.

Explanation: A second activation occurred at 09:12:00 (C07), followed by transient temperature spikes in the kitchen sensor (27.00°C at 09:17, 27.50°C at 09:42 in C08), which correlates with heat generation but lacks explicit off-time logs in the provided chunks to confirm duration/supervision fully, though the morning event is the primary anomaly.

Explanation: The supervisor noted that relying on 'absence of evidence' for supervision is risky, but the specific gap between appliance activation and local occupancy detection is a standard heuristic for unattended cooking alerts in smart home safety analysis.

C05: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff = on from 06:41:39 to 06:58:00.

C05: No kitchen_occupancy events during 06:41-06:58; only master_bedroom_occupancy = occupied.

C07/C08: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff = on at 09:12:00; subsequent kitchen_temp_sensor spikes (2700, 2750) indicate heat output without confirmed user presence logs.

Verify if the user was present in the kitchen but outside the sensor's detection zone.

Check if the cook surface has an automatic shut-off timer configured.

Review smoke/CO alarm logs specifically for the 06:41-06:58 window to ensure no undetected hazards occurred.

Consider enabling stricter automation rules to alert if the cook surface remains on beyond a set duration without motion detection.

Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks.

Unattended cooking appliance activation (cook_surface on without immediate smoke alarm trigger in preview)

Sensor data anomaly or fault (kitchen_temp_sensor None value)

Occupancy patterns indicating presence during high-risk activities

Lock state fluctuations requiring verification of security integrity

C08: Shows continued occupancy and stable temperatures but includes an anomalous raw value (2750) for the kitchen temp sensor, suggesting potential calibration issues or noise that could affect safety readings.

C17: Represents evening activity with high occupancy across multiple rooms (living, master, entrance), providing context for whether the earlier cooking event was attended or if risks persisted into the night.

C19: Late-night occupancy confirms the household is present, allowing assessment of whether any unaddressed hazards (like the unattended stove) pose an immediate threat while residents are awake/active versus sleeping.

The kitchen cook surface was used for short, supervised cooking sessions (morning and evening) with no safety incidents. The temperature sensor readings are normal environmental data, and the brief 'None' values represent transient telemetry dropouts that recovered immediately.

C05: Cook surface turned on at 06:41:39 and off at 06:58:00 (~16 mins). No smoke/CO alarms triggered. Kitchen temp remained stable (~25°C).

C07: Cook surface turned on at 09:12:00. Duration unknown in C07 but no alarms. Temp spike to 27.00°C at 09:17 recovered to baseline by 09:20.

C17: Cook surface turned off at 19:11. Dishwasher started at 19:24. No alarms. Occupancy in living room/master bedroom indicates presence nearby.

Temperature sensors show consistent ~25°C ranges during day and ~22-23°C at night, consistent with normal HVAC/environmental cycles.

Lock state transitions in C05 (manual unlock/auto lock) appear to be a standard entry/exit event, not a malfunction.

Relies on the assumption that 'no alarm' equals 'no hazard', which is true for functioning devices but doesn't prove supervision occurred if occupancy logs are missing for the kitchen itself.

Does not fully explain the transient 'None' value in C05 and C17, though these are minor telemetry issues.

The home is secure and safe. The door lock operation in C05 was a legitimate resident leaving the house, followed by an auto-lock. The high entrance occupancy is due to the resident being near the door or moving between rooms.

C05: Front door unlocked manually at 07:15:22, then locked automatically at 07:15:29. Contact sensor shows closed after lock.

Entrance occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout most of the day, suggesting someone is present near the entry/living area.

No forced entry indicators (broken contact while locked, repeated failed locks).

Assumes the auto-lock functioned correctly without explicit confirmation of the mechanism's reliability, only observing the result.

Unattended Cooking Risk: In the morning session (C05), the cook surface was active for ~16 minutes while the kitchen occupancy sensor did not log any 'occupied' events, and the master bedroom occupant (likely the only other person) was in a different room. While no fire occurred, the lack of direct kitchen presence verification combined with the device being left on creates a latent risk profile.

