烟雾报警器低电量时发生事件

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

警告住户烟雾报警器可能失灵，建议更换电池/设备

The events represent a normal morning departure sequence and a supervised evening cooking session with no evidence of security threats or safety hazards.

Explanation: 1. Security Assessment (Door Lock): The log sequence in C04 shows a logical 'Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Door Close -> Auto Lock' transition within seconds (07:18:17 to 07:18:24). This is consistent with an authorized user exiting the home. There are no signs of forced entry, lock tampering, or failed locking mechanisms.

Explanation: 2. Safety Assessment (Cooking): The kitchen cook surface was active from 19:02 to 19:53. Crucially, the `living_room_occupancy` sensor remained 'occupied' throughout this entire period (C10/C11), indicating that a person was present in the immediate vicinity, making 'unattended cooking' highly unlikely. Furthermore, the cook surface was manually turned off, and temperatures dropped afterwards, ruling out fire risk or runaway heating.

Explanation: 3. Device Health: While the kitchen temperature sensor reported `None` twice (transient dropouts), these were isolated incidents that recovered immediately. Per Matter notes and supervisor guidance, transient data gaps without persistent failure or explicit fault codes do not constitute a device-health anomaly or safety threat.

Explanation: 4. Supervisor Context: Although the supervisor noted missing chunks C00/C01 regarding potential smoke detector battery alerts, the provided logs for the specific target devices (lock, contact, cook surface) show no anomalous behavior. The absence of smoke/fire alarms in the available logs combined with the safe operational state confirms no immediate threat.

C04: front_door_lock Manual Unlock followed by Auto Lock within 7 seconds indicates controlled exit.

C10/C11: living_room_occupancy = occupied continuously during the 19:02-19:53 cooking window.

C11: kitchen_cook_surface turned OFF at 19:53:00, preventing fire risk.

Routine maintenance check on kitchen temperature sensor if transient errors persist.

unauthorized access or lock tampering
cooking safety hazard (smoke/fire)
low battery alert on smoke detector

C00 contains the initial BatteryAlert on the smoke alarm, providing context for the alarmish events in C04.

C03 shows no prior lock state changes for the front door in the preceding hour, implying it was already locked from the previous night.

C04 shows a logical sequence: Manual Unlock -> Contact Open (door open) -> Contact Close (door shut) -> Auto Lock.

The time interval between unlock and re-lock is short (~7 seconds), consistent with a quick exit.

Occupancy sensors in the bedroom/living room transition to 'unoccupied' shortly after, supporting the narrative of departure.

We rely on the assumption that 'no log entry' implies 'locked state' rather than a sensor failure or communication gap, though this is standard for smart locks unless fault logs appear.

The evening kitchen activity is a normal cooking session supervised by an occupant present in the living room.

C10/C11 show `living_room_occupancy` as 'occupied' continuously during the cooking window (19:02 - 21:05).

The cook surface was turned on at 19:02:30 and off at 19:53:00, a duration of ~50 minutes, which is typical for meal preparation.

Kitchen temperatures rose during cooking but began dropping immediately after the cook surface was turned off, showing no runaway heat signature.

No smoke detector alarms or fire-related events were triggered in C10 or C11.

The kitchen temperature sensor reported `None` twice (19:03 and 19:54), creating brief blind spots, although values recovered quickly.

Potential unattended cooking risk due to temporary loss of kitchen telemetry and lack of direct kitchen occupancy confirmation, despite living room presence.

C10 shows `kitchen_temp_sensor` reading `None` at 19:03:00, just one minute after the cook surface was turned on.

C11 shows `kitchen_temp_sensor` reading `None` again at 19:54:00, shortly after the cook surface was turned off.

While the living room was occupied, there is no explicit `kitchen_occupancy` sensor data confirming someone was physically in the kitchen during the active heating phase.

The gap in temperature data prevents verification that the kitchen environment remained safe during the peak heating period.

The living room occupancy confirms human presence in the immediate vicinity, making true 'unattended' status unlikely.

The cook surface was manually turned off, indicating user control.

Temperatures dropped post-cooking, ruling out a fire hazard escalation.

The `None` readings are isolated transient glitches, not persistent failures.

Minor device health anomaly: Kitchen temperature sensor intermittent dropout.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None at 19:03:00.

C11: `kitchen_temp_sensor` | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None at 19:54:00.

Values return to normal ranges (24-26 C) in adjacent timestamps, suggesting a transient connectivity or sampling error rather than permanent failure.

Isolated incidents do not constitute a sustained malfunction or safety threat.

Does not impact the primary security assessment of the door lock.

C04: The tight coupling of Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Door Close -> Auto Lock confirms a controlled exit event, ruling out forced entry or lock tampering.

C10/C11: Continuous `living_room_occupancy = occupied` during the entire cooking window strongly negates the 'unattended' hypothesis, as supervision was likely present nearby.

C11: Cook surface turning OFF at 19:53:00 followed by declining temperatures definitively rules out fire risk or runaway heating.

Direct `kitchen_occupancy` logs would further confirm supervision, but are not strictly necessary given the strong living room occupancy signal.

Smoke detector status logs would provide definitive negative proof for fire, but the absence of alarms combined with cooling temps is sufficient for a low-risk conclusion.

Verify C00/C01 for explicit BatteryAlert or smoke detector fault events mentioned in Triage Output but missing from provided chunks.

Confirm if 'kitchen_temp_sensor' None values constitute a protocol-level fault event or just data gaps.

Check for any 'unauthorized access' indicators in C04 beyond the lock state (e.g., forced entry alarms).

The investigator correctly identifies the door lock sequence as normal and the cooking session as supervised by living room occupancy. However, the Triage Output explicitly mentions 'low battery alert on smoke detector' and references C00 for this context. The provided chunks start at C02, leaving the initial alarm context unverified. Without C00/C01, we cannot rule out that the 'None' readings or other anomalies were triggered by a genuine device fault or alarm condition that was misinterpreted. The current conclusion relies heavily on the absence of negative evidence (no fire) rather than positive confirmation of system health. Additionally, the 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is weak because it rests on transient None values which recovered; however, without checking the specific fault logs in C00/C01, we cannot be certain these weren't symptoms of a deeper issue. The investigation should verify the initial alarm context before finalizing the 'no threat' verdict.

Normal morning routine with authorized manual lock/unlock and auto-lock engagement.

C04 shows a clear sequence: Manual Lock Operation (Unlock) at 07:18:17, followed by Contact Sensor opening/closing, then Auto Lock Operation (Lock) at 07:18:24.

The 7-second interval between unlock and re-lock is consistent with a resident exiting the home, closing the door, and the smart lock's auto-lock feature engaging.

Temperature readings across all rooms are stable and within normal residential ranges (21-26 C), showing no signs of fire or equipment failure.

Occupancy sensors in bedrooms/living room show 'unoccupied' during the morning, consistent with residents leaving for work/school.

Does not account for the evening activity in C11 if that were part of the same threat assessment window, though the query focuses on 'just occurred' events which often implies the most recent significant state change or alert context.

Evening domestic activity with no safety hazards.

C11 shows living room occupancy ('occupied') from 19:41 onwards, indicating presence.

Kitchen cook surface was 'off' at 19:53. No subsequent 'on' events are logged in the provided chunk.

Dishwasher turned on at 20:04, a normal household appliance usage pattern.

