活动从卧室开始（住户起床），路径合理（卧室→客厅→厨房→卧室），最终回到卧室

Cook surface was activated in the kitchen for approximately 36 minutes while occupancy sensors detected no presence in the kitchen and only living room activity, indicating potential unattended cooking.

Explanation: The investigator identified a high-risk sequence: Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 18:58 and remained ON until 19:34 (36 minutes).

Explanation: During this entire window, the `kitchen_occupancy` sensor never reported 'occupied'. The only continuous occupancy was in the `living_room`, suggesting the user was not directly supervising the cooking process.

Explanation: The `kitchen_temp_sensor` reported 'None' twice during this period (18:59 and 19:35), bracketing the active cooking time. While this could be transient noise, it coincides with rising temperatures (up to 27.18C) and removes a critical safety monitoring layer during the hazard window.

Explanation: No smoke or CO alarms were triggered, which rules out an immediate fire emergency but does not rule out the risk of unattended cooking leading to a future incident.

Explanation: The supervisor noted that evidence is weak due to reliance on absence of data and requested more chunks (C05-C07). However, the specific event in C10 represents a concrete deviation from normal supervised cooking behavior (presence in kitchen) combined with a loss of telemetry (temp sensor dropout).

Explanation: Per guidelines for composite-safety, if logs show a concrete hazardous sequence (cooking without supervision) with vulnerable context (sensor dropout), an anomaly can be concluded even if full-home context is incomplete. The 'normal routine' hypothesis (user in open plan) is weakened by the complete lack of any kitchen-side device interaction (lights, appliances other than cooktop) or motion detection during the 36-minute window.

Explanation: Therefore, the most plausible explanation for the specific event cluster is unattended cooking, warranting a medium-confidence anomaly flag.

C10: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff=ON from 18:58 to 19:34.

C10: Zero kitchen_occupancy events recorded between 18:58 and 19:34.

C10: kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None' at 18:59 and 19:35, coinciding with the cooking window.

C10: Continuous living_room_occupancy=1 throughout the evening, contrasting with empty kitchen.

Verify if the user has a history of leaving the kitchen while cooking.

Check the kitchen temperature sensor for hardware issues causing intermittent 'None' readings.

Ensure smoke/CO detectors are functional and properly placed near the kitchen.

Consider enabling auto-shutoff features on the cook surface if available.

kitchen living_room bedroom bathroom entrance

Lock state flips (4 total) need context: are they part of a normal entry/exit routine or unauthorized access attempts?

Occupancy patterns show living room occupied in evening while other rooms are unoccupied; check for consistency with expected behavior.

Temperature trends are stable; no immediate thermal hazard detected, but high alarm counts warrant investigation into non-thermal triggers.

C10-C13 cover the evening period (18:10-23:50) where 'alarmish_count' peaks (23-28 events), indicating the most significant activity or potential incidents.

These chunks contain the majority of occupancy transitions and lock interactions observed in the dataset, crucial for assessing security and routine compliance.

Kitchen temperature spikes in C10 (up to 26.36 C) coincide with high alarm counts, necessitating inspection for cooking-related alarms or sensor anomalies.

C13 shows late-night bedroom occupancy and light usage, relevant for end-of-day security status and final lock checks.

Normal evening routine with transient sensor dropout. The user entered the home, cooked dinner in the kitchen while occupying the living room (common open-plan layout behavior), and then settled into the bedroom for the night. The kitchen temperature spike was due to cooking heat, and the 'None' readings were brief network or processing glitches that resolved immediately.

C09: User enters via front door at 18:02, locks it manually, turns on lights/AC. Normal entry sequence.

C10: Kitchen temp rises from ~24C to ~27C between 18:10-18:30, coinciding with cook surface activation at 18:58. This is consistent with cooking activity.

C10: Cook surface turns off at 19:34. Kitchen temp begins to drop immediately after.

C10/C11: Living room occupancy remains high throughout the evening, suggesting someone is present in the house.

C12: Front door auto-locks at 22:10 when bedroom occupancy is detected, indicating a standard security routine.

C10: Kitchen temp sensor returns to normal values (25.44C) just one minute after the 'None' reading at 18:59, showing no persistent failure.

Does not fully explain why the occupant remained in the living room for nearly an hour while cooking in the kitchen without checking back, which is a minor behavioral deviation but not necessarily unsafe.

Relies on the assumption that the 'None' reading was benign noise rather than a sign of sensor saturation or failure during peak heat.

Unattended Cooking Risk / Potential Fire Hazard. The cook surface was activated in the kitchen while the only occupied zone detected was the living room. The kitchen temperature sensor failed ('None') twice during this period, potentially masking extreme heat levels. The cook surface remained active for ~36 minutes with no evidence of the user entering the kitchen to monitor it.

C10: At 18:58, kitchen_light and kitchen_cook_surface turn ON. Simultaneously, kitchen_temp_sensor reads 'None'.

C10: Occupancy sensors show 'occupied' ONLY in the living_room (and briefly bathroom/entrance transitions). Bedroom is unoccupied. No occupancy event is recorded in the kitchen itself.

C10: Kitchen temperature spikes significantly prior to the dropout (26.36C at 18:20, 27.18C at 18:30), suggesting ambient heat buildup even before the stove was explicitly turned on (possibly pre-heating or residual heat).

C10: The cook surface stays ON until 19:34. During this entire 36-minute window, the living room occupancy is continuous, but there is NO transition of occupancy INTO the kitchen.

C10: The kitchen_temp_sensor reads 'None' again at 19:35, right after the cook surface turns off, suggesting the sensor may have been overwhelmed by heat or disconnected.

C10: No smoke alarm or CO alarm events are logged, which could indicate either no fire occurred OR the safety devices are not reporting/failing.

The absence of explicit smoke/fire alarms means we cannot confirm a hazardous escalation; it might have been a safe cooking session where the user simply didn't trigger motion sensors in the kitchen.

The 'None' readings are isolated points; without more data, they could be transient errors.

Living room occupancy suggests someone is home, so it's not a case of total abandonment, just potential lack of direct supervision of the hazard source.

Kitchen Temperature Sensor Malfunction. The sensor exhibits repeated 'None' values during high-heat events (cooking), suggesting it may be out of range or failing under thermal stress, compromising its ability to detect fire risks.

C10: kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None' at 18:59:00, immediately after cook surface activation and during a period of rising temperatures.

C10: kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None' again at 19:35:00, shortly after the cook surface is turned off.

C10: Between these two 'None' events, the reported temperatures (25.44C down to 22.86C) show a rapid decline that might be inconsistent with the thermal mass of a kitchen if the stove was just used, or conversely, the 'None' gaps hide critical data.

C10: The sensor recovers quickly, but the recurrence during specific high-load events points to a device-specific issue rather than general network failure.

Only two data points show 'None'. A single glitch is common in IoT devices.

The sensor recovers and provides stable readings in C11-C14, showing no permanent fault.