C05: Kitchen cook surface ON from 06:41:39 to 06:58:00.

C05: No 'kitchen_occupancy' logs exist for this period. Only 'master_bedroom_occupancy' = occupied is seen.

C05: Kitchen window contact closed at 06:58:30, shortly after stove turned off, possibly indicating ventilation use or just closing up.

C07: Another activation at 09:12:00. A transient temp spike to 27.00°C occurred at 09:17, suggesting heat generation, but no alarm triggered.

Supervisor feedback highlights the risk of relying on 'absence of evidence' for supervision.

No actual fire or smoke was detected; the system mitigated the risk (stove turned off).

It is possible the user was in the kitchen but the specific 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor (if it exists separately from others) didn't trigger, or the user moved out of its detection zone briefly.

The evening session (C17) had higher occupancy correlation (living room occupied), reducing the risk there.

Sensor Telemetry Instability: The kitchen temperature sensor exhibits intermittent data loss ('None') and transient spikes (27.00°C, 27.50°C) that recover quickly. While not a permanent fault, this instability compromises the reliability of environmental monitoring in the high-risk kitchen area.

C05: 06:42:09 MeasuredValue = None. Recovers at 06:45:00.

C05: 06:59:00 MeasuredValue = None. Recovers at 07:00:00.

C17: 19:12:00 MeasuredValue = None. Recovers at 19:15:00.

All anomalies are transient and self-correcting within minutes.

No explicit fault codes or persistent stuck values.

Spikes correlate with cook surface usage, suggesting they might be real localized heat rather than pure sensor error, making 'malfunction' a weaker label than 'instability'.

C05: Cook surface ON (06:41) vs. Master Bedroom Occupied (06:43) with NO Kitchen Occupancy log during the 16-minute window.

C07/C08: Transient temperature spikes (27.00°C, 27.50°C) in the kitchen coinciding with cook surface activity, contrasting with stable temps elsewhere.

C05: Kitchen temp sensor 'None' values at 06:42 and 06:59, indicating telemetry gaps during critical cooking times.

Confirmation of whether a dedicated 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor exists and is functional, or if 'entrance_occupancy' serves as a proxy.

Smoke/CO alarm status logs specifically for the kitchen zone during the 06:41-06:58 and 09:12+ windows to definitively rule out undetected hazards.

Detailed state of the cook surface in C06 (07:35-08:35) to ensure it wasn't reactivated and left unattended later in the morning.

Definition of the 'auto-lock' behavior parameters (delay time) to assess if the 7-second manual-to-auto transition in C05 is standard or unusually fast/slow.

Verify cook surface state in C06 (07:35-08:35) to confirm it remained off after the morning session.

Analyze C07 for the second activation event (09:12) and its duration/termination to assess if unattended cooking persisted or was attended.

Check for explicit smoke/CO alarm triggers in all chunks during cooking windows to definitively rule out undetected hazards.

Clarify occupancy sensor coverage: determine if 'entrance_occupancy' can serve as a proxy for kitchen presence or if a dedicated kitchen sensor is missing.

The investigator correctly identified potential risks but relies heavily on 'absence of evidence' (missing kitchen occupancy logs) to construct an 'unattended cooking' hypothesis. This is a high false-alarm risk because the stove turned off without triggering alarms, suggesting either supervision occurred outside the sensor's range or the hazard was mitigated naturally.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is weak; the temperature spikes (27°C) are transient and correlate with cooking activity, likely representing real localized heat rather than a device fault. The 'None' values are brief telemetry dropouts that recovered immediately, not persistent faults.

Crucially, the investigation lacks data from C06 and C07, which contain the critical context for the second cooking event and the gap between events. Without confirming the cook surface state in C06 and the full timeline in C07, the safety assessment is incomplete.

Do not conclude 'safe' based solely on no alarms; verify the operational state of the cook surface across all relevant time blocks.

Normal morning cooking routine with attended supervision. The cook surface was activated for a short duration (~17 minutes) and turned off before the household activity shifted to other rooms, indicating the user remained in or near the kitchen during the heating phase.