Temperatures in the kitchen dropped from ~26C to ~22C, consistent with cooling after cooking or HVAC adjustment, not a fire event.

Relies on the assumption that 'cook_surface off' means no cooking happened before 19:53, but logs start at 19:41. However, no smoke/fire indicators are present.

Potential unauthorized access or lock tampering during the morning window.

In C04, the front door contact sensor went false (open) at 07:18:19 and true (closed) at 07:18:23. This 4-second open window coincides with the manual unlock.

If the door was opened *before* the manual unlock command (or if the contact sensor lagged significantly), it could imply an entry without authorization before the auto-lock engaged.

However, the log order is: Unlock Event -> Contact False -> Contact True -> Lock Event. This strictly supports authorized exit.

Weakness: The evidence actually contradicts intrusion here. The sequence is perfectly logical for an authorized user leaving.

The log sequence explicitly shows Manual Unlock BEFORE Contact Open. This rules out forced entry or tailgating where the door opens before the lock disengages. There is no evidence of tampering.

Unattended cooking or fire risk in the evening.

C11 shows kitchen temperature was high (~26C) at 19:45, potentially from recent cooking.

No smoke detector alarms are visible in the focused chunks (though Triage mentioned a BatteryAlert in C00, which is likely low battery, not smoke).

Weakness: No active heat source, no smoke alarm trigger, and temperatures are dropping.

Lack of corroborating evidence for fire (no smoke alarm, no rising temps). The 'BatteryAlert' mentioned in Triage notes is distinct from a smoke event. The cook surface is off.

C04 Sequence: [Manual Unlock] -> [Contact Open] -> [Contact Close] -> [Auto Lock]. This specific ordering confirms an authorized exit event, negating intrusion hypotheses.

C11 Status: Cook surface is OFF, Living Room is OCCUPIED, Temperatures are stable/dropping. This negates active fire/cooking hazards.

Logs for the period immediately preceding 07:18:17 to confirm the door was locked prior to the manual unlock (to rule out forced entry while unlocked).

Smoke detector status/logs for the evening period to definitively rule out smoke events that might have been suppressed or missed in the focused chunks.

Context on who triggered the manual unlock (user ID/biometric) if available, to distinguish between resident and potential intruder with valid credentials.

The time interval between unlock and re-lock is short (~7 seconds), consistent with a quick exit.

C10/C11 show `living_room_occupancy` as 'occupied' continuously during the cooking window (19:02 - 21:05).

No smoke detector alarms or fire-related events were triggered in C10 or C11.

C11 shows `kitchen_temp_sensor` reading `None` again at 19:54:00, shortly after the cook surface was turned off.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None at 19:03:00.

C11: `kitchen_temp_sensor` | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None at 19:54:00.

Verify pre-unlock state of front_door_lock in C03 to confirm it was locked before the manual unlock event (ruling out forced entry while unlocked).

Check for any smoke detector alarms or fire-related events in C03-C05 surrounding the evening kitchen activity to definitively rule out fire hazards.

Confirm if the 'kitchen_temp_sensor' reading of None at 19:54:00 is a transient glitch or indicates device failure, and check adjacent timestamps for recovery.

The investigator correctly identifies the morning sequence as a normal authorized exit based on the logical order of events in C04. However, they fail to verify the *pre-condition* (that the door was locked before being manually unlocked), which is critical to rule out 'forced entry while unlocked' scenarios. This requires checking C03.

Regarding the evening safety hazard (A2), the investigator dismisses the risk because the cook surface is off and temps are dropping. While likely correct, the absence of explicit 'no fire' evidence (like a clean smoke detector log) makes this a weak negative proof. The missing temperature reading at 19:54:00 is a minor anomaly but not sufficient for a fault conclusion without context. We need C05 to see if the temperature recovers and if any other safety devices triggered.

The investigation is currently safe from false alarms regarding intrusion due to the strong positive evidence in C04, but the safety assessment relies on omission of evidence (no smoke alarm seen) rather than presence of exculpatory evidence. Refining with adjacent chunks will solidify the 'No Threat' verdict.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": {
    "kitchen": 302,
    "living_room": 400,
    "bedroom": 357,
    "bathroom": 54,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 867,
    "Occupancy": 221,
    "OnOff": 19,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "BatteryAlert": 1,
    "SmokeState": 1,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 221,
  "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": "2026-05-31T00:53:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-01T01:45:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "kitchen": 25,
      "living_room": 26,
      "bedroom": 25,
      "bathroom": 4
    },

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "kitchen"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "kitchen_cook_surface"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C11"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "unauthorized access or lock tampering",
    "cooking safety hazard (smoke/fire)",
    "low battery alert on smoke detector"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the critical sequence of front door lock operations and contact sensor changes, which is the primary candidate for a security threat assessment.",
    "C11 contains kitchen activity and cook surface status, relevant for evaluating if the earlier smoke alarm was a false positive or real hazard, and checking for ongoing cooking risks.",
    "C00 contains the initial BatteryAlert on the smoke alarm, providing context for the alarmish events in C04."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The morning lock sequence represents a normal authorized exit. The user manually unlocked the door, exited (contact opened), and the auto-lock engaged immediately after closing (contact closed).",
      "evidence": [
        "C03 shows no prior lock state changes for the front door in


伪装开锁（被盗/复制凭证）

合法凭证开锁，但进入后的行为模式与住户不符 不开灯（住户通常到家后开灯） 进入后的移动路径和设备操作模式与住户日常习惯不一致 本场景的难点：单看门锁事件是合法的，需要结合行为模式判断

中等可信度警报，建议住户确认是否本人操作

No security or safety threat detected; events are consistent with normal resident activity.

Explanation: The morning lock event (07:21) shows a standard departure sequence: Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Auto Lock. The 2-second interval is physically plausible for a quick exit, and the subsequent auto-lock engagement confirms the door was secured. There is no evidence of forced entry, credential misuse, or lock malfunction.

Explanation: The evening cooking event (19:07-19:45) involved the cook surface being turned on, followed by a temperature rise in the kitchen. However, living room occupancy remained 'occupied' throughout this period, indicating the resident was present in the adjacent area. The cook surface was manually turned off, and the dishwasher started shortly after, suggesting a completed meal routine rather than an unattended hazard.

Explanation: The supervisor correctly identified that the investigator's anomaly hypotheses (A1 and A2) relied on heuristics (timing speed, absence of specific kitchen occupancy logs) rather than hard fault or attack evidence. The available telemetry supports normal behavior explanations over anomalous ones.

Explanation: No explicit alarms (fire, intrusion) were triggered, and device states recovered normally without persistent faults.

C04: LockOperation(Manual) at 07:21:17 followed by Contact=false at 07:21:19 and Auto-Lock at 07:21:23.

C12: Living Room Occupancy = occupied (raw=1) continuously from 18:17 through 20:06, covering the entire cooking period.

C12: Kitchen Cook Surface turned OFF at 19:45:00, immediately before Dishwasher ON at 19:46:00.

No immediate action required.
Continue routine monitoring.

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.

nighttime entry without occupancy confirmation

The morning event (07:21) represents a standard resident departure sequence. The resident manually unlocked the door, exited (contact sensor opened), and the auto-lock engaged immediately after closing. The 2-second gap between unlock and contact open is consistent with normal human movement speed through a doorway.

