DF-02-FP: 夏季午后持续升温（正常日照效应）

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

The master bedroom occupancy sensor exhibits a 'stuck high' fault, remaining in the 'occupied' state for over 18 hours without transitioning to 'unoccupied', which is inconsistent with typical PIR sensor timeout behavior and suggests a failure to detect absence.

Explanation: The master_bedroom_occupancy sensor transitions to 'occupied' at 06:04 (C04) and remains 'occupied' through all subsequent chunks (C05-C22) until at least 23:55. This duration (~18 hours) is unusually long for a standard Passive Infrared (PIR) motion sensor, which typically times out to 'unoccupied' after a period of inactivity (e.g., 1-5 minutes).

Explanation: While continuous presence (sleeping) is a plausible human explanation, the lack of any intermediate 'unoccupied' transition or timeout event makes a device malfunction ('stuck high') a strong competing hypothesis that cannot be ruled out by logs alone.

Explanation: The temperature sensor shows transient spikes at 22:28 and 23:28 but recovers immediately; these are likely noise or minor drifts and do not constitute a primary fault compared to the persistent occupancy anomaly.

Explanation: A log gap exists between C22 (ending 23:55) and C23 (starting 00:28), preventing verification of whether the sensor went offline or continued reporting, but the prior 18-hour static state is sufficient evidence for a potential stuck sensor fault.

Explanation: According to Matter notes and supervisor guidance, a device-fault conclusion requires direct evidence like stuck values or impossible transitions; the persistent 'occupied' state without timeout fits the 'sensor_stuck' pattern.

master_bedroom_occupancy OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied (raw=1) from 06:04 (C04) through 23:55 (C22) with no 'unoccupied' transitions.

Absence of timeout events in an ~18 hour window, which is atypical for motion-based occupancy sensors.

Verify actual human presence/absence in the master bedroom during the 06:04-23:55 window using external data (e.g., user confirmation, camera).

Check if the occupancy sensor has a configurable timeout setting or if it is a different type of sensor (e.g., pressure mat, UWB) that supports long-duration detection.

Inspect the sensor hardware for physical obstructions or firmware issues causing the stuck state.

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

The master bedroom occupancy sensor is functioning normally, indicating continuous presence (e.g., sleeping) from early morning until late night. The temperature sensor is also normal, with the brief spike at 22:28 and 23:28 being transient measurement errors or local heat sources that self-corrected.

Occupancy transitions from 'unoccupied' to 'occupied' at 06:04 (C04) and remains 'occupied' through C05, C06, C07, C21, C22 without any transition back to 'unoccupied'. This is consistent with a person sleeping in the room for ~18 hours.

Temperature readings are generally stable and correlate with diurnal cycles (rising during day, falling at night).

The temperature spikes at 22:28 (24.50 C) and 23:28 (25.20 C) are isolated events followed immediately by return to baseline (~22.5-22.7 C), suggesting transient noise rather than sustained malfunction.

No explicit fault or alarm events are logged for these sensors.

Does not explain the significant log gap between C22 (ending 23:55) and C23 (starting 00:28), although this could be due to network/logging issues rather than device failure.

Assumes the 'occupied' state is correct; if the person left, the sensor would be stuck.

The master bedroom occupancy sensor is exhibiting a 'stuck high' fault, failing to report 'unoccupied' when the room becomes empty. Alternatively, the long period of 'occupied' status combined with the log gap suggests a potential monitoring blind spot where the device stopped reporting correctly.

The occupancy state transitions to 'occupied' at 06:04 (C04) and never transitions back to 'unoccupied' in any subsequent chunk (C05-C22), spanning over 18 hours. While sleeping is possible, the lack of any 'unoccupied' event even briefly is suspicious for a motion-based sensor which typically has timeouts.

There is a complete absence of logs for the master bedroom sensors between 23:55 (C22 end) and 00:28 (C23 start). If the person was still present, the sensor should have continued reporting. If they left, it should have reported 'unoccupied'. The gap prevents verification.

In C23, only two temperature readings appear, with no occupancy data, suggesting the device may have been offline or logging intermittently during this period.

Sleeping is a plausible explanation for continuous occupancy, so 'stuck' is not definitive without evidence of the person leaving.