C05: kitchen_cook_surface turned on at 06:41:39 and off at 06:58:00 (duration ~16.5 mins).

C05: Kitchen temperature sensor reported values (25.02 C -> 24.93 C -> 25.05 C) throughout this period, showing no extreme heat spike that would trigger immediate safety alarms or indicate uncontrolled fire.

C05: Master bedroom occupancy is consistently 'occupied' (raw=1) from 06:43 onwards, suggesting a resident is awake and present in the home, likely monitoring the environment.

C05: No smoke alarm triggers or water leak events are recorded during or after the cooking event.

The logs do not explicitly show 'kitchen_occupancy' transitions during the exact cooking window (06:41-06:58), relying on inference from adjacent room occupancy and lack of negative outcomes.

A brief telemetry dropout (None) occurred at 06:42:09, shortly after activation, which could mask initial conditions, though it recovered quickly.

Normal evening routine with dishwasher operation. The kitchen is active in the evening, but the cook surface is off, and the dishwasher is running, which is a standard low-risk appliance usage pattern.

C17: kitchen_cook_surface is off (raw=False) at 19:11:00.

C17: kitchen_dishwasher turns on at 19:24:00 with OperationalState=1 (running).

C17: Multiple rooms (Living Room, Master Bedroom, Entrance) show 'occupied' status, indicating the household is present and active.

C17: Temperatures are stable and cooling slightly (23.05 C -> 22.86 C), consistent with normal evening ambient conditions.

Does not address the earlier morning anomaly hypothesis directly, but confirms current state is safe.

Potential Unattended Cooking Risk due to Telemetry Gaps and Lack of Direct Supervision Evidence. While the cook surface was turned off, there is a gap in direct kitchen occupancy confirmation during the critical heating phase, combined with a sensor dropout that prevents verifying if the user was actually present in the kitchen.

C05: kitchen_cook_surface activates at 06:41:39.

C05: kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None' at 06:42:09, just 30 seconds after activation, creating a blind spot in environmental monitoring.

C05: There is no explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' log entry confirming presence between 06:41 and 06:58. We only see 'master_bedroom_occupancy = occupied', which implies someone is in the house but not necessarily in the kitchen.

C05: The cook surface remains on for ~16 minutes. If the user left the kitchen immediately after turning it on (e.g., went to master bedroom), this constitutes an unattended cooking scenario.

C05: No smoke alarm or CO alarm triggered, but these devices may have latency or might not detect smoldering/low-level hazards immediately.

The cook surface was eventually turned off manually (or by timer), and no fire/smoke was detected, suggesting the risk did not escalate to an emergency.

The 'None' value might be a transient communication error rather than a physical absence indicator.

Master bedroom occupancy suggests a person is awake nearby, making total abandonment less likely than a brief distraction.

Sensor Malfunction or Calibration Drift in Kitchen Temperature Sensor. The kitchen sensor shows intermittent 'None' values and a significant outlier reading (2750 raw / 27.50 C) compared to all other sensors (~25.0-25.5 C), suggesting potential hardware instability or calibration issues.

C05: kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None' at 06:42:09 and again at 06:59:00.

C08: kitchen_temp_sensor reports raw value 2750 (27.50 C) at 09:42:00, while other sensors in the same vicinity report ~25.4-25.5 C. This is a ~2°C deviation from neighbors.

C08: The value returns to normal (25.44 C) by 09:45:00, indicating the issue is intermittent/spiky rather than permanently stuck.

C17: Another 'None' value appears at 19:12:00.

The sensor recovers to normal values quickly each time, lacking persistent failure or 'stuck' behavior required for a definitive malfunction classification.

The 27.50 C reading could be explained by localized heat from cooking or appliances, though the timing (morning vs evening) varies.

Other sensors remain stable, isolating the issue to the single device.

C05: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff transition (On at 06:41:39, Off at 06:58:00) without concurrent kitchen_occupancy logs.

C05: kitchen_temp_sensor 'None' values at 06:42:09 and 06:59:00.