C10: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff=ON (18:58) AND kitchen_temp_sensor=NONE (18:59) WITH NO kitchen_occupancy_event.

C10: Continuous living_room_occupancy=1 from 18:02 to 23:55, contrasting with zero kitchen occupancy detections during the cooking window.

C10: kitchen_temp_sensor double 'None' occurrence bracketing the active cooking period.

Direct occupancy data for the kitchen (is there a motion sensor in the kitchen that is offline or missing?).

Smoke/CO alarm status logs during the 18:58-19:34 window to rule out fire/smoke generation.

Historical frequency of 'None' readings for the kitchen sensor to determine if this is a chronic hardware defect.

Confirmation of whether the user actually entered the kitchen (e.g., via smart lock usage inside, or other device interactions like a microwave or fridge).

Verify if 'kitchen_temp_sensor' reports are actually missing or just not logged in the provided chunks (C08-C14 only show evening data; need to check if sensor was active/online earlier).

Check for explicit smoke/CO alarm events in C10-C13 to rule out fire/smoke generation during the cooking window.

Investigate the 'None' readings: determine if they represent a device fault (out of range) or a communication dropout, and if this correlates with other network issues.

Confirm if the cook surface has an auto-shutoff feature that might have triggered, explaining the OFF state without user intervention.

Cross-reference living room occupancy with any kitchen-specific interactions (e.g., microwave, fridge, dishwasher) to confirm user presence in/near the kitchen.

The investigator correctly identified the potential unattended cooking risk based on the lack of kitchen occupancy logs during cook surface activation. However, the evidence is weak because it relies heavily on the *absence* of data (no kitchen occupancy log) rather than positive confirmation of danger.

The 'None' temperature readings are flagged as potential malfunction, but with only two points and immediate recovery, this is likely transient noise or a brief timeout, not a definitive hardware fault requiring immediate replacement. The risk of false alarm is high here because the 'malfunction' story doesn't explain the safety risk directly.

Crucially, the investigation focuses on C10-C13 (evening), but the query asks for a comprehensive status. The provided chunks start at C08 (14:35). We are missing the morning/afternoon context (C00-C07) which might reveal if the sensor was already faulty or if the 'None' readings are part of a pattern. Without knowing the baseline health of the sensor, concluding 'sensor malfunction' is premature.

Most importantly, there is no evidence of actual harm (smoke, fire, CO). The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis is speculative. The user could have been in the kitchen (if the motion sensor is blind to their position) or left briefly. The lack of kitchen occupancy logs is ambiguous given the open-plan layout mentioned in N1.

To reduce false alarm risk, we need to verify if the sensor was functioning normally before C10 and if any alarms were triggered. If no alarms were triggered and the sensor recovered, the 'safety risk' is low, and the 'device health' issue is minor.

Requesting C05-C07 to establish pre-event sensor behavior and check for any prior anomalies or maintenance logs.

Normal evening routine with cooking and dishwasher usage. The kitchen temperature spike (25.12°C to 27.18°C) is consistent with cooking activity, followed by a cooldown period after the cook surface was turned off at 19:34. The living room occupancy remains high throughout the evening, indicating someone is present in the home, likely supervising or relaxing nearby.

Kitchen cook surface turned on at 18:58 and off at 19:34, correlating with the temperature rise and subsequent fall.

Living room occupancy is consistently 'occupied' (raw=1) from 18:12 through 23:50, suggesting continuous human presence in the house.

Bedroom occupancy transitions are normal for evening wind-down (unoccupied during active hours, occupied late night).

Front door locked automatically at 22:10 via 'Auto' operation source, consistent with a standard security routine when occupants settle for the night.

Dishwasher started at 20:08, a typical post-dinner chore.

Does not fully explain why the kitchen sensor reported 'None' at 18:59 and 19:35, though this could be due to heat interference or temporary network congestion during peak appliance usage.

Assumes the person in the living room is actively monitoring the kitchen, which is an inference rather than direct evidence.

System health is stable. The brief telemetry gaps ('None') in the kitchen sensor are isolated incidents that resolved immediately, showing no persistent malfunction. Lock states are secure, and all other sensors report consistent values within expected ranges.

Kitchen temp sensor recovered quickly after the 'None' readings (e.g., back to 25.44°C at 19:00).

No explicit fault or alarm events logged for any device.

Lock state flips (4 total) are accounted for by the auto-lock event and potentially minor contact sensor noise or previous entries not fully detailed in the focused chunks but implied by the count.

Temperature values across all rooms remain within comfortable residential ranges (21-27°C).

Relies on the assumption that the 'None' readings were benign and not indicative of a sensor nearing failure under stress.

Potential Unattended Cooking Risk. The cook surface was activated at 18:58, causing a significant temperature rise in the kitchen (up to 27.18°C). However, the kitchen temperature sensor went offline ('None') at 18:59, just one minute after activation. While the sensor recovered later, this gap coincides with the initial heating phase. If the occupant left the immediate vicinity (though still in the living room) or became distracted, the lack of real-time thermal feedback from the kitchen sensor during the critical startup phase represents a safety blind spot. The risk is mitigated by the eventual shutdown at 19:34 and the presence of a person in the adjacent living room, but the sensor dropout prevents confirmation of whether the temperature spiked dangerously high before recovery.

Kitchen temp sensor reported 'None' at 18:59, creating a 1-minute blind spot during the start of heating.

Kitchen temperature rose significantly from 25.12°C to 27.18°C between 18:10 and 18:25, indicating heat generation.

No smoke alarm or fire hazard alerts were triggered, but the absence of data during the critical first minute makes it impossible to rule out a near-miss scenario where heat built up rapidly before the sensor recovered or the user intervened.

The user remained in the living room (occupied), not necessarily in the kitchen, reducing direct supervision.

The sensor did recover, and the cook surface was eventually turned off, so no actual fire occurred.

The 'None' reading could be a transient glitch unrelated to safety (e.g., Wi-Fi interference from the oven/microwave if present, though only cook surface is listed).

The temperature never reached extreme levels (>30°C) in the recorded data points, suggesting controlled cooking.

Sensor Malfunction/Interference in Kitchen. The kitchen temperature sensor experienced two 'None' readings (18:59 and 19:35) and showed erratic behavior relative to other sensors. Specifically, at 18:59, it dropped out right as the cook surface was turned on. At 19:35, it dropped out again shortly after the window contact closed and the cook surface was turned off. This pattern suggests the sensor may be susceptible to environmental interference (heat, steam, or RF noise from appliances) or has a hardware defect causing intermittent connectivity loss during high-load periods.

Two distinct 'None' readings for kitchen_temp_sensor at 18:59 and 19:35.

Both dropouts occur during or immediately after significant kitchen appliance activity (cook surface on/off).

Other sensors (living_room, bedroom) do not show similar dropout patterns, isolating the issue to the kitchen environment or device.

The raw value preservation hint suggests the system usually handles scaling well, making these 'None' values more suspicious as potential transmission failures rather than just bad data.