C04: LockOperation(Manual) at 07:21:17 followed by Contact=false at 07:21:19 and Auto-Lock at 07:21:23.

Bedroom occupancy remains 'occupied' until 07:26, suggesting the resident may have been in the bedroom or hallway during the exit, or the sensor has a delay, but no 'unoccupied' state was triggered for the whole house, implying someone remained inside.

No forced entry indicators (brute force attempts, wrong code errors) are present in C03 or C04.

The 'Manual' unlock source does not explicitly identify *who* unlocked it (keypad vs physical key vs app). If it was a keypad, we lack credential logs to verify if it was an authorized user.

The 2-second interval is tight; while plausible, it leaves little margin for error or hesitation, which could be suspicious if the resident is known to take longer.

The evening event (18:17) represents a standard resident arrival sequence. The resident unlocked the door manually, entered, and subsequent lights/AC turned on, confirming presence.

C11: LockOperation(Manual) at 18:17:00 followed by Contact=false at 18:17:02.

Immediate activation of Entrance Light (18:17:15), Living Room Occupancy (18:17:23), Living Room Light (18:17:29), and AC (18:17:38).

Living room temperature stabilizes, indicating sustained presence.

Similar to N1, the identity of the manual unlocker is unknown.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating during the morning departure. The rapid succession of Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Auto Lock suggests either a very quick exit or a mechanical issue where the door was opened without full human passage (e.g., propped open briefly) or the auto-lock triggered prematurely before the door was fully closed/latched securely, leaving a window of vulnerability.

C04: The 2-second gap between `LockState=unlocked` (07:21:17) and `Contact=false` (07:21:19) is extremely short. If the resident walked out, this is fast but possible. However, if the door was left ajar or the sensor misread, the auto-lock might engage on an unsecured door.

Lack of corroborating 'exit' behavior in other rooms (e.g., kitchen light off, bathroom empty) makes it hard to confirm a full household departure vs. a single person leaving.

Supervisor noted the need to verify if 'Manual' corresponds to a known credential. Without this, any manual unlock is a potential credential theft vector.

The auto-lock did engage, so the door was secured eventually.

Morning timing (07:21) is typical for work/school departures, reducing the likelihood of intrusion compared to late night.

Unattended cooking risk in the evening. The cook surface was turned on at 19:07 and off at 19:45, but the kitchen temperature spiked significantly (to 26.90 C) and then dropped, while the dishwasher started shortly after. If the occupant left the kitchen area (living room occupancy shows presence, but kitchen-specific occupancy is not explicitly logged as 'occupied' during the cooking phase in C12, only general living room/bedroom), there is a risk of unattended heat source.

C12: Kitchen Cook Surface ON at 19:07:30.

Kitchen Temperature rises from 24.16 C (19:05) to 26.90 C (19:35), a significant rise for a small room, indicating active heat generation.

Dishwasher starts at 19:46:05, suggesting the meal is finished.

Living room occupancy is 'occupied' throughout, but no specific 'kitchen_occupancy' log confirms the cook stayed in the kitchen. The gap between cooking end and dishwasher start is minimal, but the duration of cooking (38 mins) with rising temps warrants checking for supervision.

Living room occupancy is 'occupied', and the living room is often adjacent to the kitchen. It is highly probable the occupant was nearby.

The cook surface was turned off manually (implied by the clean transition to dishwasher), not via a safety timer.

No smoke alarm or fire hazard alerts were triggered.

C04: The precise 2-second delta between Manual Unlock and Contact Sensor Open at 07:21:17-19. This tests the 'quick exit' vs 'sensor lag/malfunction' hypothesis.

C11/C12: The correlation of Manual Unlock (18:17) with immediate multi-device activation (Lights/AC) vs the Morning event's lack of such immediate ambient changes, helping distinguish 'Entry' from 'Exit'.

C12: Kitchen temperature trajectory (24.16 -> 26.90 -> 25.19) during the cook surface active period, indicating heat load consistency with cooking activity.

Credential logs for the 'Manual' unlock operations in C04 and C11 to verify if they were performed by authorized users (keypad/app) or physical keys (which don't leave digital credentials).

Motion sensor data in the entrance/hallway to correlate with the door events and confirm human presence/velocity.

Historical baseline for the 'Auto-Lock' delay time to determine if the 2-second post-contact-open lock engagement is normal for this device configuration.

Confirmation of whether the 'Living Room Occupancy' sensor covers the kitchen area or if a separate kitchen motion sensor exists to verify supervision during cooking.

Verify if the kitchen temperature spike (26.90 C) was followed by a fire alarm or smoke detector event in subsequent logs.

Check for 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor data to confirm supervision during cooking, rather than relying on living_room occupancy as a proxy.

Investigate the transient `None` value in kitchen_temp_sensor at 19:08 and 19:46 to rule out sensor malfunction vs. actual heat source presence.

The investigator correctly identified potential anomalies but over-interpreted the morning lock event (A1) as a security threat without evidence of forced entry or credential misuse; this is likely a normal departure sequence given the auto-lock engagement.

The evening cooking hypothesis (A2) relies heavily on the absence of explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' logs and a single temperature spike. While the temperature rise is notable, it correlates with the cook surface being ON. Without a fire alarm or confirmed lack of supervision (kitchen occupancy), labeling this a 'fire risk' is speculative.

The investigation lacks the post-cooking context (Chunk C13) to see if the situation resolved safely (e.g., ventilation turned on, occupant left calmly) or escalated.

False alarm risk is high because the 'security threat' conclusion rests on timing heuristics rather than hard fault/attack evidence, and the 'safety threat' rests on missing telemetry gaps rather than active hazard indicators.

Routine morning departure: The occupant manually unlocked the front door to leave, and the smart lock automatically re-locked after a short delay. This is consistent with standard 'auto-lock' behavior triggered by door contact sensor changes or timer expiration.

C04 shows `front_door_lock` Event: LockOperation with OperationSource=Manual at 07:21:17, followed immediately by LockState=unlocked.

At 07:21:19, `front_door_contact` StateValue=false (door open).

At 07:21:22, `front_door_contact` StateValue=true (door closed).

At 07:21:23, `front_door_lock` Event: LockOperation with OperationSource=Auto occurs, and LockState=locked.

The sequence (Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Auto-Lock) is a coherent, logical physical event for someone leaving the house.

Bedroom occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout this period, suggesting the person may have been in the bedroom before leaving, or another occupant remained.

Does not explain why the lock was unlocked manually if no one entered; however, manual unlock is required to exit unless there's a separate exit mechanism not logged here.

Assumes the auto-lock trigger was the door closing, which is a common configuration.

Evening routine activity: The household was occupied in the living room and kitchen during dinner preparation/cooking hours. No security events occurred.

C12 shows continuous `living_room_occupancy` = occupied from 18:57 to 20:06.

Kitchen lights and cook surface were turned on/off normally between 19:07 and 19:45.

No lock operations or contact sensor anomalies are present in C12.

Temperature readings are stable and within normal ranges.

None significant regarding safety threats in this chunk.

Potential unauthorized entry or tailgating: The front door was unlocked manually but the contact sensor did not register an 'open' state change until 3 seconds later, or the auto-lock engaged without a clear 'closed' confirmation from the contact sensor prior to locking. If the door was opened by an intruder who bypassed the contact sensor or if the 'manual unlock' was forced, the subsequent auto-lock might indicate the door was closed behind them. However, the 3-second gap between unlock and contact 'false' is small but notable.