C08: kitchen_temp_sensor outlier raw value 2750 at 09:42:00 amidst stable readings elsewhere.

C17: kitchen_dishwasher operational state change at 19:24:00 with no associated cook surface activity.

Explicit kitchen_occupancy sensor logs during the 06:41-06:58 window to confirm user presence in the hazard zone.

Smoke detector or CO alarm status/logs during the morning cooking event to rule out undetected combustion products.

Context for the 27.50 C spike: Was any high-heat appliance (oven, toaster) active in the kitchen at 09:42?

User identity/context: Is the 'master_bedroom_occupied' person the same individual who used the stove? Are they capable of supervising?

C05: kitchen_cook_surface turned on at 06:41:39 and off at 06:58:00 (duration ~16.5 mins).

C05: No smoke alarm triggers or water leak events are recorded during or after the cooking event.

C17: kitchen_cook_surface is off (raw=False) at 19:11:00.

C17: kitchen_dishwasher turns on at 19:24:00 with OperationalState=1 (running).

C17: Multiple rooms (Living Room, Master Bedroom, Entrance) show 'occupied' status, indicating the household is present and active.

C17: Temperatures are stable and cooling slightly (23.05 C -> 22.86 C), consistent with normal evening ambient conditions.

C05: kitchen_cook_surface activates at 06:41:39.

C05: kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None' at 06:42:09, just 30 seconds after activation, creating a blind spot in environmental monitoring.

C05: kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None' at 06:42:09 and again at 06:59:00.

C08: The value returns to normal (25.44 C) by 09:45:00, indicating the issue is intermittent/spiky rather than permanently stuck.

C17: Another 'None' value appears at 19:12:00.

Temperature sensors show consistent ~25°C ranges during day and ~22-23°C at night, consistent with normal HVAC/environmental cycles.

Lock state transitions in C05 (manual unlock/auto lock) appear to be a standard entry/exit event, not a malfunction.

Does not fully explain the transient 'None' value in C05 and C17, though these are minor telemetry issues.

C05: Front door unlocked manually at 07:15:22, then locked automatically at 07:15:29. Contact sensor shows closed after lock.

Entrance occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout most of the day, suggesting someone is present near the entry/living area.

No forced entry indicators (broken contact while locked, repeated failed locks).

Assumes the auto-lock functioned correctly without explicit confirmation of the mechanism's reliability, only observing the result.

C05: Kitchen cook surface ON from 06:41:39 to 06:58:00.

C05: No 'kitchen_occupancy' logs exist for this period. Only 'master_bedroom_occupancy' = occupied is seen.

C05: Kitchen window contact closed at 06:58:30, shortly after stove turned off, possibly indicating ventilation use or just closing up.

Supervisor feedback highlights the risk of relying on 'absence of evidence' for supervision.

No actual fire or smoke was detected; the system mitigated the risk (stove turned off).

The evening session (C17) had higher occupancy correlation (living room occupied), reducing the risk there.

C05: 06:42:09 MeasuredValue = None. Recovers at 06:45:00.

C05: 06:59:00 MeasuredValue = None. Recovers at 07:00:00.

C17: 19:12:00 MeasuredValue = None. Recovers at 19:15:00.

All anomalies are transient and self-correcting within minutes.

No explicit fault codes or persistent stuck values.

Verify kitchen_cook_surface state in C06 (immediately after C05) to confirm if it remained off or was re-activated.

Check for smoke/CO alarm logs in C05/C06 during the cooking window to rule out undetected hazards.

Investigate the cause of the 27.50°C spike in C08: check for other high-heat appliances (oven/toaster) active at that time.

Confirm if 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor exists and is functional; if not, acknowledge the limitation in verifying supervision.

The investigator correctly identifies potential risks but relies heavily on 'absence of evidence' (missing kitchen occupancy logs) to construct a safety risk hypothesis. This creates a high false-alarm risk because the absence of a log entry does not prove unattended cooking, especially when no alarms triggered.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis regarding the temperature spike is weak; a single transient outlier without repetition or downstream consequences is likely noise or localized heat, not a device fault requiring immediate attention.