Only two instances observed; a single isolated fault might not constitute a chronic malfunction.

The sensor functioned correctly for the rest of the evening, showing good recovery.

Kitchen cook surface ON at 18:58 followed immediately by kitchen_temp_sensor = None at 18:59.

Kitchen temperature rising trend (25.12°C -> 27.18°C) concurrent with cook surface usage.

Living room occupancy remaining 'occupied' throughout the evening, confirming presence but not location.

Front door auto-lock at 22:10 with no preceding manual unlock/lock conflict.

Smoke or CO alarm status/logs during the 18:58-19:34 cooking window to confirm no hazardous emissions.

Detailed logs for the entrance/front door to verify if the '4 lock_state_flips' include any unauthorized access attempts or failed locks outside the known auto-lock event.

Confirmation of whether the 'None' readings were due to sensor overheating, battery issues, or network packet loss.

Context on who was in the living room vs. kitchen to assess supervision level during cooking.

Kitchen cook surface turned on at 18:58 and off at 19:34, correlating with the temperature rise and subsequent fall.

Living room occupancy is consistently 'occupied' (raw=1) from 18:12 through 23:50, suggesting continuous human presence in the house.

Bedroom occupancy transitions are normal for evening wind-down (unoccupied during active hours, occupied late night).

Dishwasher started at 20:08, a typical post-dinner chore.

Kitchen temp sensor recovered quickly after the 'None' readings (e.g., back to 25.44°C at 19:00).

No explicit fault or alarm events logged for any device.

Temperature values across all rooms remain within comfortable residential ranges (21-27°C).

Kitchen temp sensor reported 'None' at 18:59, creating a 1-minute blind spot during the start of heating.

Kitchen temperature rose significantly from 25.12°C to 27.18°C between 18:10 and 18:25, indicating heat generation.

The user remained in the living room (occupied), not necessarily in the kitchen, reducing direct supervision.

Two distinct 'None' readings for kitchen_temp_sensor at 18:59 and 19:35.

Both dropouts occur during or immediately after significant kitchen appliance activity (cook surface on/off).

Other sensors (living_room, bedroom) do not show similar dropout patterns, isolating the issue to the kitchen environment or device.

C09: User enters via front door at 18:02, locks it manually, turns on lights/AC. Normal entry sequence.

C10: Cook surface turns off at 19:34. Kitchen temp begins to drop immediately after.

C10/C11: Living room occupancy remains high throughout the evening, suggesting someone is present in the house.

C12: Front door auto-locks at 22:10 when bedroom occupancy is detected, indicating a standard security routine.

C10: Kitchen temp sensor returns to normal values (25.44C) just one minute after the 'None' reading at 18:59, showing no persistent failure.

C10: At 18:58, kitchen_light and kitchen_cook_surface turn ON. Simultaneously, kitchen_temp_sensor reads 'None'.

C10: kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None' at 18:59:00, immediately after cook surface activation and during a period of rising temperatures.

C10: kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None' again at 19:35:00, shortly after the cook surface is turned off.

Verify smoke/CO alarm status during the cooking window (18:58-19:34) to rule out fire risk.

Check for explicit lock failure or forced entry attempts in C09/C14 to validate security state.

Investigate the cause of kitchen_temp_sensor 'None' readings (hardware fault vs. transient network issue).

Confirm if the '4 lock_state_flips' mentioned in triage include any unauthorized access events not covered in C12.

The investigator correctly identifies the cooking event and sensor dropout but overstates the safety risk ('unattended cooking') based primarily on a single transient telemetry gap ('None') without corroborating evidence of hazardous escalation (e.g., smoke alarms, extreme temperatures >30C, or lack of human presence in the entire house).

The 'sensor malfunction' hypothesis is plausible but relies on only two isolated data points; further investigation into adjacent chunks (C09 pre-cooking, C14 post-evening) is needed to determine if this is a chronic hardware issue or a one-off glitch.

The analysis misses critical context from C09 (pre-cooking routine) and C14 (late-night security status), which are necessary to fully assess the 'composite-safety' profile.

False-alarm risk is high because the primary safety concern (fire/unattended cooking) is inferred from missing data rather than positive evidence of danger, and the device health conclusion is tentative.

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 404,
    "bedroom": 356,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 55,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 221,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "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": "2026-06-24T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-24T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [
      "li

## 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",
      "bedroom",
      "bathroom",
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor",
      "temperature_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety condition and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "living_room",
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "front_door_lock",
    "entrance_contact_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C10",
    "C11",
    "C12",
    "C13"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "High alarmish event count in kitchen/living room during evening hours (C10-C13) suggests active monitoring or minor alerts, requiring verification of cause (e.g., cooking smoke vs. false positive).",
    "Lock state flips (4 total) need context: are they part of a normal entry/exit routine or unauthorized access attempts?",
    "Occupancy patterns show living room occupied in evening while other rooms are unoccupied; check for consistency with expected behavior.",
    "Temperature trends are stable; no immediate thermal hazard detected, but high alarm counts warrant investigation into non-thermal triggers."
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C10-C13 cover the evening period (18:10-23:50) where 'alarmish_count' peaks (23-28 event


活动从卧室开始（住户起床），路径合理（卧室→客厅→厨房→卧室），最终回到卧室

No definitive safety anomaly detected; observed events are consistent with normal household activity and transient sensor behavior.

Explanation: The morning door lock sequence (C04) shows a standard manual unlock followed by auto-lock after the door closes, which is a normal security routine with no signs of intrusion or malfunction.

Explanation: The evening cooking event (C10) involved the cook surface being active for ~18 minutes while the occupant was in the living room. Although the kitchen temperature rose and the sensor reported 'None' twice, the device was manually turned off, mitigating any fire risk. The supervisor correctly notes that assuming 'unattended cooking' negligence is weak because the hazard was resolved.

Explanation: The kitchen temperature sensor dropouts ('None') and subsequent high readings (up to 26.86 C) are likely due to thermal interference or network jitter during cooking, not a permanent fault. The sensor recovered and temperatures normalized later, ruling out `sensor_malfunction` or `sensor_stuck` based on the provided evidence.

Explanation: There is no evidence of water leaks, smoke/CO alarms triggering, or other critical safety failures in the logs.

Explanation: Given the lack of explicit alarm triggers and the resolution of the cooking event without incident, the situation is best classified as normal operation with minor telemetry noise.

C04: front_door_lock Manual Unlock -> Contact Open -> Contact Close -> Auto Lock (Normal exit)

C10: kitchen_cook_surface ON at 19:10:30, OFF at 19:29:00 (Resolved cooking event)

C10: kitchen_temp_sensor None values correlate with cooking heat, but recover afterwards

Absence of Smoke/CO alarm events despite temperature rise

Monitor kitchen temperature sensor for recurrence of 'None' values during future cooking events to determine if hardware replacement is needed.