The log gap could be a system-level logging issue rather than a device fault.

The temperature sensor experienced transient malfunctions or calibration drifts, evidenced by sudden jumps in temperature values that do not align with the gradual changes seen in other rooms.

At 22:28, the master bedroom temperature jumps to 24.50 C while other rooms remain around 22.5-22.6 C. It then drops back to 22.54 C at 22:30.

At 23:28, it jumps again to 25.20 C while others are ~22.5-22.7 C, dropping back to 22.68 C at 23:30.

These spikes are inconsistent with the slow thermal inertia of a bedroom environment and suggest sensor instability.

The spikes are very short-lived (one reading each) and self-correct, which might just be noise.

Other sensors did not show similar spikes, isolating the issue to this specific device.

The persistent 'occupied' state from 06:04 through 23:55 without any 'unoccupied' transition is the strongest indicator of either prolonged presence or a stuck sensor.

The log gap between C22 and C23 creates uncertainty about whether the sensor was reporting correctly during the night.

The isolated temperature spikes at 22:28 and 23:28 indicate potential transient sensor errors.

Confirmation of actual human presence/absence in the master bedroom during the 06:04-23:55 window (e.g., via external camera or user confirmation).

Logs for the period between 23:55 and 00:28 to determine if the device went offline or simply didn't trigger.

Data from other sensors in the immediate vicinity to corroborate temperature readings.

Verify if master_bedroom_occupancy transitions to 'unoccupied' in the missing chunks (C08-C20). The current evidence only shows 'occupied' from C04 to C22. A motion sensor typically times out; continuous occupancy for ~18 hours without any timeout event is suspicious and requires checking intermediate logs.

Investigate the temperature spikes at 22:28 and 23:28 more closely. While they self-corrected, repeated transient spikes of this magnitude (~2-3 degrees) in a stable environment may indicate sensor instability or interference, rather than just noise.

Check for explicit fault/alarm events in the full log stream, which are not present in the sampled chunks but might exist in the gaps.

Confirm if the 'occupied' state is maintained by active presence (e.g., light usage, other sensor correlations) or if it's a static stuck value.

The investigator correctly identified the key anomalies: persistent 'occupied' state and temperature spikes. However, the conclusion relies heavily on the assumption that the person was sleeping for 18+ hours without the sensor timing out, which is physically unlikely for standard PIR sensors. This creates a high risk of false alarm if the sensor is actually stuck.

The investigation is incomplete because it skips the majority of the day (C08-C20). Without these chunks, we cannot verify if the 'occupied' state was dynamic or static. If the sensor reported 'unoccupied' briefly in between, the 'stuck' hypothesis would be weakened significantly.

The temperature spikes are noted as transient, but their recurrence suggests a pattern worth investigating further before dismissing as noise.

Do not conclude 'normal' based solely on the absence of explicit error codes. The behavior itself (lack of timeout) is the primary evidence of potential malfunction.

Request the missing chunks to establish the full temporal context of the occupancy state.

The master bedroom occupancy sensor is functioning normally, indicating continuous presence in the room. The temperature sensor is reporting valid readings with expected diurnal variation.

master_bedroom_occupancy reports 'occupied' (raw=1) consistently from 06:39 through 07:34 in chunk C05.

master_bedroom_temp_sensor reports stable temperatures ranging from 25.02 C to 25.29 C during the same period, showing normal thermal inertia and slight increases consistent with a closed indoor environment.

Temperature values are within reasonable physical bounds for an indoor bedroom (approx 25°C).

No explicit fault codes or alarm events are logged for these devices.

The hypothesis assumes that 'occupied' status reflects actual human presence rather than a sensor error or object left in the detection zone.

It does not account for the significant log gap between 07:35 (C05 end) and 00:28 (C23 start), where device status is unknown.

The master bedroom occupancy sensor is stuck in the 'occupied' state (sensor_stuck), failing to transition to 'unoccupied' despite potential absence of people, or the system lacks sufficient data to confirm normal operation due to a large telemetry gap.

In chunk C05, the master_bedroom_occupancy sensor transitions to 'occupied' at 06:39 and remains 'occupied' through every subsequent check until 07:34 without ever transitioning back to 'unoccupied'.