Crucially, the investigation stops at C05 (morning) and C08 (mid-day). To assess the 'current' safety status comprehensively as requested, we need to see if the morning event had any lingering effects or if the evening routine (C17) involved similar patterns. Specifically, checking C06 is vital to ensure the cook surface didn't stay on longer than reported or reactivate.

The conclusion that the home is 'safe' based on N1/N2 is premature without confirming the integrity of the monitoring system (i.e., did the missing kitchen occupancy log mean the sensor was broken, or just not logged?).

Refinement needed: Focus on corroborating the 'unattended' claim with positive evidence (alarms, re-activation) rather than negative evidence (missing presence logs).

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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: 两室一厅 (2BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- 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>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<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>, 客厅落地灯<onoff_light>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bedroom: 次卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 401,
    "master_bedroom": 520,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "kitchen": 306,
    "bathroom": 48,
    "entrance": 231
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1158,
    "Occupancy": 648,
    "OnOff": 16,
    "StateValue": 7,
    "LockState": 5,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 5,
  "occupancy_events": 648,
  "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"
  }
}

##

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "entrance",
      "living_room",
      "master_bedroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "kitchen_cook_surface",
      "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
      "kitchen_water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "all_occupancy_sensors"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "door_lock",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "master_bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C05",
    "C08",
    "C17",
    "C19"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Unattended cooking appliance activation (cook_surface on without immediate smoke alarm trigger in preview)",
    "Sensor data anomaly or fault (kitchen_temp_sensor None value)",
    "Occupancy patterns indicating presence during high-risk activities",
    "Lock state fluctuations requiring verification of security integrity"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C05: Captures the initial activation of the kitchen cook surface and light, along with a missing temperature reading (None) from the kitchen sensor, which is a critical data point for assessing device health and environmental monitoring reliability.",
    "C08: Shows continued occupancy and stable temperatures but includes an anomalous raw value (2750) for the kitche


BA-05-FP: 邻居/亲友代为浇花/喂宠物

通过门锁合法进入（有效的临时 UserIndex），进出有完整的开锁+锁门记录

No safety anomaly detected; the cook surface was likely turned off via auto-shutoff or manual action not explicitly logged in the provided chunks, supported by stable ambient temperatures.

Explanation: The investigator hypothesized an 'unattended cooking' risk because the kitchen cook surface was turned ON at 07:02 but no explicit OFF log appeared in chunks C05-C07. However, this relies on an absence of evidence rather than positive confirmation of a hazard.

Explanation: Chunk C08 (09:45-10:45) was requested to verify the state. While C08 does not show an explicit OFF event for the cook surface, the kitchen temperature sensor readings remain stable around 25.5°C throughout C06, C07, and C08. If the heating element had remained active unchecked for over two hours, we would expect a significant rise in ambient temperature or a thermal runaway pattern, which is absent.

Explanation: Smart appliances often have automatic shut-off timers that may not always generate a distinct 'OnOff=off' log if the state change is internal or if the logging granularity misses it. The stability of the temperature data strongly suggests the device did not remain in a high-power heating state.

Explanation: The transient 'None' values from the temperature sensor are brief and recover immediately, consistent with telemetry noise rather than a critical fault masking a fire event.

Explanation: Therefore, the most probable explanation is normal morning routine with either manual deactivation (missing log) or automatic timer deactivation, resulting in no actual safety risk.

Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 07:02:37 (C05).

No explicit OFF log for cook surface in C05-C08.

Kitchen temperature remains stable (~25.5°C) from 07:00 to 10:45, contradicting unchecked heating.

Transient sensor dropouts ('None') recovered immediately, indicating non-critical telemetry issues.

Monitor future logs to see if the cook surface OFF event appears in subsequent chunks (e.g., C09) to confirm auto-shutoff behavior.

Verify if the specific smart appliance model supports auto-shutoff features to contextualize the missing log.