Verify smoke/CO detector battery status and functionality periodically to ensure they are not silenced or faulty.

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

enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code

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

TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue is represented in centi-degrees Celsius in this benchmark: 2466 means 24.66 C, not 2466 C.

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

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

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

Unusual door lock activity during early morning hours (07:29) with subsequent contact sensor state changes.

High 'alarmish' event counts in evening chunks (C10-C13) potentially indicating smoke/CO alarms or false positives from occupancy sensors.

Lack of explicit water leak events despite presence of sensor, requiring verification of normal vs. fault states.

These chunks cover the key timeframes for both the access anomaly (morning) and the high-alert period (evening), allowing for a composite risk assessment.

The kitchen temperature sensor experienced a transient network glitch or temporary obstruction during cooking, causing intermittent data loss (`None`) and subsequent high readings due to proximity to the heat source. The cook surface was turned off after ~19 minutes, indicating normal user supervision.

C09 shows stable baseline temperatures (~23°C) before cooking starts.

C10 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turning on at 19:10:30 and off at 19:29:00 (duration ~18.5 mins).

C10 shows `kitchen_temp_sensor` returning to valid values (25.50 C -> 26.86 C) after initial dropouts, consistent with ambient heating from cooking rather than a permanent fault.

C11/C12 show temperatures stabilizing back to baseline (~22-23°C) by 20:30, indicating no persistent fire or uncontrolled heat source.

Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout the evening (C10-C13), suggesting an adult is present in the home.

The gap between cook surface activation and the first temperature reading (`None`) is short, but the lack of immediate smoke/CO alarm events relies on the assumption that sensors are functional and not silenced.

The temperature spike to 26.86 C is significant for a kitchen sensor; while likely due to cooking heat, it borders on abnormal if the sensor is not directly above the stove.

The front door lock operation at 07:29 was a standard manual exit followed by successful auto-locking. The contact sensor state change reflects the physical opening/closing of the door.

C04 shows `front_door_lock` Manual Unlock at 07:29:16, followed by Contact Open (False) at 07:29:18.

Contact closes (True) at 07:29:24, and Lock Auto-Locks at 07:29:25.

This sequence (Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Lock) is logically consistent with a resident leaving the house.

No other unauthorized access attempts are logged in C04 or subsequent chunks.

The interval between unlocking and the door closing is only 6 seconds, which is fast but plausible for a quick exit.

Unattended Cooking Risk: The cook surface was left active for nearly 20 minutes while the occupant remained in the living room, potentially far from the kitchen. The temperature sensor dropout and subsequent high readings indicate a hazardous thermal environment that was not mitigated by automatic safety devices (no smoke/CO alarms triggered in logs).

C10: `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON at 19:10:30.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 19:11:00 and 19:30:00, indicating potential sensor failure or extreme heat interference near the hazard source.

C10: Kitchen temperature rises sharply from 23.06 C (18:25) to 26.86 C (19:40) while the cook surface is ON.

C10: Living room occupancy is 'occupied' continuously, but there is no evidence of movement into the kitchen or interaction with the cook surface until it is turned OFF at 19:29:00.

C10-C12: No explicit Smoke/CO alarm events are recorded, despite the temperature rise and cook surface activity.

Supervisor Feedback notes the risk of false alarm is high, but the absence of mitigation (alarm) combined with the duration (>15 mins) constitutes a behavioral safety anomaly.

The cook surface was eventually turned off, preventing catastrophic escalation.

The temperature readings, while elevated, did not reach critical fire thresholds (e.g., >50-60 C) in the logs, though they were anomalous for ambient air.

We cannot confirm the occupant's exact location relative to the kitchen beyond 'living room occupied'; they could have been nearby.

Sensor Malfunction/Interference: The kitchen temperature sensor failed to report valid data twice during the cooking event, suggesting it may be damaged, obstructed, or suffering from connectivity issues when exposed to heat/moisture.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns `None` at 19:11:00, immediately after cook surface activation.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns `None` again at 19:30:00, shortly after cook surface deactivation.

C10: Subsequent readings (26.21 C, 26.86 C) are significantly higher than pre-cooking baselines (~23-24 C) and take time to dissipate.

The recurrence of `None` values correlates specifically with the high-heat/cooking period.

The sensor recovered and provided valid readings after each dropout, so it is not permanently stuck.

Single isolated dropouts are often attributed to network jitter rather than hardware failure without more repetition.

C10: `kitchen_cook_surface` ON (19:10:30) -> `kitchen_temp_sensor` None (19:11:00) -> `kitchen_temp_sensor` None (19:30:00) -> `kitchen_cook_surface` OFF (19:29:00).

C10: Lack of Smoke/CO alarm events despite significant temperature rise and cook surface activity.

C10: Continuous 'occupied' status in Living Room vs. no Kitchen occupancy/activity logs during the cooking window.

Audio or video confirmation of whether the occupant was actually in the kitchen or just in the adjacent living room.

Explicit log entries for Smoke/CO detector self-tests or battery status to rule out device silence.

Historical baseline for kitchen temperature spikes during cooking to determine if 26-27 C is typical for this specific sensor placement.

C09 shows stable baseline temperatures (~23°C) before cooking starts.

C10 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turning on at 19:10:30 and off at 19:29:00 (duration ~18.5 mins).

C11/C12 show temperatures stabilizing back to baseline (~22-23°C) by 20:30, indicating no persistent fire or uncontrolled heat source.

Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout the evening (C10-C13), suggesting an adult is present in the home.

C04 shows `front_door_lock` Manual Unlock at 07:29:16, followed by Contact Open (False) at 07:29:18.

Contact closes (True) at 07:29:24, and Lock Auto-Locks at 07:29:25.

This sequence (Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Lock) is logically consistent with a resident leaving the house.

No other unauthorized access attempts are logged in C04 or subsequent chunks.

C10: `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON at 19:10:30.

C10: Kitchen temperature rises sharply from 23.06 C (18:25) to 26.86 C (19:40) while the cook surface is ON.

C10-C12: No explicit Smoke/CO alarm events are recorded, despite the temperature rise and cook surface activity.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns `None` at 19:11:00, immediately after cook surface activation.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns `None` again at 19:30:00, shortly after cook surface deactivation.

C10: Subsequent readings (26.21 C, 26.86 C) are significantly higher than pre-cooking baselines (~23-24 C) and take time to dissipate.

The recurrence of `None` values correlates specifically with the high-heat/cooking period.

Verify if the 'alarmish' events mentioned in Triage (C10-C13) are present in the provided logs; they are missing from C10-C13, suggesting a potential data gap or misinterpretation of 'occupied' status as alarms.

Check for explicit Smoke/CO alarm triggers in C10-C12 to confirm the absence of safety alerts during the cooking event.

Investigate the `kitchen_temp_sensor` dropout (`None`) in C10: determine if it correlates with a specific fault code or is merely a network jitter, as single dropouts are insufficient for a 'malfunction' verdict without repetition or context.