Other rooms (living_room, second_bedroom, bathroom, entrance) show transitions to 'unoccupied' around 07:00-07:30, suggesting a pattern of people leaving those areas while the master bedroom remains marked as occupied.

There is a massive gap in logs for the master bedroom sensors between 07:35 (end of C05) and 00:28 (start of C23), lasting over 16 hours. This prevents verification of whether the 'occupied' state persisted incorrectly overnight or if the sensor stopped reporting entirely.

Only two temperature readings are available in C23 (00:28 and 01:28), which is insufficient to establish a baseline or detect drift/malfunction compared to the frequent updates in C05.

The persistent 'occupied' state could simply reflect a person sleeping in the master bedroom throughout the morning, which is a plausible behavioral explanation.

The log gap might be due to network issues or logging configuration rather than a specific device fault; the device might have been offline rather than stuck.

Without evidence of the room actually being empty (e.g., door lock open + no motion/occupancy elsewhere), we cannot definitively rule out normal behavior.

Persistent 'occupied' state for master_bedroom_occupancy from 06:39 to 07:34 without any 'unoccupied' transition, contrasting with other rooms becoming unoccupied.

Large telemetry gap (>16 hours) for master bedroom sensors between C05 and C23, preventing confirmation of long-term state stability or recovery.

Logs for master_bedroom_occupancy and master_bedroom_temp_sensor between 07:35 on 2026-06-16 and 00:28 on 2026-06-17.

Contextual information about whether anyone was actually present in the master bedroom during the observed periods.

Any explicit fault or alarm events associated with the master bedroom sensors during the gap or after reconnection.

No explicit fault or alarm events are logged for these sensors.

At 23:28, it jumps again to 25.20 C while others are ~22.5-22.7 C, dropping back to 22.68 C at 23:30.

Verify if master_bedroom_occupancy transitions to 'unoccupied' in chunks C06-C22.

Check for explicit fault/alarm events in the gap period or upon reconnection in C23.

Confirm if the temperature sensor in C23 is reporting valid data or if it's a single point check.

The investigator correctly identifies the occupancy sensor staying 'occupied' and the large log gap. However, concluding a fault based solely on this is premature because: 1) The 'occupied' state could be normal (person sleeping), and 2) The gap prevents verification of long-term behavior. 3) A 'stuck' diagnosis requires evidence that it *failed* to change when it should have, which we cannot confirm without seeing the subsequent hours (C06 onwards). 4) The risk of false alarm is high because missing logs are often due to network/logging issues, not device hardware faults. We need to see if the sensor eventually resets or if other devices show similar gaps. Requesting C06 (immediate next chunk) and C22 (chunk before the gap ends) is critical to determine if the state persisted abnormally or if the gap was just a logging artifact.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 两室一厅 (2BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅落地灯<onoff_light>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bedroom: 次卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 401,
    "master_bedroom": 525,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "bathroom": 48,
    "entrance": 229
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1161,
    "Occupancy": 646,
    "OnOff": 15,
    "StateValue": 7,
    "LockState": 5,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 5,
  "occupancy_events": 646,
  "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 co

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "master_bedroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "master_bedroom_occupancy_sensor",
      "master_bedroom_temperature_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 master_bedroom 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "master_bedroom_occupancy_sensor",
    "master_bedroom_temperature_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C05",
    "C23"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "occupancy_sensor_stuck_high",
    "missing_logs_gap"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C05 shows the onset of 'occupied' state for master_bedroom_occupancy at 06:39, which persists through subsequent chunks (C06-C22) without transitioning back to unoccupied, despite temperature patterns suggesting normal diurnal cycles and no explicit 'unoccupied' events in the preview lines for this device.",
    "C23 shows a significant gap in logs for the master bedroom sensors between C22 (ending ~23:55) and C23 (starting 00:28), with only two temperature readings. This gap is critical to determine if the sensor stopped reporting entirely or if the occupancy state was simply not updated due to lack of activity/logs."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The master bedroom occupancy sensor is functioning normally, indicating continuous presence (e.g., sleeping) from early morning until late night. The temperature sensor is also normal, w


DF-04-FP: 门锁响应延迟但最终成功锁定

The entrance occupancy sensor is stuck in the 'occupied' state, failing to transition to 'unoccupied' for over 10 hours despite no evidence of continuous presence.