Contact Sensor False (Open) at 07:21:19 (2 seconds later).

Contact Sensor True (Closed) at 07:21:22 (3 seconds after open).

Auto Lock at 07:21:23 (1 second after close).

If the door was opened, the contact sensor should ideally flip to 'false' immediately upon unlocking or opening. A 2-second delay could imply the door was already ajar or the sensor lagged.

However, the tight coupling of events suggests a single actor.

The timeline is very tight (2s open, 3s close), typical of a human walking through a door. An intruder would likely take longer or cause more chaos.

No other signs of intrusion (no broken glass, no other doors opened, no alarms).

Sensor Desynchronization or Fault: The `front_door_contact` sensor reported 'true' (closed) at 07:21:22, but the lock auto-locked at 07:21:23. If the door was actually still slightly ajar or the sensor failed to detect the open state correctly, the auto-lock might have jammed or failed to fully engage, though the log says 'locked'. Conversely, if the contact sensor is faulty and reports 'true' when the door is open, it creates a false sense of security.

C04: Contact sensor goes False->True in 3 seconds.

Lock auto-locks 1 second after contact goes True.

If the contact sensor is unreliable, the system relies on it for auto-locking. A failure here is a safety risk.

However, no explicit fault codes are present.

This is speculative. The logs show a successful transition to 'locked'. Without evidence of the door being physically open while locked, this is just a potential vulnerability, not an active anomaly.

C04: The precise timestamp sequence of Front Door Lock Manual Unlock (07:21:17) -> Contact Open (07:21:19) -> Contact Closed (07:21:22) -> Lock Auto-Lock (07:21:23).

C12: Absence of any lock/contact activity during the evening period, contrasting with high occupancy.

Video footage or audio logs to confirm if a person was present at the door during the 07:21 window.

History of previous lock/unlock patterns to establish a baseline for 'normal' auto-lock timing.

Confirmation of whether the 'Manual' unlock source corresponds to a key fob, keypad, or physical key, which helps distinguish between owner and potential intruder (though both can use keys).

At 07:21:19, `front_door_contact` StateValue=false (door open).

At 07:21:22, `front_door_contact` StateValue=true (door closed).

At 07:21:23, `front_door_lock` Event: LockOperation with OperationSource=Auto occurs, and LockState=locked.

The sequence (Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Auto-Lock) is a coherent, logical physical event for someone leaving the house.

C12 shows continuous `living_room_occupancy` = occupied from 18:57 to 20:06.

Kitchen lights and cook surface were turned on/off normally between 19:07 and 19:45.

No lock operations or contact sensor anomalies are present in C12.

Temperature readings are stable and within normal ranges.

Contact Sensor False (Open) at 07:21:19 (2 seconds later).

Contact Sensor True (Closed) at 07:21:22 (3 seconds after open).

Auto Lock at 07:21:23 (1 second after close).

However, the tight coupling of events suggests a single actor.

C04: Contact sensor goes False->True in 3 seconds.

Lock auto-locks 1 second after contact goes True.

If the contact sensor is unreliable, the system relies on it for auto-locking. A failure here is a safety risk.

However, no explicit fault codes are present.

C04: LockOperation(Manual) at 07:21:17 followed by Contact=false at 07:21:19 and Auto-Lock at 07:21:23.

No forced entry indicators (brute force attempts, wrong code errors) are present in C03 or C04.

C11: LockOperation(Manual) at 18:17:00 followed by Contact=false at 18:17:02.

Living room temperature stabilizes, indicating sustained presence.

C12: Kitchen Cook Surface ON at 19:07:30.

Dishwasher starts at 19:46:05, suggesting the meal is finished.

Verify if the 'Manual' unlock source corresponds to a known user credential (keypad/fob) vs unknown/forced entry.

Check for any preceding or succeeding lock operation attempts that might indicate brute-force or malfunction.

Confirm if the 2-second delay between manual unlock and contact sensor open is consistent with historical baseline behavior for this household.

The investigator correctly identified the event sequence in C04 as a potential departure but flagged it as an anomaly due to timing gaps. However, the evidence provided (C04 and C12) is insufficient to rule out normal behavior definitively because: 1) The 'Manual' unlock source lacks context (was it the owner?); 2) The 2-second gap is ambiguous without historical baseline data; 3) No other security devices (cameras, alarms) were consulted to corroborate presence/absence.

The risk of false alarm is medium because the hypothesis relies on interpreting a standard auto-lock sequence as suspicious based solely on micro-timing differences, which could be sensor lag or configuration variance rather than intrusion.

To finalize, we need adjacent chunks (C03 pre-event, C05 post-event) to establish a behavioral baseline and check for any other anomalies around the time of the event. Without this, concluding 'no threat' or 'threat' is premature.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 506,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 55,
    "entrance": 16
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 371,
    "OnOff": 19,
    "StateValue": 6,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 371,
  "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": 28,
      "bedroom": 25,
      "kitchen": 21,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "entrance": 2
    },
    "top_devices": [

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact_sensor",
    "entrance_occupancy_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C12"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "unauthorized access attempt",
    "lock state anomaly",
    "nighttime entry without occupancy confirmation"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the 'front_door_lock' in top devices and covers the early morning period (07:05-08:27) where lock activity might occur upon waking or leaving; it also shows bedroom occupancy transitions.",
    "C12 covers the late evening/night period (18:57-20:06) which is a critical time for security threats (evening entry). It shows high alarmish counts and living room occupancy, providing context for whether any door activity was accompanied by human presence.",
    "Comparing these chunks allows distinguishing between routine behavior (owner entering/locking) and potential threats (lock manipulation without corresponding occupancy or with suspicious timing)."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The morning event (07:21) represents a standard resident departure sequence. The resident manually unlo


触发安全警报，临时禁用 Keypad 输入，通知住户

The event sequence represents a normal morning departure routine; the persistent 'occupied' state on the entrance sensor is likely due to device configuration (long timeout) or minor glitch, but does not indicate a security breach or safety threat.

Explanation: 1. Analyze the primary security event: In chunk C06, the front door lock was manually unlocked at 07:49:30, the contact sensor opened briefly, and then the lock auto-locked at 07:49:35. This rapid, coherent sequence (Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Lock) is characteristic of a resident exiting the home, not an intrusion or forced entry.

Explanation: 2. Evaluate the occupancy anomaly: The `entrance_occupancy` sensor transitioned to 'occupied' at 07:49:33 and remained so through the end of the provided logs (C07, up to 09:44). While this persistence (>2 hours) is unusual for a standard PIR motion sensor after a person has left, it does not contradict the fact that the physical perimeter (door/lock) was secured.

Explanation: 3. Assess threat hypotheses: The 'intrusion' hypothesis (A2) is weak because there is no evidence of lingering activity in other rooms, no repeated lock attempts, and the lock engaged automatically immediately after exit. The 'sensor fault' hypothesis (A1) is plausible as a device health issue (stuck high), but Matter notes specify that scaled temperature values alone are insufficient for fault conclusions, and a stuck occupancy sensor alone, without corresponding unauthorized access or failure of the lock, does not constitute a 'security threat' in the context of single-event-safety.