Clarify the 'unattended cooking' risk: The logs show the cook surface was turned off at 19:29:00. The investigator claims no mitigation occurred, but the device state change *is* the mitigation. The risk assessment relies heavily on the assumption that the occupant was unaware, which is not supported by the fact that they eventually turned it off.

The Investigator's hypothesis A1 (Unattended Cooking Risk) is weak because it assumes negligence based on lack of movement logs, ignoring that the device was successfully turned off. The 'failure to mitigate' claim is contradicted by the log entry `kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = off`.

The Investigator's hypothesis A2 (Sensor Malfunction) relies on two `None` values. While suspicious, this is transient. Without evidence of repeated failure or impact on other systems, labeling it a 'malfunction' is premature.

The Triage Output mentions 'High alarmish event counts' in C10-C13, but the provided Focused Chunks C10-C13 do NOT contain any smoke/CO alarm events or high-frequency alarm logs. This suggests the Investigator may be hallucinating data or referring to chunks not provided/analyzed correctly. This is a critical discrepancy.

The investigation misses the morning chunk C05-C07 which might contain context for the door lock activity if it wasn't isolated to C04, though C04 seems sufficient for the lock sequence. However, the evening cooking event needs more context on whether the 'occupied' status in the living room implies proximity to the kitchen.

False alarm risk is HIGH because the primary safety concern (cooking) resolved itself without incident, and the sensor issue is ambiguous/transient.

Normal morning routine with secure entry and standard temperature regulation.

C04 shows a coherent sequence: Manual unlock (07:29:16), door contact opens (07:29:18), door contact closes (07:29:24), Auto-lock engages (07:29:25). This indicates a user entered and the auto-lock functioned correctly.

Temperature readings across living room, bedroom, and kitchen are stable and within normal residential ranges (21-26 C) throughout all chunks.

Evening activity in C10/C11 shows typical household patterns: cooking surface on, dishwasher on, occupancy in living room.

Does not fully explain the brief gap in kitchen temperature telemetry during active cooking, though this could be sensor placement or reporting latency.

Assumes the 'Auto' lock source implies successful engagement without external verification, though the state change to 'locked' supports this.

Normal evening cooking and appliance usage with no safety incidents.

Kitchen cook surface turns on at 19:10:30 and off at 19:29:00. The duration (~19 mins) is consistent with meal preparation.

Dishwasher activates at 19:51:05, following the cooking period, which is a common household workflow.

Living room occupancy remains high (occupied) during these activities, suggesting supervision is present in the adjacent space.

No smoke/CO alarm events or water leak events are recorded in the focused chunks.

Relies on the assumption that 'occupied' in the living room equates to effective supervision of the kitchen hazard, which may not be true if the occupant is distracted or in another part of the open-plan area.

Ignores the potential risk of the kitchen temperature sensor going `None` while the cook surface was active.

Potential unattended cooking or fire risk due to loss of telemetry correlation during heat generation.

In C10, the kitchen cook surface turns ON at 19:10:30.

Immediately after, at 19:11:00, the kitchen_temp_sensor reports `None`.

The sensor does not report a value again until 19:15:00, showing a spike to 25.50 C, then continues to rise to 26.86 C by 19:40:00.

During the period 19:11:00 - 19:15:00, there is a complete lack of thermal data from the primary kitchen sensor while the heat source is active.

Occupancy is logged in the 'living_room', but there is no explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' event confirming someone is standing right next to the stove during the critical startup phase.

The cook surface turned OFF at 19:29:00, ending the immediate fire risk window.

The temperature eventually returned to readable values, suggesting the sensor wasn't permanently damaged, just temporarily unavailable or obscured.

Living room occupancy suggests a person is nearby, mitigating the 'unattended' aspect slightly, though not definitively.

Sensor malfunction or blind spot in kitchen monitoring during critical safety events.

Kitchen temp sensor goes `None` at 19:11:00 (during cooking) and again at 19:30:00 (after cooking).

These dropouts occur specifically when kitchen activity (cooking) is highest.

While it recovers, the inability to monitor temperature during active heating represents a failure in the safety monitoring layer for that specific device.

The sensor recovered and provided subsequent readings, so it is not 'stuck'.

Isolated dropouts can happen due to Wi-Fi interference or sensor sleep cycles; one instance per chunk might not constitute a persistent fault.

The sequence in C10: Cook Surface ON (19:10:30) -> Kitchen Temp Sensor None (19:11:00) -> No Kitchen Occupancy Event -> Temperature Spike (19:15:00+).

The precise timing of the kitchen temperature sensor dropout coinciding with the activation of the cook surface.

The absence of any explicit smoke/CO alarm events despite the temperature rise in the kitchen.

Direct confirmation of human presence in the *kitchen* specifically during 19:10-19:30 (Living Room occupancy is proximate but not definitive for supervision).

Status of the Smoke/CO Alarm device (is it online? did it trigger silently?).

Reason for the kitchen temperature sensor going `None` (hardware error vs. environmental obstruction).

Historical baseline for how often the kitchen temp sensor drops out.

C09 shows stable baseline temperatures (~23°C) before cooking starts.

C10 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turning on at 19:10:30 and off at 19:29:00 (duration ~18.5 mins).

C11/C12 show temperatures stabilizing back to baseline (~22-23°C) by 20:30, indicating no persistent fire or uncontrolled heat source.

Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout the evening (C10-C13), suggesting an adult is present in the home.

C04 shows `front_door_lock` Manual Unlock at 07:29:16, followed by Contact Open (False) at 07:29:18.

Contact closes (True) at 07:29:24, and Lock Auto-Locks at 07:29:25.

This sequence (Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Lock) is logically consistent with a resident leaving the house.

No other unauthorized access attempts are logged in C04 or subsequent chunks.

The interval between unlocking and the door closing is only 6 seconds, which is fast but plausible for a quick exit.

C10: `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON at 19:10:30.

C10: Kitchen temperature rises sharply from 23.06 C (18:25) to 26.86 C (19:40) while the cook surface is ON.

C10-C12: No explicit Smoke/CO alarm events are recorded, despite the temperature rise and cook surface activity.

The cook surface was eventually turned off, preventing catastrophic escalation.

We cannot confirm the occupant's exact location relative to the kitchen beyond 'living room occupied'; they could have been nearby.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns `None` at 19:11:00, immediately after cook surface activation.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns `None` again at 19:30:00, shortly after cook surface deactivation.

C10: Subsequent readings (26.21 C, 26.86 C) are significantly higher than pre-cooking baselines (~23-24 C) and take time to dissipate.

The recurrence of `None` values correlates specifically with the high-heat/cooking period.

The sensor recovered and provided valid readings after each dropout, so it is not permanently stuck.

Single isolated dropouts are often attributed to network jitter rather than hardware failure without more repetition.

C09 shows stable baseline temperatures (~23°C) before cooking starts.

C10 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turning on at 19:10:30 and off at 19:29:00 (duration ~18.5 mins).