Explanation: The `entrance_occupancy` sensor transitions to 'occupied' at 07:31:24 (C05) and remains reported as 'occupied' continuously through C06, C07, C08, C09, C13, and C14 until at least 18:18:03.

Explanation: There are zero 'unoccupied' (raw=0) transitions recorded for this device in the entire provided log set spanning ~10.5 hours.

Explanation: Typical PIR motion sensors have a timeout period (usually <2 minutes) after which they report 'unoccupied' if no motion is detected. A persistent 'occupied' state for hours without movement cues indicates a failure to clear the state.

Explanation: While it is theoretically possible someone stayed in the entrance for 10+ hours, this is statistically unlikely for an entrance zone compared to living areas, and no other room activity correlates with such prolonged static presence in the entryway.

Explanation: The supervisor noted missing chunks (C10-C12), but the pattern of regular 'occupied' updates every ~5 minutes suggests the sensor is actively polling/reporting rather than being offline, reinforcing the 'stuck' hypothesis over a communication dropout.

Explanation: Therefore, the behavior is best explained by a software glitch or hardware latch fault preventing the sensor from resetting.

Continuous 'occupied' reports from 07:31:24 to 18:18:03 with no intervening 'unoccupied' transitions.

Regular interval (~5 mins) of 'occupied' updates ruling out total communication loss.

Lack of corroborating activity in other rooms suggesting a person remained stationary in the entrance for >10 hours.

Check the configuration of the `entrance_occupancy` sensor for any unusual hold-time settings.

Perform a physical inspection or reboot of the sensor to clear potential software latches.

Monitor the sensor for normal cycling (occupied/unoccupied) after a reset to confirm recovery.

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.

Check if entrance sensors are working normally; if abnormal, identify fault type.

Sensor stuck state (persistent occupancy)

C06: Contains the first explicit 'occupied' transition for entrance_occupancy at 07:56:24, establishing the baseline for the suspected stuck state.

The entrance occupancy sensor is functioning normally, detecting a continuous presence of an individual in the entrance area from early morning until evening. The lack of 'unoccupied' transitions reflects actual human behavior (e.g., someone living or working in the entryway/foyer) rather than a sensor fault.

C05 shows the first transition to 'occupied' at 07:31:24, coinciding with a manual door unlock event and contact sensor opening, indicating a person entered.

Subsequent chunks (C06-C09, C13-C14) show repeated 'occupied' reports every ~5 minutes, consistent with a motion sensor maintaining state while a person remains stationary or moves slowly within range.

At 18:03:03 (C14), the lock is manually unlocked again, and the occupancy sensor immediately reports 'occupied', confirming the sensor responds correctly to new entry events.

It assumes continuous human presence for over 10 hours without any break, which is less common for a general entrance but possible if it's a primary living space or security post.

Does not explain why no other room activity correlates with this specific long-duration presence, though the query focuses only on the entrance sensor's health.

The entrance occupancy sensor is stuck in the 'occupied' state due to a software glitch or hardware failure (e.g., PIR sensor latching). It failed to reset to 'unoccupied' after the initial entry event at 07:31, despite the likely absence of people in the entrance area for most of the day.

In C05, the sensor transitions from 'unoccupied' to 'occupied' at 07:31:24 following a door open/close cycle.

From 07:31:24 through C06, C07, C08, C09, C13, and C14 (spanning ~10.5 hours), the sensor *only* reports 'occupied'. There are zero 'unoccupied' transitions recorded for `entrance_occupancy` in the entire provided log set.

Typical motion sensors have a timeout period (e.g., 30-120 seconds) after which they report 'unoccupied' if no motion is detected. The persistence of 'occupied' for hours without movement cues suggests a failure to clear the state.

While the sensor correctly re-triggers at 18:03, the inability to clear the previous state indicates a logic or hardware fault where the 'clear' command or timeout mechanism is ignored.

It is theoretically possible that a person remained in the entrance area for the entire duration, making the sensor behavior normal. However, this is statistically unlikely for an 'entrance' zone compared to a bedroom or living room.

No explicit error codes or alarm events were logged by the device itself.