Explanation: 4. Contextualize with routine: Chunks C04-C05 show typical morning activity (waking up, cooking). The exit event aligns with this routine. Without evidence of the sensor failing to clear *after* a confirmed recovery period (which would require C08) or evidence of actual unauthorized presence, the most probable explanation is a benign device behavior/configuration quirk rather than a safety or security incident.

Explanation: 5. Conclusion: Since the lock functioned correctly to secure the home and no signs of forced entry or malicious intent exist, this is not classified as a security threat.

C06: Rapid manual unlock followed by immediate auto-lock (07:49:30-07:49:35) indicates controlled exit.

C06-C07: `entrance_occupancy` remains 'occupied' from 07:49:33 to 09:44:33 despite the door being locked and closed.

Absence of subsequent lock operations or contact changes suggests no further interaction with the perimeter.

Monitor the `entrance_occupancy` sensor in subsequent chunks (e.g., C08) to see if it eventually clears, confirming a long-timeout configuration vs. permanent fault.

No immediate security intervention required as the door was successfully locked.

co-occurrence of cooking activity and door access

potential false alarm or routine entry/exit

C05 contains the start of the morning routine (cooking on, occupancy changes) which provides context for the subsequent door activity.

Routine morning departure with a 'stuck' or long-timeout occupancy sensor at the entrance. The user unlocked the door, exited (or lingered briefly), and the auto-lock engaged immediately. The `entrance_occupancy` sensor remained in an 'occupied' state due to a hardware characteristic (e.g., long timeout, PIR sensitivity) or a minor glitch, while the actual security perimeter was secured by the lock.

C06: Lock operation sequence is coherent: Manual Unlock -> Door Contact Open -> Auto Lock -> Door Contact Closed. This indicates a successful exit event.

C04/C05: Context shows typical morning activity (master bedroom occupancy, kitchen cooking) consistent with a resident preparing to leave.

C06-C07: No further lock attempts or contact changes occurred after the initial exit, suggesting no repeated intrusion or mechanical failure of the lock itself.

The 'occupied' state on `entrance_occupancy` persists from 07:49 through 09:44 without clearing. While anomalous for a standard short-duration PIR, it does not contradict the lock being secure.

Does not explain *why* the entrance occupancy sensor did not clear after ~2 minutes if it were a standard motion sensor, implying either a specific device configuration or a fault that needs monitoring.

Assumes the user left immediately; if the user stayed inside near the door, the persistent occupancy would be normal, but the lock state change implies egress.

Sensor Fault / False Presence Detection. The `entrance_occupancy` sensor is malfunctioning (stuck high) or has an abnormally long timeout, creating a false impression that someone is still present at the entrance. This could mask a security issue (e.g., if the lock failed later) or simply represent a device health anomaly.

C06: `entrance_occupancy` transitions to 'occupied' at 07:49:33.

C06-C07: The state remains 'occupied' continuously through 09:44 (over 2 hours).

Contradiction: The `front_door_contact` closed at 07:49:34, and the lock locked. If this were a standard PIR motion sensor detecting a person leaving, it should have timed out within seconds/minutes. A 2-hour continuous 'occupied' state without any movement events (other than the initial trigger) suggests the sensor is stuck or misconfigured.

No other devices in the immediate vicinity (kitchen, living room) show corresponding occupancy spikes that would suggest a person lingering in the entryway area.

Cannot rule out that the sensor is a different type (e.g., mmWave radar with presence detection) which legitimately holds state longer, though less common for simple entrance sensors.

Does not indicate an active security breach, only a potential monitoring blind spot or device error.

Potential Tailgating or Lingering Intruder. An individual entered or was already inside, triggered the lock/unlock cycle (possibly forcing it or using a key), and then remained hidden near the entrance, causing the occupancy sensor to stay active. However, the lock auto-locked, potentially trapping them inside or securing the door behind them.

C06: The lock was manually unlocked, then immediately auto-locked. If an intruder forced the door open, they might have triggered the unlock, but the auto-lock suggests the door was closed quickly.

C06: `entrance_occupancy` stays 'occupied' for >2 hours. If this represents a person hiding in the entryway/foyer, it explains the persistent signal.

Lack of subsequent activity: No one moved to other rooms (living room, kitchen) during this period, which is suspicious if a person were truly 'inside' the home.

Highly speculative. The 'manual unlock' followed by 'auto lock' is a very fast sequence (5 seconds), typical of a resident exiting. An intruder forcing entry usually takes longer or doesn't trigger auto-lock so cleanly unless they closed the door deliberately.

No evidence of forced entry (contact sensor didn't show 'open' for a prolonged period before locking).

The master bedroom occupancy pattern suggests a resident was awake and moving around, making a random intruder less likely than a resident's routine.

The persistence of `entrance_occupancy = occupied` from 07:49 to 09:44 despite the door being closed and locked at 07:49:34.

The rapid sequence of Lock Operation (Unlock -> Lock) within 5 seconds in C06, indicating a controlled exit rather than a struggle or break-in.

The absence of any other occupancy or motion events in the rest of the house during the time the entrance sensor was 'stuck', isolating the anomaly to the entrance zone.

Configuration details of the `entrance_occupancy` sensor (timeout settings, sensor type).

Video footage or audio logs from the entrance camera/microphone to confirm if a person was actually present or if it was a false positive.

History of similar 'stuck' occupancy events for this specific sensor to establish a baseline for fault vs. behavior.

Verify if `entrance_occupancy` clears in C08 (post-09:44) to confirm if the 'stuck' state is a persistent fault or just a long timeout.

Check for any subsequent lock operations or contact sensor changes in C08 to rule out delayed intrusion attempts.

Confirm if the 'occupied' state on `entrance_occupancy` correlates with any other activity (e.g., lights, temp spikes) that might indicate a person was actually present but not detected by other sensors.

The investigator correctly identifies the core anomaly: the `entrance_occupancy` sensor remains 'occupied' for over 2 hours after a clear exit event (lock/unlock/contact cycle).

However, the investigation stops at 09:44. The current evidence shows a potential device fault (stuck sensor) but does not confirm if this is a transient glitch or a permanent failure requiring maintenance. Without checking C08 (the period immediately following the truncation), we cannot determine if the sensor eventually cleared or remained stuck indefinitely.

The 'intrusion' hypothesis is weak and speculative; the 'sensor fault' hypothesis is stronger but incomplete without observing the recovery or lack thereof.

No false alarm risk regarding temperature scaling or protocol misinterpretation is detected.

Refining the investigation to include C08 will allow us to definitively classify this as a device health issue vs. a potential security blind spot.

Routine morning departure with standard auto-lock behavior. The user manually unlocked the door to exit, and the smart lock's auto-lock feature engaged immediately after the door closed (detected by contact sensor), which is a common security configuration.

C06: Manual unlock event at 07:49:30 followed immediately by an auto-lock event at 07:49:35.

C06: Door contact sensor transitioned from false (open) to true (closed) between 07:49:32 and 07:49:34, confirming the door was physically shut before locking.

C06: Entrance occupancy remained 'occupied' during this brief window, consistent with a person passing through or standing near the door while it operated.

Context: Kitchen cooking activity ended earlier (07:12), suggesting the household routine had moved past the initial preparation phase.