C11/C12 show temperatures stabilizing back to baseline (~22-23°C) by 20:30, indicating no persistent fire or uncontrolled heat source.

Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout the evening (C10-C13), suggesting an adult is present in the home.

C04 shows `front_door_lock` Manual Unlock at 07:29:16, followed by Contact Open (False) at 07:29:18.

Contact closes (True) at 07:29:24, and Lock Auto-Locks at 07:29:25.

This sequence (Unlock -> Open -> Close -> Lock) is logically consistent with a resident leaving the house.

No other unauthorized access attempts are logged in C04 or subsequent chunks.

C10: `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON at 19:10:30.

C10: Kitchen temperature rises sharply from 23.06 C (18:25) to 26.86 C (19:40) while the cook surface is ON.

C10-C12: No explicit Smoke/CO alarm events are recorded, despite the temperature rise and cook surface activity.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns `None` at 19:11:00, immediately after cook surface activation.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns `None` again at 19:30:00, shortly after cook surface deactivation.

C10: Subsequent readings (26.21 C, 26.86 C) are significantly higher than pre-cooking baselines (~23-24 C) and take time to dissipate.

The recurrence of `None` values correlates specifically with the high-heat/cooking period.

Verify if the kitchen temperature sensor dropout at 19:11 was a transient network glitch or persistent fault by checking C09 (pre-cooking) and C12 (post-cooking) for similar patterns.

Check for explicit Smoke/CO alarm events in C10-C12 to rule out actual fire/smoke presence despite missing temp data.

Confirm water leak detector status in C10-C12 to ensure no concurrent hazard exists.

Analyze the 'Auto-lock' success rate in C04 vs other chunks to determine if the lock mechanism is reliable or if this was an isolated successful event.

The investigator correctly identified the temporal correlation between cook surface activation and sensor dropout, but over-interpreted a single `None` value as significant evidence of unattended cooking or malfunction without sufficient context.

Risk of false alarm is high because the conclusion relies on a single transient telemetry gap (`None`) and inferred absence of supervision (living room occupancy != kitchen occupancy), rather than direct evidence of danger (smoke, heat spike exceeding thresholds, or alarm triggers).

The investigation lacks pre- and post-event context (C09, C12) to establish baseline sensor behavior and confirm recovery. Without these, we cannot distinguish between a temporary glitch and a genuine safety issue.

Protocol check: The investigator correctly interpreted Matter scaled values (e.g., 2550 -> 25.50 C) and did not fall for the literal value trap. However, the safety inference is weak due to lack of corroborating hazardous signals.

## 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: 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": 400,
    "bedroom": 352,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 54,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 212,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 212,
  "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": "2026-06-30T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-30T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [
      "li

## 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",
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "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"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "bathroom_water_leak_detector"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C10",
    "C11"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Unusual door lock activity during early morning hours (07:29) with subsequent contact sensor state changes.",
    "High 'alarmish' event counts in evening chunks (C10-C13) potentially indicating smoke/CO alarms or false positives from occupancy sensors.",
    "Lack of explicit water leak events despite presence of sensor, requiring verification of normal vs. fault states."
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the specific sequence of front door lock operation and contact sensor toggling, which is a primary security concern to verify against routine behavior.",
    "C10 and C11 show the highest 'alarmish_count' (22 and 23 respectively) and active occupancy, providing context for whether these are genuine safety alerts or noise/false positives.",
    "These chunks cover the key timeframes for both the access anomaly (morning) and the high-alert period (evening


FG-02-FP: 电暖器/取暖器正常使用

有人在房间且温度上升后趋于稳定（不是持续飙升），无烟雾报警触发

No definitive safety anomaly detected; the observed patterns are consistent with a normal evening routine despite minor telemetry gaps.

Explanation: The primary hypothesis for 'unattended cooking' (A1) relies on the absence of kitchen occupancy logs and a single transient temperature dropout (`None`) at 18:52. However, the cook surface was active for only one hour (18:51-19:51), which is a typical duration for meal preparation, and it turned off automatically or manually without triggering any smoke/CO alarms.

Explanation: The supervisor correctly identified that declaring a fault or high-risk event based solely on a single `None` value in IoT telemetry is insufficient and prone to false positives, especially when the sensor recovers immediately and temperatures remain stable.

Explanation: The sequence of events—manual door unlock, living room occupancy, cooking, dishwasher use, and eventual auto-lock—is coherent with a standard resident returning home, preparing dinner, and settling in for the night.

Explanation: While there is a lack of explicit confirmation of supervision (e.g., no motion in the kitchen), the absence of evidence is not evidence of hazard in this context, particularly given the short duration of appliance usage and the lack of secondary hazard indicators (fire, gas, water leak).

Explanation: Therefore, the risk of false alarm is high if we label this as an anomaly, and the evidence supports a normal explanation better than an unsafe one.

Cook surface ON from 18:51 to 19:51 (1 hour), followed by OFF, with no subsequent alarm triggers.

Kitchen temperature sensor reported `None` at 18:52 but recovered to 25.72°C at 18:55, indicating a transient glitch rather than persistent failure.

Living room occupancy remained constant during cooking, suggesting presence in the home, though not necessarily in the kitchen.

Front door locked automatically at 21:57, indicating a secure state after the activity period.

Monitor kitchen temperature sensor stability to rule out intermittent connectivity issues.

Consider adding a dedicated kitchen motion sensor or verifying existing coverage to improve supervision granularity for future safety assessments.

Potential security breach or unauthorized entry indicated by lock state changes and occupancy patterns.

Kitchen appliance usage (cook surface) potentially unattended or occurring during low-occupancy periods.

Missing smoke/CO alarm events despite kitchen activity, requiring verification of sensor health vs. absence of hazard.

C11 shows subsequent kitchen activity including cook surface toggling and window contact status, which are key for fire/gas risk assessment.

C12 provides follow-up context on occupancy and temperature stability in the evening, helping to distinguish between normal routine and anomalous behavior.

Normal evening routine: Occupant returns home, cooks dinner in the kitchen while occupying the living room (common open-plan layout behavior), then winds down for the night. The system operates normally with expected transient telemetry glitches.

C10: Front door unlocked manually at 18:24, followed by lights and AC activation, indicating a standard return event.

C10-C13: Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' from 18:24 through the evening, confirming presence.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 18:51 and off at 19:51 (1 hour duration), consistent with cooking a meal.

C11: Dishwasher started at 19:55, following the cooking activity, which is a typical post-dinner chore sequence.

C12: Bedroom occupancy activates at 21:57, lights turn on, and front door auto-locks at 21:57, indicating the occupant moved to bed and secured the house.

Temperature sensors show stable readings (~22-23°C) with minor fluctuations, no signs of fire or overheating.

Kitchen temperature spikes (e.g., 26.37°C at 18:20) are gradual and correlate with ambient heat/cooking, not sudden thermal runaway.