The entrance contact sensor (`front_door_contact`) is malfunctioning or has a wiring issue, causing inconsistent state reporting relative to the lock state, which may be contributing to the confusion in the occupancy logic or indicating a broader sensor cluster fault.

In C05 (07:31:23), `front_door_contact` reports `false` (open) when the lock is unlocked, then `true` (closed) at 07:31:27 when the lock auto-locks. This sequence is physically plausible.

However, in C14 (18:03:02), `front_door_contact` reports `false` (open) when the lock is manually unlocked. No subsequent 'closed' event is logged before the chunk ends or shortly after, leaving the final state ambiguous relative to the door's physical position.

If the contact sensor is unreliable, it might fail to trigger the 'unoccupied' condition for the occupancy sensor if the system relies on door closure as a proxy for clearing the entrance zone.

The contact sensor behavior observed (Open->Closed) is consistent with normal operation during the first event. The second event is incomplete in the logs, so a fault cannot be confirmed yet.

This hypothesis is secondary to the primary occupancy stuck-state observation.

The complete absence of any 'unoccupied' (raw=0) transition for `entrance_occupancy` between 07:31:24 (C05) and 18:18:03 (C14), spanning over 10 hours.

The regular interval (~5 mins) of 'occupied' updates suggests the sensor is actively polling or reporting, ruling out total communication loss, but the static value rules out normal motion-based cycling.

Logs for other rooms (living_room, kitchen, etc.) to confirm if anyone was present in the house during the gap periods, supporting or refuting the 'continuous presence' theory.

Configuration details of the `entrance_occupancy` sensor (e.g., sensitivity settings, timeout duration) to determine if a 10-hour hold time is configurable or abnormal.

Direct status checks or diagnostic logs from the `entrance_occupancy` device itself to see if internal error flags were raised.

Verify if `entrance_occupancy` transitions to 'unoccupied' in the missing mid-day chunks (C10-C12). The current logs show a continuous 'occupied' state from 07:31 to 16:06. If it remains 'occupied' through C10-C12, the fault is confirmed as a stuck sensor. If it resets and stays reset, the initial long duration might be explained by continuous presence or a different fault pattern.

Check for any explicit fault/alarm events from `entrance_occupancy` or related devices during the suspected stuck period.

Corroborate with other room occupancy sensors (living_room, kitchen) to see if they show activity patterns consistent with someone being present in the entrance area for 10+ hours.

The investigator correctly identifies the anomaly (persistent 'occupied' state) but relies on a gap in provided data (C10-C12) to bridge the timeline from morning to evening. Without these chunks, we cannot confirm if the sensor ever recovered or if the 'stuck' state persisted continuously.

The hypothesis that a person stayed in the entrance for 10+ hours is statistically unlikely but not impossible; however, the lack of 'unoccupied' transitions from *any* entrance-related device (contact sensor only logged briefly at start/end) weakens the 'normal behavior' argument slightly, but doesn't prove a fault without seeing the intermediate states.

The investigation has drifted into debating 'continuous presence' vs 'fault' without sufficient temporal coverage. We need the missing chunks to determine if the sensor state changed at all between 12:35 and 16:06.

False alarm risk is medium because if the sensor did reset in the missing chunks, the 'stuck' diagnosis is incorrect, and the long duration was just unusual human behavior. If it didn't reset, it's a clear fault.

The entrance occupancy sensor is functioning normally, detecting a person who remained in the entrance area for an extended period (from ~07:31 to at least 18:18). The persistent 'occupied' state reflects actual human presence rather than a fault.

At 07:31:24, `entrance_occupancy` transitions to `occupied` immediately following a manual door unlock event and contact sensor change, indicating a person entered.

Throughout chunks C06, C13, and C14, the sensor consistently reports `occupied` (raw=1) with periodic updates (every ~5 minutes), which is consistent with a motion sensor maintaining a 'presence' flag while someone is stationary or moving slowly in the zone.

No contradictory signals (e.g., sudden drop to unoccupied without exit activity) are observed that would suggest a stuck sensor if we assume continuous presence.

It is highly unusual for a single individual to remain in an entrance foyer for over 10 hours (07:31 to 18:18) without leaving or triggering an 'unoccupied' state, even with motion sensors. This duration makes the 'continuous presence' explanation physically unlikely for a typical household scenario.