Normal temperature progression without thermal runaway

Lock state flips requiring verification for unauthorized access vs. routine use

Occupancy patterns indicating normal daily cycle (sleeping, waking, active hours)

C00: Baseline early morning state (unoccupied, stable temps) to establish normalcy.

C22: Late night winding down, verifying if systems return to a secure/quiet state.

Normal morning routine with transient telemetry issues. The kitchen cook surface was turned on at 07:02 for breakfast preparation and subsequently turned off (likely between 07:40-08:45, though the specific OFF log is missing from the provided chunks, the context of normal activity suggests it). Temperature sensor dropouts ('None') were brief network glitches that resolved immediately.

C05 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turning ON at 07:02:37, consistent with morning cooking.

C05 shows `kitchen_temp_sensor` returning to valid readings (25.04 C) by 07:05 after a 'None' reading at 07:03, indicating recovery rather than permanent failure.

Occupancy patterns in C05-C07 show normal human presence in master bedroom and entrance, suggesting supervision or proximity to the kitchen during the cooking event.

Temperature trends across all rooms are stable and within normal residential ranges (22-26 C), showing no signs of thermal runaway or fire.

The explicit 'OFF' command for the cook surface is not present in C05, C06, or C07. While likely occurred, we lack direct evidence of the device being deactivated, leaving a small window of uncertainty regarding unattended operation if the user left the house immediately.

Potential Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk due to Missing Deactivation Log. The cook surface was activated at 07:02, but there is no logged 'OFF' state in the subsequent chunks (C05 end, C06, C07). If the user left the home shortly after locking the door at 07:28 without manually turning off the stove, this constitutes an unattended cooking hazard.

C05: `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON at 07:02:37.

C05: Front door locks automatically at 07:28:34, and entrance occupancy remains high, suggesting occupants may be preparing to leave or have just left.

C05, C06, C07: No `OnOff.OnOff = off` event is recorded for the cook surface after 07:02:37.

C05: Kitchen temperature sensor reports 'None' at 07:03 and 07:03:07, potentially masking early heat buildup or simply coinciding with the start of cooking activity.

Smart appliances often have auto-shutoff timers; the absence of a manual 'OFF' log does not guarantee the device remained on indefinitely.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered in the logs.

Kitchen temperatures in C06/C07 remain stable (~25 C), which would be unusual if a heating element were actively running unchecked for an hour, unless the sensor itself was faulty or the appliance has a very low standby heat output.

Sensor Malfunction / Data Integrity Issue. The kitchen temperature sensor experienced multiple 'None' readings (07:03, 19:14) and potentially missed critical state changes (cook surface OFF). This could indicate intermittent connectivity or hardware instability affecting safety monitoring.

C05: `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns 'None' at 07:03:07, shortly after cook surface activation.

C17: `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns 'None' at 19:14:00, again near cooking activity.

The pattern of 'None' readings correlating with high-activity periods (cooking) suggests potential interference or device instability.

The sensor consistently recovers to valid values immediately after the 'None' events (e.g., 07:05, 19:15), which contradicts a permanent hardware fault.

Other sensors in the same environment do not show similar dropout patterns, isolating the issue to the kitchen sensor specifically.

Absence of `kitchen_cook_surface` OFF event in C05-C07 despite ON event at 07:02:37.

Front door lock auto-lock event at 07:28:34 in C05, creating a timeline where the occupant might leave while the stove is still on.

Kitchen temperature sensor 'None' readings at 07:03 and 19:14, occurring during active cooking windows.

Confirmation of `kitchen_cook_surface` state in C08 or later chunks to verify if it was eventually turned off.

Smoke or CO alarm status/logs during the 07:00-08:00 window to rule out fire/smoke generation.

Detailed occupancy logs for the kitchen itself (if available) to confirm if someone was present in the kitchen after 07:28.

Verification of kitchen_cook_surface state in C08 to confirm if it was turned off.

Confirmation of smoke/CO alarm status during the morning window (07:00-09:00) to rule out fire/smoke generation despite stable temperatures.

Analysis of kitchen occupancy logs (if available) between 07:28 and 09:45 to determine if the user remained in the kitchen or left.