Does not fully explain the specific timing of the kitchen temperature sensor dropout (`None`) at 18:52, though this is likely a network glitch rather than a safety failure.

Assumes the occupant was aware of the cooking process despite being logged in the living room; relies on the assumption that 'living room occupied' implies supervision of adjacent kitchen.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk: The cook surface was active for an extended period (approx. 1 hour) while the only detected human presence was in the living room, separated from the kitchen hazard zone. The lack of kitchen occupancy data combined with a sensor dropout during the critical heating phase creates a monitoring blind spot.

C10: Cook surface turned ON at 18:51:30.

C10: Kitchen temperature sensor reports `None` at 18:52:00, immediately after the stove is lit, creating a gap in environmental monitoring exactly when risk is highest.

C10-C11: Living room occupancy is consistently 'occupied', but there is NO evidence of movement into the kitchen or interaction with the stove beyond the initial toggle.

C10-C11: No smoke/CO alarm events are recorded, but their status is unknown (potential false sense of security).

C11: Cook surface turns OFF at 19:51:00, exactly 60 minutes later. While this could be manual, the absence of intermediate checks or kitchen presence makes it indistinguishable from unattended operation that was eventually noticed or timed out.

Supervisor Feedback Note: The previous investigation flagged this as high-risk due to missing supervision context.

The cook surface did turn off, so no catastrophic fire occurred in this window.

Living room occupancy suggests someone was home, reducing the risk compared to an empty house.

No explicit alarm triggers (smoke/CO) were generated, suggesting no actual combustion or hazardous gas release occurred.

The `None` value might just be a sensor glitch, not necessarily correlated with a hazard.

Sensor Malfunction / Data Integrity Issue: The kitchen temperature sensor experienced intermittent failures (`None` values) during critical periods, potentially masking early signs of overheating or equipment malfunction.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 18:52:00.

C11: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` again at 19:52:00.

These dropouts occur precisely when the cook surface is active (18:51-19:51), raising suspicion that the sensor may be failing under heat load or has connectivity issues.

Previous chunks (C08-C09) show stable readings, making these isolated dropouts appear as transient faults rather than permanent failure.

The sensor recovered immediately in subsequent logs (e.g., 18:55:00 shows 25.72°C), which contradicts a persistent hardware fault.

Isolated `None` values are common in IoT networks and do not inherently prove a safety-critical malfunction without corroborating error codes or repeated non-recovery.

The supervisor feedback explicitly warns against declaring sensor malfunction based solely on transient gaps without more evidence.

The 1-hour duration of the cook surface (18:51-19:51) coinciding with zero kitchen occupancy events.

The simultaneous `None` reading from the kitchen temp sensor at 18:52, right after ignition.

The transition from 'Living Room Occupied' to 'Bedroom Occupied' + 'Auto Lock' at 21:57, confirming the end of the active evening period.

Smoke/CO alarm status and logs for the entire evening to definitively rule out undetected hazards.

Water leak detector logs in the kitchen area.

Detailed motion sensor data within the kitchen itself (if available) to confirm if anyone entered the kitchen during the cooking window.

Confirmation of whether the cook surface has a timer/auto-shutoff feature that triggered the 19:51 off event.

C10: Front door unlocked manually at 18:24, followed by lights and AC activation, indicating a standard return event.

C10-C13: Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' from 18:24 through the evening, confirming presence.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 18:51 and off at 19:51 (1 hour duration), consistent with cooking a meal.

C11: Dishwasher started at 19:55, following the cooking activity, which is a typical post-dinner chore sequence.

Temperature sensors show stable readings (~22-23°C) with minor fluctuations, no signs of fire or overheating.

Kitchen temperature spikes (e.g., 26.37°C at 18:20) are gradual and correlate with ambient heat/cooking, not sudden thermal runaway.

C10: Cook surface turned ON at 18:51:30.

C10-C11: No smoke/CO alarm events are recorded, but their status is unknown (potential false sense of security).

Supervisor Feedback Note: The previous investigation flagged this as high-risk due to missing supervision context.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 18:52:00.

C11: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` again at 19:52:00.

Previous chunks (C08-C09) show stable readings, making these isolated dropouts appear as transient faults rather than permanent failure.

Smoke/CO alarm status and logs for the entire evening (specifically C10-C13) to rule out undetected hazards.

Water leak detector logs in the kitchen area.

Detailed motion sensor data within the kitchen itself to confirm if anyone entered the kitchen during the cooking window.

Confirmation of whether the cook surface has a timer/auto-shutoff feature that triggered the 19:51 off event.

The investigator correctly identifies the 'unattended cooking' pattern but relies heavily on the absence of kitchen occupancy logs and a single transient temperature dropout (`None`) as primary evidence. This creates a high risk of false alarm, as the stove did turn off, no alarms were triggered, and the temperature sensor recovered immediately.

The investigation lacks critical context from earlier chunks (C00-C04) regarding the state of smoke/CO detectors and water leak sensors before the evening routine began. Without this baseline or explicit 'no-fault' logs, we cannot definitively rule out device health issues or silent hazards.

The query asks for a comprehensive safety assessment. The current analysis focuses almost exclusively on the kitchen appliance and ignores the security aspect (front door lock logic is noted but not deeply analyzed for anomalies beyond the return event) and other potential risks (water leaks).

Per protocol, a `device-health` conclusion requires direct fault evidence; the transient `None` value is insufficient to declare a malfunction without further corroboration. Similarly, a `composite-safety` verdict of 'unsafe' based solely on missing supervision logs is weak without corroborating hazard indicators (smoke, heat spike, gas alarm).

Request adjacent pre-event chunks (C00-C07) to establish the baseline health of safety-critical devices (smoke/CO/water) and verify if any faults were logged prior to the evening activity.

Normal evening routine: Resident returns home, cooks dinner, and settles in for the night. The kitchen temperature drop is due to ambient cooling or sensor variance, not a hazard.

C10 shows a coherent 'return' sequence: Front door unlocked manually (18:24), entrance light on, living room occupancy detected, AC turned on. This indicates a resident entering the home.

C10/C11 show standard appliance usage: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 18:51 and off at 19:51 (approx. 1 hour duration, typical for cooking). Dishwasher started at 19:55.

C12 shows normal wind-down: Lights turned off at 21:57, bedroom occupied, front door auto-locked at 21:57. Temperatures stabilize in a comfortable range (21-23 C).

No smoke/CO alarms triggered. No water leak events reported.

Does not fully explain the specific telemetry dropout of the kitchen temp sensor coinciding with cook surface activation, which could indicate a sensor issue or environmental interference.

Assumes the manual unlock was authorized; does not account for potential unauthorized entry if no other occupant was present (though living room occupancy suggests presence).

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk: The cook surface was activated while the primary occupant (living room) was potentially unmonitored, and the kitchen temperature sensor failed/dropped out immediately after activation, preventing heat monitoring.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turns ON at 18:51:30.

C10: At exactly 18:52:00 (29 seconds later), `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`. This is a critical data loss event occurring during active heating.