The rapid sequence (5 seconds) leaves little margin for error if the auto-lock mechanism is faulty or if someone attempted to re-enter during that window without detection.

Potential forced entry or tailgating attempt where the intruder exited quickly, triggering the auto-lock, or a malfunctioning lock failed to secure the door properly despite the contact sensor indicating closure. Alternatively, a credential theft scenario where an unauthorized user gained access via manual override (if possible) or bypassed the lock.

C06: The gap between manual unlock (07:49:30) and auto-lock (07:49:35) is extremely short (5 seconds). If an intruder entered, they would have had to exit within this window to trigger the auto-lock on their way out, or the system locked them in/out incorrectly.

C06: Entrance occupancy shows 'occupied' at 07:49:33, but there is no corresponding 'unoccupied' event until much later (07:54:33). This creates a 5-minute ambiguity: did the person leave immediately? Or are they still inside/hidden?

C06: The contact sensor went True (closed) at 07:49:34, but the lock state only updated to Locked at 07:49:35. If the lock failed to engage mechanically despite the signal, the door could be closed but unlocked.

Lack of explicit 'exit' confirmation: While occupancy eventually clears, the immediate post-event period lacks clear evidence of the subject leaving the premises entirely versus just moving deeper into the house.

No alarm events or fault codes were generated by the lock.

The sequence is technically consistent with a normal user exiting and the auto-lock functioning as designed.

Occupancy sensors can have latency; the 'occupied' status might persist due to sensor delay rather than actual presence.

Lock actuator malfunction or delayed engagement. The lock received the command to lock but may not have physically secured the bolt, posing a security risk if the door was left unsecured despite the log showing 'locked'.

C06: The time delta between Contact Sensor=Closed (07:49:34) and LockState=Locked (07:49:35) is minimal, but mechanical failures often manifest as a discrepancy between logical state and physical reality.

If the auto-lock relies solely on the contact sensor, a failure in the lock motor could result in a 'soft lock' (log says locked, door is actually open/unlatched).

No repeated failures observed in the provided logs.

No explicit fault event reported by the device.

The precise timing of the manual unlock, contact sensor closure, and auto-lock in C06 (07:49:30-07:49:35).

The persistence of 'entrance_occupancy = occupied' from 07:49:33 through 07:54:33, creating a 5-minute window where the subject's location relative to the door is ambiguous.

The absence of any 'unlocked' state after 07:49:35, implying the door remained secured.

Physical verification of the lock's mechanical state (bolt position) at 07:49:35.

Video footage or audio from the entrance area to confirm if a person exited or if the door was opened/closed by another means.

Logs for other doors/windows to rule out alternative entry points being used simultaneously.

History of lock performance (e.g., previous failed locks or slow responses) to assess likelihood of A2.

C06: `entrance_occupancy` transitions to 'occupied' at 07:49:33.

C06-C07: The state remains 'occupied' continuously through 09:44 (over 2 hours).

Verify if the 'entrance_occupancy' sensor is a PIR/motion sensor or a contact-based occupancy indicator. The logs show it staying 'occupied' for long periods (e.g., 07:54-08:39) which is atypical for standard PIR sensors without motion, suggesting it might be a different type of sensor or has a very long timeout. This affects the interpretation of 'person still inside'.

Check C04 to see if there was any prior activity at the front door or if the user left earlier, establishing a baseline for the 'morning departure' hypothesis.

Confirm the definition of 'entrance_occupancy'. If it's a motion sensor, its persistence contradicts the idea that the person left immediately after the door closed, unless they are standing right in front of it. If it's a contact-based occupancy (rare), clarify logic.

The investigator correctly identifies the sequence as likely routine but raises valid concerns about the ambiguity of the occupant's location due to the persistent 'occupied' state on the entrance sensor.

However, the evidence is insufficient to rule out a security threat or confirm a malfunction because the 'entrance_occupancy' behavior is anomalous (staying occupied for ~45 minutes with no other motion events logged in that specific zone). Without understanding the sensor type or seeing adjacent context (C04) to establish normal patterns, we cannot distinguish between a sensor fault, a person hiding/staying near the door, or a normal user lingering.

The 'lock_malfunction' hypothesis is weak and speculative based on timing alone; no direct fault evidence exists. The primary uncertainty is human presence/location, not lock mechanics.

Need C04 to check pre-event context and potentially C07 to see if the occupancy clears later or if new events occur.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 404,
    "master_bedroom": 520,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "bathroom": 48,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 645,
    "OnOff": 15,
    "StateValue": 7,
    "LockState": 5,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 5,
  "occupancy_events": 645,
  "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
[

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact",
      "entrance_occupancy"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "kitchen",
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C05",
    "C06"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "rapid lock/unlock cycle at entrance",
    "co-occurrence of cooking activity and door access",
    "potential false alarm or routine entry/exit"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C05 contains the start of the morning routine (cooking on, occupancy changes) which provides context for the subsequent door activity.",
    "C06 captures the specific rapid sequence of lock operations (unlock then immediate auto-lock) and contact sensor state changes at the entrance, which is the primary candidate for a security threat assessment."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Routine morning departure with a 'stuck' or long-timeout occupancy sensor at the entrance. The user unlocked the door, exited (or lingered briefly), and the auto-lock engaged immediately. The `entrance_occupancy` sensor remained in an 'occupied' state due to a hardware characteristic (e.g., long timeout, PIR sensitiv


深夜窗户传感器从 Closed 变 Open
随后该房间运动传感器触发，但住户在卧室睡觉
运动信号沿非住户房间传播

触发入侵警报，通知住户，记录事件

Insufficient evidence to confirm a security threat; the event is consistent with an automated lock routine triggered by a contact sensor state change, but the pre-event door state is unknown.

Explanation: The core event at 22:10:24-25 involves the front door contact opening and the lock engaging automatically. This sequence is technically ambiguous without knowing if the door was previously locked or unlocked.

Explanation: Hypothesis A (Intrusion): If the door was locked before 22:10, the 'Open' signal without an 'Unlock' command suggests forced entry or tailgating, followed by an auto-lock. However, there is no corroborating evidence like motion sensors, broken glass alarms, or subsequent occupancy changes in secure areas that would strongly support this.

Explanation: Hypothesis B (Normal Automation): If the door was already open/unlocked (e.g., left ajar), the system detected the open state and executed an auto-lock policy. The presence of occupants inside (Living Room, Master Bedroom) throughout the night makes a successful intrusion less likely to go unnoticed or result in further activity, though not impossible.

Explanation: Hypothesis C (Sensor Glitch): The contact sensor may have falsely reported 'Open', triggering the auto-lock. This is a common behavior for smart locks with 'auto-relock' features.

Explanation: The Supervisor correctly identified that Chunk C18 (pre-22:10 state) is missing. Without confirming the lock was 'Locked' immediately prior to the contact 'Open' event, we cannot distinguish between a breach and a routine automation or glitch.

Explanation: Given the high risk of false alarm from assuming intrusion without pre-state confirmation, and the lack of positive evidence for intrusion (no motion, no other breaches), we must default to 'none' with low confidence due to data insufficiency.

front_door_contact StateValue=true at 22:10:24

front_door_lock LockOperation(OperationSource=Auto) at 22:10:25

No authentication logs (UserUnlock/Keypad) preceding the event

Missing pre-event state of front_door_lock (Locked/Unlocked) in C18/C20

Review Chunk C18 to determine the state of the front door lock and contact sensor prior to 22:10.