The investigator correctly identified a potential unattended cooking risk based on the missing 'OFF' log for the cook surface after 07:02. However, this conclusion relies heavily on an absence of evidence (missing log) rather than positive confirmation of hazard.

Crucially, the investigation stops at C07 (ending ~09:45). The cook surface was ON at 07:02. Without checking C08 (09:45-10:45), we cannot verify if the device was eventually turned off manually or via auto-shutoff. If it was turned off in C08, the risk is mitigated.

The temperature data in C06/C07 remains stable (~25°C), which contradicts the hypothesis of unchecked heating for over an hour, suggesting either auto-shutoff occurred or the sensor/device behavior is normal. This makes the 'unattended cooking' hypothesis weak without further corroboration.

The 'sensor malfunction' hypothesis (A2) is also weak; transient 'None' values that immediately recover are common telemetry noise and do not constitute a device fault requiring safety intervention unless they mask a critical event, which hasn't been proven here.

Action: Request C08 to close the loop on the cook surface state. Do not issue a final safety verdict until the device state is confirmed.

The home is in a normal, secure state with routine daily activity. The kitchen cook surface was used briefly for cooking (morning and evening) and turned off immediately after use. Temperature fluctuations are within normal ambient ranges. Lock operations at the entrance correspond to a resident leaving the house in the morning.

C05: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 07:02:37 and off at 06:57:00 (Note: Timestamps suggest a sequence where it was off, then on, then off again shortly after, or potentially a logging artifact of brief usage). More clearly, C17 shows cook surface off at 19:13:00 after evening activity.

C05: Entrance lock unlocked manually at 07:28:29 and auto-locked at 07:28:34, consistent with a resident exiting.

Temperatures across all rooms remain stable between 22°C and 25°C, showing no signs of thermal runaway or fire.

Occupancy patterns show typical day/night cycles: unoccupied at night (C00, C22), occupied during day/evening (C05, C17).

The exact duration of cook surface usage in C05 is ambiguous due to rapid toggling, though no heat spike occurred.

Relies on the assumption that 'auto-lock' implies successful security, which is generally true but doesn't rule out transient vulnerabilities if the door remained open longer than logged.

Potential Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk in the Morning. The kitchen cook surface was activated around 07:02 AM. While it was turned off by 07:28 AM, there is a gap in direct supervision evidence. The master bedroom occupancy remains high, but no one is explicitly logged in the kitchen during this period. If the user left the kitchen area without turning off the stove, this would be a hazard. However, the lack of temperature rise suggests it was likely turned off correctly or not used heavily.

C05: Kitchen cook surface OnOff = on at 07:02:37.

C05: No kitchen occupancy events recorded during the 07:02-07:28 window (only master bedroom and entrance are active).

C05: Cook surface turns off at 07:28:17 (via light? No, light is separate). Actually, C05 shows `kitchen_light` off at 07:28:17, but does NOT explicitly log `kitchen_cook_surface` turning off in the provided snippet for that specific time, although C05 starts with it off at 06:57. Wait, re-reading C05: 06:57 Off -> 07:02 On. There is no explicit 'Off' event for the cook surface in C05's later timestamps. It disappears from logs. This absence of an 'Off' command while the device is logically 'On' (if it stayed on) is a risk.

C05: Kitchen temperature sensor reports `None` at 07:03:07, indicating a potential telemetry dropout or sensor issue coinciding with the cooking event.

No temperature increase was observed in the kitchen or surrounding areas, which strongly suggests the appliance was either not heating significantly or was turned off via a method not captured in the `OnOff` attribute (or the `None` reading masked a drop).

The query anchor includes smoke/CO alarms, but no alarm events are present.

The 'missing' off-state could be a logging omission rather than a physical state.

Sensor Telemetry Failure / Monitoring Blind Spot. The kitchen temperature sensor returns `None` multiple times (06:58, 07:03, 19:14) and the kitchen cook surface status is not explicitly confirmed as 'Off' in the morning log segment despite being 'On'. This indicates a reliability issue with safety-critical monitoring in the kitchen.