The lack of any 'unoccupied' transition despite the long duration suggests either the person never left (unlikely) or the sensor failed to detect their departure/stillness.

The entrance occupancy sensor is experiencing a 'stuck state' fault, where it remains permanently in the 'occupied' state after the initial trigger at 07:31, failing to update to 'unoccupied' despite the likely absence of a person for most of the day.

Initial Trigger: At 07:31:24, `entrance_occupancy` becomes `occupied` coincident with a door opening/closing event.

Persistence: From 07:31:24 through 18:18:03 (over 10 hours), every logged entry for `entrance_occupancy` shows `OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied (raw=1)`.

Lack of Recovery: There are zero instances of `entrance_occupancy` reporting `unoccupied (raw=0)` after the initial transition, unlike other rooms (living_room, bedroom, bathroom) which show frequent cycling between occupied/unoccupied states.

Inconsistency with Behavior: While the front door lock was operated manually again at 18:03:00, the occupancy sensor did not reset or reflect any new entry/exit dynamics distinct from its previous state, suggesting it is ignoring changes or is electrically/logically stuck.

Contrast with Other Sensors: Other occupancy sensors in the house (e.g., living_room, master_bedroom) show normal behavior with clear transitions, isolating the anomaly to the entrance device.

We cannot definitively rule out that a person was indeed present in the entrance area for the entire duration (e.g., a guest staying overnight or a home office setup in the foyer), though this is contextually improbable.

The logs do not contain explicit error codes or alarm events from the sensor itself, only behavioral evidence of non-recovery.

The entrance contact sensor or lock mechanism has a synchronization issue or intermittent failure, potentially masking the true state of the door, although the primary fault appears to be the occupancy sensor's inability to clear.

At 07:31:23, `front_door_contact` goes `false` (open) then `true` (closed) within seconds, while `entrance_occupancy` is already `occupied`.

At 18:03:02, `front_door_contact` goes `false` (open) during a manual unlock, but `entrance_occupancy` remains `occupied`.

If the door was opened at 18:03, one might expect the occupancy sensor to react to the airflow/motion of entry/exit, but it simply continues its persistent 'occupied' report, reinforcing the stuck hypothesis.

The contact sensor data itself appears to toggle correctly (false/true) corresponding to lock operations, so the contact sensor may be functional; the fault lies primarily in the occupancy logic/state retention.

The complete absence of any `unoccupied` (raw=0) transition for `entrance_occupancy` from 07:31:24 to 18:18:03, despite the passage of >10 hours and multiple door lock interactions.

Comparison with other rooms (living_room, bedrooms) which exhibit normal occupancy cycling, confirming the system is capable of detecting 'unoccupied' states.

Visual confirmation or camera footage of the entrance area to verify if a person was actually present for the entire duration.

Battery level or diagnostic status of the `entrance_occupancy` device to check for low-battery warnings or internal errors.

Configuration settings for the occupancy sensor (e.g., timeout/delay settings) to determine if the 'occupied' state is expected to persist indefinitely under certain conditions.

C05 shows the first transition to 'occupied' at 07:31:24, coinciding with a manual door unlock event and contact sensor opening, indicating a person entered.

In C05, the sensor transitions from 'unoccupied' to 'occupied' at 07:31:24 following a door open/close cycle.

Verify if `entrance_occupancy` reports `unoccupied` between C06 (ends 09:01) and C13 (starts 16:06). The current chunks show a gap of ~7 hours where the sensor's state is unknown.

Check for any explicit fault/alarm events from `entrance_occupancy` or related devices in the missing time range.

Confirm if the 'stuck' state persisted continuously or if there was a recovery period not captured in the provided logs.

The investigator correctly identifies a potential 'stuck state' anomaly based on C05-C06 and C13-C14. However, the evidence is incomplete because there is a significant gap (C07-C12) between the initial trigger (~09:00) and the later observation (~16:06).

Without data from this gap, we cannot confirm if the sensor remained stuck for the entire duration or if it recovered and re-triggered. A 'stuck' diagnosis requires ruling out normal cycling during the unobserved period.

The risk of false alarm is medium because the conclusion relies on an assumption of continuity across a large data gap. If the sensor went unoccupied in the middle, the 'stuck' hypothesis would be invalid.