Check for any manual unlock events or app interactions in the 30 minutes prior to 22:10.

Verify if the front door was physically open or closed at 22:10 via camera footage if available.

判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁

判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁

Routine Auto-Lock Triggered by Contact Sensor Glitch or Delayed State Sync

At 22:10:24, `front_door_contact` reports `StateValue = true` (Open).

Immediately at 22:10:25, `front_door_lock` executes a Lock Operation with `OperationSource=Auto` and sets state to `locked`.

The 'Auto' source indicates a system policy (e.g., auto-lock when door is open for X seconds) rather than manual user input.

No authentication logs (keypad, app, biometric) are present in the immediate vicinity, which is consistent with an automated routine.

Occupancy sensors (`entrance_occupancy`, `living_room_occupancy`) remain consistently `occupied` (raw=1) throughout the event window, suggesting no sudden departure that would trigger a standard 'lock on exit' logic, but potentially triggering a 'lock if open' safety check.

Does not explain why the contact sensor reported 'Open' at 22:10:24 if the door was presumably closed/locked previously. If the door was already locked, the contact should be 'Closed'. This implies either the door was unlocked/open before this timestamp (missing C20 data) or the sensor glitched.

If the door was genuinely open/unlocked prior to 22:10, the period between the last known secure state and 22:10:24 represents a vulnerability window.

Authorized User Exit with Delayed Locking

The sequence shows a transition from general activity to specific device actions (lights off, AC off) around 22:10, typical of a 'leaving home' routine.

The lock operation is successful and immediate after the contact signal.

Subsequent occupancy logs show continued presence inside the house (Living Room, Master Bedroom), implying the person who left was perhaps a guest or family member, or the 'exit' was partial.

Temperature readings remain stable and normal, indicating no environmental hazard occurred during the event.

Lacks explicit evidence of *who* left or *how* they left (manual unlock vs. auto-unlock).

If it was an authorized exit, we expect to see an 'Unlocked' state or authentication event preceding the 'Open' contact state, which is missing from the provided chunks.

Unauthorized Entry/Tailgating Followed by Auto-Lock

At 22:10:24, the front door contact opens. Without pre-event context (C20), we cannot confirm if this was a normal opening/closing cycle.

If the door was previously locked (likely given the time and subsequent auto-lock), an 'Open' signal without a corresponding 'Unlock' command or authentication log suggests the door was forced open or opened by someone with physical access but no digital credential logged.

The immediate 'Auto' lock at 22:10:25 could indicate the intruder left quickly, or the system detected the breach and secured itself.

The lack of any 'User Unlock' or 'Keypad Entry' events makes unauthorized physical entry plausible.

Occupancy in other rooms remains high, so an intruder might still be inside, though no new entrance points were triggered.

Relies heavily on the assumption that the door was locked before 22:10:24. If it was already unlocked (e.g., for a delivery or resident leaving earlier), this is not an intrusion.

No motion sensors or cameras are available to corroborate movement near the door.

The 'Auto' lock source is ambiguous; it could also mean the system re-locked after a legitimate open-close cycle.

Sensor Malfunction (Contact Sensor False Positive)

The contact sensor flips to 'True' (Open) at 22:10:24, immediately followed by a lock command.

If the door was physically closed and locked, this is a false positive.

False positives can trigger unnecessary security alerts or mask real issues if the system assumes the lock action resolved the problem.

No other devices report anomalies (temperatures stable, other locks untouched).

Single isolated event. No repeated glitches observed in the short window.

Cannot distinguish from a real event without knowing the pre-state.

Missing Pre-Event State: The absence of C20 data prevents confirming if `front_door_lock` was `locked` or `unlocked` before 22:10:24. This is the single most critical missing piece to distinguish between 'Auto-Lock after Open' (Normal) and 'Breach then Lock' (Anomaly).

Absence of Authentication Logs: No `UserUnlock`, `Keypad`, or `AppUnlock` events precede the `Contact=True` event. This supports both the 'Auto-Lock' hypothesis (if door was open) and the 'Intrusion' hypothesis (if door was locked).

Lock Operation Source: `OperationSource=Auto` confirms the lock was not manually engaged by a user at that moment, pointing to a system rule or automation.

Pre-22:10:24 state of `front_door_lock` (Locked/Unlocked).

Pre-22:10:24 state of `front_door_contact` (Closed/Open).

Authentication logs for the front door in the 10 minutes prior to 22:10.

Motion sensor data near the front door at 22:10:24 to correlate with the contact change.

At 22:10:24, `front_door_contact` reports `StateValue = true` (Open).

Immediately at 22:10:25, `front_door_lock` executes a Lock Operation with `OperationSource=Auto` and sets state to `locked`.

The 'Auto' source indicates a system policy (e.g., auto-lock when door is open for X seconds) rather than manual user input.

No authentication logs (keypad, app, biometric) are present in the immediate vicinity, which is consistent with an automated routine.

The lock operation is successful and immediate after the contact signal.

Temperature readings remain stable and normal, indicating no environmental hazard occurred during the event.

The immediate 'Auto' lock at 22:10:25 could indicate the intruder left quickly, or the system detected the breach and secured itself.

The lack of any 'User Unlock' or 'Keypad Entry' events makes unauthorized physical entry plausible.

Occupancy in other rooms remains high, so an intruder might still be inside, though no new entrance points were triggered.

The contact sensor flips to 'True' (Open) at 22:10:24, immediately followed by a lock command.

If the door was physically closed and locked, this is a false positive.

No other devices report anomalies (temperatures stable, other locks untouched).

Pre-event state of front_door_lock (Locked/Unlocked) immediately before 22:10:24.

Authentication logs (UserUnlock, Keypad, App) for the front door in the 10-30 minutes prior to 22:10.

Motion sensor data near the front door at 22:10:24 to correlate with contact change.

The investigator correctly identified the critical ambiguity: whether the door was already open/unlocked or breached. However, they failed to retrieve C18, which covers the period leading up to C20 and likely contains the last known secure state or any preceding unlock events.

Without C18, the 'Intrusion' hypothesis relies on an assumption that the door was locked, while the 'Auto-Lock' hypothesis relies on an assumption that it was open. Both are speculative without the pre-state.

The current evidence is insufficient to distinguish between a system automation (normal) and a security breach (threat). The risk of false alarm is high because concluding 'intrusion' from missing context is dangerous, but concluding 'normal' from missing context might miss a real breach.

Request C18 to establish the baseline state of the lock and contact sensor before the event window in C21.

The event represents a normal, automated security cycle where the front door was unlocked (likely by an authorized resident or smart lock routine) and then immediately re-locked. The subsequent occupancy signals in the entrance and living room confirm that the home remained occupied and secure, with no evidence of unauthorized entry or prolonged vulnerability.

At 22:10:25, the front_door_lock executed a LockOperation with OperationSource=Auto, resulting in a LockState of 'locked'. This indicates the system successfully secured the door.

Immediately following the lock operation (22:10:32 onwards), the entrance_occupancy sensor consistently reports 'occupied' (raw=1). This suggests that if anyone was at the door, they are now inside or the sensors are detecting presence within the threshold, but crucially, the door is locked.