C10: Living room occupancy remains constant (occupied) from 18:24 through 19:54. While someone is in the house, they are in the living room, not the kitchen. There is no evidence of movement into the kitchen (no kitchen occupancy sensor logs, though none were explicitly listed in focus devices, the lack of kitchen-specific activity logs besides the cook surface is notable).

C11: Cook surface turns OFF at 19:51:00. The gap between activation (18:51) and deactivation (19:51) is one hour. If the user left the kitchen area after turning it on, this constitutes unattended cooking.

The simultaneous failure of the temperature sensor (`None`) right after the hazard source activates removes the primary safety feedback loop for detecting overheating.

Living room occupancy confirms someone is home, reducing the risk of 'unattended' in the sense of an empty house, but doesn't confirm supervision of the kitchen.

The cook surface did turn off, so no fire occurred in this window. The 'risk' is latent based on the lack of monitoring.

The `None` value could be a transient network glitch rather than a permanent sensor failure, as values return later (though with gaps).

Sensor Malfunction / Monitoring Blind Spot: The kitchen temperature sensor is unreliable, dropping out repeatedly during high-activity periods (cooking), creating a blind spot for thermal hazards.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 18:52:00, immediately following cook surface activation.

C11: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` again at 19:52:00, immediately following cook surface deactivation and dishwasher start.

The pattern of `None` values correlates with appliance state changes in the kitchen, suggesting electromagnetic interference or a faulty sensor connection that fails under load or vibration.

Despite returning to valid values later, the repeated dropouts during critical safety-relevant times (cooking) constitute a device health anomaly.

The sensor eventually recovers, so it's not a total failure.

Without explicit fault codes, it's hard to distinguish between a genuine malfunction and a temporary communication error.

C10: `kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = on` at 18:51:30 followed immediately by `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 18:52:00.

C10: `kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = off` at 19:51:00 followed immediately by `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:52:00.

C10: Living room occupancy is continuous (18:24-19:54) while kitchen activity occurs, implying the occupant may not be directly supervising the stove.

Kitchen occupancy sensor data: To confirm if anyone entered the kitchen during the cooking period.

Smoke/CO alarm status/logs: To verify if any hazardous conditions were detected despite the missing temp data.

Water leak detector status: To rule out other kitchen hazards.

Definition of 'unattended': Is the living room occupant considered 'supervising' the kitchen? Usually, direct visual contact is required for safe cooking.

C10: Front door unlocked manually at 18:24, followed by lights and AC activation, indicating a standard return event.

C10-C13: Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' from 18:24 through the evening, confirming presence.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 18:51 and off at 19:51 (1 hour duration), consistent with cooking a meal.

C11: Dishwasher started at 19:55, following the cooking activity, which is a typical post-dinner chore sequence.

Temperature sensors show stable readings (~22-23°C) with minor fluctuations, no signs of fire or overheating.

Kitchen temperature spikes (e.g., 26.37°C at 18:20) are gradual and correlate with ambient heat/cooking, not sudden thermal runaway.

C10: Cook surface turned ON at 18:51:30.

C10-C11: No smoke/CO alarm events are recorded, but their status is unknown (potential false sense of security).

Supervisor Feedback Note: The previous investigation flagged this as high-risk due to missing supervision context.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 18:52:00.

C11: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` again at 19:52:00.

Previous chunks (C08-C09) show stable readings, making these isolated dropouts appear as transient faults rather than permanent failure.

C10: Front door unlocked manually at 18:24, followed by lights and AC activation, indicating a standard return event.

C10-C13: Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' from 18:24 through the evening, confirming presence.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 18:51 and off at 19:51 (1 hour duration), consistent with cooking a meal.

C11: Dishwasher started at 19:55, following the cooking activity, which is a typical post-dinner chore sequence.

Temperature sensors show stable readings (~22-23°C) with minor fluctuations, no signs of fire or overheating.

Kitchen temperature spikes (e.g., 26.37°C at 18:20) are gradual and correlate with ambient heat/cooking, not sudden thermal runaway.

C10: Cook surface turned ON at 18:51:30.

C10-C11: No smoke/CO alarm events are recorded, but their status is unknown (potential false sense of security).

Supervisor Feedback Note: The previous investigation flagged this as high-risk due to missing supervision context.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 18:52:00.

C11: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` again at 19:52:00.

Previous chunks (C08-C09) show stable readings, making these isolated dropouts appear as transient faults rather than permanent failure.

Verify smoke/CO alarm status and logs for the entire evening to rule out undetected hazards.

Check water leak detector logs in the kitchen area.

Investigate the root cause of `kitchen_temp_sensor` `None` values (transient network glitch vs. hardware fault) by checking adjacent chunks C09 and C13 for similar patterns or error codes.

Confirm if 'unattended cooking' constitutes a safety risk given the occupant was present in the home (living room), distinguishing between 'unsupervised appliance' and 'fire hazard'.

Check for any explicit fault/alarm events from the cook surface or other devices.

The investigator correctly identified the sequence of events but over-interpreted transient telemetry gaps (`None` values) as significant device faults or safety risks without sufficient corroboration.

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis relies heavily on the absence of kitchen occupancy data and a single sensor dropout, which is insufficient to declare a fire risk, especially since the cook surface turned off normally and no alarms were triggered.

The claim of 'sensor malfunction' is weak because the sensor recovered immediately and repeatedly; this looks more like intermittent connectivity than a persistent fault requiring immediate safety intervention.

Crucially, the investigation ignores the primary safety devices: Smoke/CO alarms and Water Leak detectors. Their status is unknown in the current analysis, which is a major gap for a 'composite-safety' query.

Chunks C09 (pre-cooking context) and C13 (post-cooking/night context) are needed to establish baseline behavior and check for broader system health issues or additional anomalies not captured in C10-C12.

False alarm risk is high because the conclusion of 'potential risk' is driven by missing data and transient glitches rather than positive evidence of danger.

## 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: 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": 359,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 52,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 869,
    "Occupancy": 219,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 219,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-24T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-24T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [
      "li

## 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"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "front_door_lock",
      "kitchen_cook_surface",
      "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": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "smoke_co_alarm",
    "front_door_lock",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "kitchen_window_contact",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C10",
    "C11",
    "C12"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Potential security breach or unauthorized entry indicated by lock state changes and occupancy patterns.",
    "Kitchen appliance usage (cook surface) potentially unattended or occurring during low-occupancy periods.",
    "Missing smoke/CO alarm events despite kitchen activity, requiring verification of sensor health vs. absence of hazard."
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C10 captures the critical transition at ~18:24 where the front door is manually unlocked and opened, followed by living room occupancy and AC activation, suggesting a return event that needs context for safety (e.g., was it authorized?).",
    "C11 shows subsequent kitchen activity including cook surface toggling and window contact status, which are key for fire/gas risk assessment.",
    "C12 provides follow-up context on occupancy and temperature stability in the evening, helpi