Request adjacent chunks to bridge the timeline and verify continuous occupancy status.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 两室一厅 (2BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅落地灯<onoff_light>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bedroom: 次卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 401,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 53,
    "entrance": 233
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1154,
    "Occupancy": 471,
    "OnOff": 14,
    "LockState": 6,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 6,
  "occupancy_events": 471,
  "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": "

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "entrance_occupancy",
      "front_door_lock",
      "entrance_contact_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Check if entrance sensors are working normally; if abnormal, identify fault type."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "front_door_lock"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C05",
    "C06",
    "C13",
    "C14"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Sensor stuck state (persistent occupancy)",
    "Missing contact sensor data",
    "Lock state anomalies"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C05: Shows the first appearance of 'entrance' activity with high event count and presence of front_door_lock in top devices, marking the start of potential anomaly.",
    "C06: Contains the first explicit 'occupied' transition for entrance_occupancy at 07:56:24, establishing the baseline for the suspected stuck state.",
    "C13: Demonstrates the persistence of the 'occupied' state over a long duration (16:06-17:16) without any 'unoccupied' transitions or contact sensor logs, supporting the 'stuck' hypothesis.",
    "C14: Provides further evidence of continuous 'occupied' reporting during evening hours, confirming the lack of recovery or normal cycling expected from a functional motion/contact sensor pair."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The entrance occupancy sensor is f


DF-06-FP: 窗帘正常移动但速度慢

The second_bedroom sensors (temperature and occupancy) are functioning normally; the lack of occupancy events is consistent with an unoccupied room.

Explanation: 1. Analyzed `second_bedroom_temp_sensor` logs across all provided chunks (C00-C11). The temperature readings are continuous, show smooth physical transitions, and contain no `None` values or impossible jumps, indicating the sensor hardware and reporting mechanism are healthy.

Explanation: 2. Analyzed `second_bedroom_occupancy` logs. The sensor consistently reports 'unoccupied' (raw=0) at every check-in point. There are no explicit fault codes, connection drops, or error messages associated with this device in the Matter logs.

Explanation: 3. Evaluated the hypothesis of a malfunctioning occupancy sensor. While the supervisor noted that sparse sampling makes it hard to confirm activity, there is no evidence of human presence in the second bedroom during the logged periods (e.g., no light/curtain activation triggered by presence, no other devices indicating entry). The window operation in C11 was automated/manual but did not trigger occupancy, which is plausible if the user was not inside or left quickly.

Explanation: 4. Concluded that without direct evidence of failure (stuck values, timeouts, faults) or contradictory evidence of presence, the most likely explanation is that the room was indeed unoccupied. Therefore, no anomaly is detected.

Continuous valid temperature data for `second_bedroom_temp_sensor` from C00 to C11.

Consistent 'unoccupied' status for `second_bedroom_occupancy` with no fault indicators.

No corroborating evidence of human presence in the second bedroom during the observation window.

Monitor the occupancy sensor over a longer period including known usage times to verify detection capability.

Check configuration settings for occupancy sensor sensitivity and reporting intervals if false negatives are suspected.

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

Intermittent data availability vs. complete silence.

The second_bedroom sensors (temperature and occupancy) are functioning normally. The temperature readings show stable, gradual changes consistent with a passive indoor environment, and the occupancy sensor consistently reports 'unoccupied', which is plausible for a bedroom during the observed times (early morning to mid-afternoon).

Temperature logs for `second_bedroom_temp_sensor` appear continuously from C00 through C11 without gaps or `None` values.

Temperature values fluctuate within a normal range (22.68°C to 25.56°C) with smooth transitions between timestamps, showing no signs of sensor drift or stuck values.

Occupancy logs for `second_bedroom_occupancy` consistently report `unoccupied` (raw=0) at every check-in point across all chunks (C00, C01, C02, C03, C04, C07, C11).

No explicit fault codes, connection errors, or alarm events are present in the Matter logs for these devices.

The investigation relies on periodic snapshots rather than continuous streaming data, so brief intermittent dropouts between snapshots are not visible.

Lack of occupancy events could be due to actual absence of people rather than sensor failure, but this cannot be definitively proven without external verification of room usage.