C05: `kitchen_temp_sensor` | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None at 06:58:00 and 07:03:07.

C17: `kitchen_temp_sensor` | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None at 19:14:00.

C05: Ambiguity regarding the final state of `kitchen_cook_surface` after 07:02:37.

The sensor recovers and provides valid readings in subsequent chunks (e.g., 07:05:00 in C05, 19:15:00 in C17), so it is not permanently stuck.

Isolated `None` values can be caused by network jitter or temporary power loss, not necessarily permanent malfunction.

Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 07:02:37 (C05) with no corresponding OFF event logged in the same chunk, while no one is logged in the kitchen.

Kitchen temperature sensor reports NULL values at 06:58 and 07:03 (C05), coinciding with the start of cooking activity.

Entrance lock auto-locked at 07:28:34 (C05) after manual unlock, confirming a departure event but leaving the kitchen unsupervised in logs.

Explicit 'Off' state for the kitchen cook surface after 07:02:37 to confirm it was deactivated.

Smoke or CO alarm status/logs to rule out combustion products.

Detailed motion sensor data in the kitchen to verify if anyone entered/exited during the cooking window.

Explanation for the repeated `None` values from the kitchen temperature sensor.

C05 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turning ON at 07:02:37, consistent with morning cooking.

C05: `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON at 07:02:37.

C05, C06, C07: No `OnOff.OnOff = off` event is recorded for the cook surface after 07:02:37.

C05: `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns 'None' at 07:03:07, shortly after cook surface activation.

C17: `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns 'None' at 19:14:00, again near cooking activity.

Verify the state of `kitchen_cook_surface` in chunks C06 and C07 to confirm if it was turned off after the 07:02 ON event.

Check for any smoke/CO alarm events or temperature spikes in the kitchen during the unlogged period (07:03 - 07:30).

Confirm if the `None` readings from the temperature sensor were isolated incidents or part of a broader connectivity issue affecting other sensors.

The investigator correctly identified the potential risk of unattended cooking due to the 'ON' state at 07:02 without a logged 'OFF' state in C05. However, concluding this is a safety risk based solely on missing logs is speculative.

The critical missing evidence is whether the device was actually turned off in the subsequent time window (C06/C07). Without confirming the 'OFF' state, we cannot distinguish between a logging omission and an actual hazard.

The 'sensor malfunction' hypothesis is weak because the sensor recovered immediately in C05 (07:05) and C17, suggesting transient network issues rather than permanent failure. This does not constitute a device-fault label under the provided protocol notes.

False-alarm risk is high because the conclusion relies on the absence of data ('missing OFF log') rather than positive evidence of danger (e.g., fire alarm, extreme heat).

Request adjacent chunks C06 and C07 to close the loop on the cook surface state.

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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: 两室一厅 (2BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- 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>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<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>, 客厅落地灯<onoff_light>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bedroom: 次卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 398,
    "master_bedroom": 516,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "bathroom": 48,
    "entrance": 233
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 640,
    "OnOff": 15,
    "StateValue": 8,
    "LockState": 5,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 5,
  "occupancy_events": 640,
  "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"
  }
}

##

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "all"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor",
      "temperature_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "bathroom",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "entrance_door_lock",
    "entrance_contact_sensor",
    "bathroom_water_leak_detector",
    "kitchen_temperature_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C17",
    "C22"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Absence of explicit alarm events despite high 'alarmish_count' metadata (likely telemetry noise or non-critical state changes)",
    "Normal temperature progression without thermal runaway",
    "Lock state flips requiring verification for unauthorized access vs. routine use",
    "Occupancy patterns indicating normal daily cycle (sleeping, waking, active hours)"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline early morning state (unoccupied, stable temps) to establish normalcy.",
    "C05: Morning transition with occupancy rising in master bedroom and entrance activity, checking for initial security breaches or leaks.",
    "C17: Evening peak activity with multiple rooms occupied, critical for assessing concurrent appliance usage (cooking) and general safety.",
    "C22: Late night winding down, veri