No 'unlocked' state is recorded for the front_door_lock after 22:10:25. The door remains in a secure state for the remainder of the log window (until 23:00+).

Temperature readings across all rooms remain stable and within normal residential ranges (22.4°C - 22.7°C), indicating no environmental hazards like fire or HVAC failure.

The initial unlock event (implied by the contact state change to true at 22:10:24 before the auto-lock) is not explicitly logged as an 'unlock' command in the provided snippet, only the contact state change and the subsequent auto-lock. We assume the unlock was legitimate based on the successful auto-lock recovery.

We cannot definitively rule out that an intruder entered during the brief window between the contact opening and the auto-lock engaging, although the immediate re-lock mitigates this risk significantly.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating event. The front door contact opened at 22:10:24, triggering an automatic lock attempt. While the lock engaged, the simultaneous activation of entrance and living room occupancy sensors could indicate that an individual entered the home during the brief interval before the lock fully secured, or that the 'auto' lock was triggered by someone leaving/entering without proper authentication verification. The lack of explicit 'unlock' logs makes it unclear if the door was opened via code, key, or forced entry.

At 22:10:24, front_door_contact StateValue changed to true (open), which is a prerequisite for entry.

At 22:10:25, a LockOperation occurred with Source=Auto. In many smart locks, 'Auto' locking can be triggered by the door closing/opening cycles or timers, but it doesn't verify *who* opened it.

At 22:11:02 and 22:11:03, both living_room_occupancy and entrance_occupancy transitioned to 'occupied'. If the house was previously unoccupied in these zones (or if the occupants were elsewhere), this sudden detection coincides with the door event.

The query specifically targets 'front_door_lock' and 'front_door_contact', suggesting suspicion around the perimeter security breach potential.

The lock state is confirmed as 'locked' (raw=1) at 22:10:25, meaning the physical barrier was restored almost instantly. There is no evidence of the door remaining open.

Occupancy sensors have latency and may detect movement from inside the house (e.g., people moving from bedroom to living room) rather than new entries from outside. The master_bedroom_occupancy also went occupied at 22:10:19, suggesting internal activity was already underway.

There is no explicit 'unlocked' state logged, so we don't know if the door was actually opened physically or if the contact sensor glitched/was triggered by vibration/weather, though the auto-lock suggests a valid close event.

The sequence at 22:10:24-22:10:25: Contact opens -> Auto Lock engages -> Lock State = Locked. This rapid recovery strongly favors a normal automated security response over a sustained intrusion.

The consistency of 'entrance_occupancy = occupied' from 22:11:03 through 23:00+ indicates the area was monitored and active, reducing the likelihood of a silent, undetected break-in that left the premises vulnerable.

Absence of any 'unlocked' raw value or failed lock attempts in the logs.

Logs showing the state of the front_door_lock *before* 22:10:24 to confirm if it was already locked or if it was in an unlocked state.

Explicit 'Unlock' events or authentication logs (e.g., 'User X unlocked door') to distinguish between authorized access and potential forced/unauthorized entry.

Camera footage or motion sensor data specifically at the threshold of the front door to correlate with the contact sensor opening.

At 22:10:24, `front_door_contact` reports `StateValue = true` (Open).

Immediately at 22:10:25, `front_door_lock` executes a Lock Operation with `OperationSource=Auto` and sets state to `locked`.

The 'Auto' source indicates a system policy (e.g., auto-lock when door is open for X seconds) rather than manual user input.

No authentication logs (keypad, app, biometric) are present in the immediate vicinity, which is consistent with an automated routine.

The lock operation is successful and immediate after the contact signal.

Temperature readings remain stable and normal, indicating no environmental hazard occurred during the event.

The immediate 'Auto' lock at 22:10:25 could indicate the intruder left quickly, or the system detected the breach and secured itself.

The lack of any 'User Unlock' or 'Keypad Entry' events makes unauthorized physical entry plausible.

Occupancy in other rooms remains high, so an intruder might still be inside, though no new entrance points were triggered.

The contact sensor flips to 'True' (Open) at 22:10:24, immediately followed by a lock command.

If the door was physically closed and locked, this is a false positive.

No other devices report anomalies (temperatures stable, other locks untouched).

At 22:10:24, `front_door_contact` reports `StateValue = true` (Open).

Immediately at 22:10:25, `front_door_lock` executes a Lock Operation with `OperationSource=Auto` and sets state to `locked`.

The 'Auto' source indicates a system policy (e.g., auto-lock when door is open for X seconds) rather than manual user input.

No authentication logs (keypad, app, biometric) are present in the immediate vicinity, which is consistent with an automated routine.

The lock operation is successful and immediate after the contact signal.

Temperature readings remain stable and normal, indicating no environmental hazard occurred during the event.

The immediate 'Auto' lock at 22:10:25 could indicate the intruder left quickly, or the system detected the breach and secured itself.

The lack of any 'User Unlock' or 'Keypad Entry' events makes unauthorized physical entry plausible.

Occupancy in other rooms remains high, so an intruder might still be inside, though no new entrance points were triggered.

The contact sensor flips to 'True' (Open) at 22:10:24, immediately followed by a lock command.

If the door was physically closed and locked, this is a false positive.

False positives can trigger unnecessary security alerts or mask real issues if the system assumes the lock action resolved the problem.

No other devices report anomalies (temperatures stable, other locks untouched).

Pre-event state of front_door_lock (was it already locked before 22:10:24?)

Authentication logs for the door (to distinguish authorized auto-lock from forced entry)

Correlation between contact sensor open and actual door physical position if available

The investigator correctly identifies the core event sequence in C21/C22 but relies on an assumption that the door was 'unlocked' prior to the contact opening. The logs show Contact=True then LockOperation=Auto/Locked, but do not explicitly log the preceding 'Unlocked' state or authentication.

Without C20 (pre-22:10), we cannot confirm if the lock was already in a 'locked' state (making the contact trigger potentially spurious or a glitch) or if it was unlocked by an authorized user.

The 'auto' lock source suggests a routine, but without knowing the pre-state, we cannot rule out a brief vulnerability window or a sensor glitch triggering a re-lock.

Evidence is insufficient to definitively classify as 'safe' or 'threat' without the pre-context chunk.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 400,
    "master_bedroom": 520,
    "second_bedroom": 337,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "bathroom": 48,
    "entrance": 231
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 647,
    "OnOff": 15,
    "StateValue": 8,
    "LockState": 5,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 5,
  "occupancy_events": 647,
  "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
[

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断刚刚发生的事件是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "master_bedroom",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "master_bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C21",
    "C22"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "door_unlock_during_night",
    "lock_operation_auto",
    "occupancy_correlation"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C21 contains the specific event sequence of the front door lock operation and contact state change at 22:10, which is the primary candidate for a security threat assessment.",
    "C22 provides immediate context to verify if the door remained open or if occupancy patterns suggest normal vs. abnormal activity following the event."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Routine Auto-Lock Triggered by Contact Sensor Glitch or Delayed State Sync",
      "evidence": [
        "At 22:10:24, `front_door_contact` reports `StateValue = true` (Open).",
        "Immediately at 22:10:25, `front_door_lock` executes a Lock Operation with `OperationSource=Auto` and sets state to `locked`.",
        "The 'Auto' source indicates a system policy (e.g., auto-lock when door is open for X seconds) rather than manual user inp