The second_bedroom occupancy sensor may be experiencing intermittent connectivity issues or configuration problems, leading to missed presence detection, although there is no direct evidence of malfunction given the lack of confirmed presence events.

Supervisor feedback noted that relying on sparse chunks leaves gaps in telemetry continuity.

In C11, the window was operated (automated or manual), which might imply human presence, yet the occupancy sensor still reported `unoccupied`. However, this is weak evidence as automation can occur without immediate PIR trigger or if the person left quickly.

No contradictory evidence (like motion elsewhere correlating with room entry) exists to prove the sensor *should* have triggered.

There is no direct evidence of failure such as `None` values, repeated timeouts, or stuck states.

The assumption that window operation implies immediate occupancy detection is speculative; the sensor might have a delay or the user might have exited before triggering it.

Without proof of presence during the observation window, we cannot distinguish between a faulty sensor and a truly empty room.

Continuous presence of valid temperature readings for `second_bedroom_temp_sensor` across all chunks (C00-C11) with no `None` values or impossible jumps.

Consistent `unoccupied` status for `second_bedroom_occupancy` across all time points, with no conflicting signals from other devices indicating presence in that specific room.

Absence of any explicit fault or error messages in the Matter logs for the target devices.

Direct confirmation of whether anyone entered or used the second_bedroom during the logged periods (e.g., via user logs or other activity sensors).

Controller-level diagnostics showing device online status and signal strength for the second_bedroom sensors.

Configuration details regarding the occupancy sensor's sensitivity and reporting intervals to determine if 'unoccupied' is the expected state for the observed behavior.

Verify if `second_bedroom_occupancy` logs are present in the missing chunks (C05-C10) to determine if the silence is a configuration issue (low reporting rate) or a device fault.

Check for any explicit fault codes, connection drops, or `None` values for `second_bedroom_temp_sensor` and `second_bedroom_occupancy` in the full timeline.

Correlate `second_bedroom_window` operations with occupancy changes to see if the window sensor triggers occupancy events that might be missed by the PIR sensor.

The investigator correctly identified that temperature data is continuous and normal, but relied on sparse sampling (C00, C07, C11) to conclude the occupancy sensor is 'functioning normally' simply because it reported 'unoccupied'.

This is insufficient evidence. The absence of 'occupied' events could mean the room was empty, OR it could mean the sensor is faulty/not reporting. Without checking intermediate chunks (C05-C10), we cannot distinguish between these two states.

The query asks to judge if sensors are working. A 'normal' verdict based on lack of contradictory evidence is weak when the primary function (detecting presence) has not been tested/observed during potential activity windows.

Need to inspect the full sequence to see if there are periods where other devices indicate activity near the bedroom or if the occupancy sensor ever transitions from unoccupied to occupied.

False alarm risk is medium because concluding 'no fault' without verifying the sensor's ability to report state changes is risky; however, no direct fault evidence exists yet.

The second_bedroom temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally. The temperature readings show expected diurnal variation (rising from ~22.7°C to ~25.5°C and settling around 24.5°C), consistent with ambient room conditions. Occupancy reports remain 'unoccupied' throughout the observed periods, which is consistent with the lack of any activity logs (lighting, curtain operation, or human presence) in the second bedroom.

C00: second_bedroom_temp_sensor reports stable values (~22.68-22.95 C) with normal fluctuations.

C00: second_bedroom_occupancy consistently reports 'unoccupied' (raw=0).

C07: second_bedroom_temp_sensor reports values (~25.40-25.56 C) consistent with the rest of the house warming up.

C07: second_bedroom_occupancy consistently reports 'unoccupied' (raw=0).

C11: second_bedroom_temp_sensor reports values (~24.35-24.69 C) consistent with cooling/AC operation.

C11: second_bedroom_occupancy consistently reports 'unoccupied' (raw=0).

The absence of occupancy events could theoretically mask a sensor failure if the sensor is stuck on 'unoccupied', but without evidence of someone being present, this cannot be confirmed as an anomaly.

Potential sensor malfunction or configuration issue where the second_bedroom occupancy sensor is stuck in 'unoccupied' state or failing to report changes, despite potential presence not being ruled out by other data (though no direct presence evidence exists). Alternatively, the temperature sensor might have a slight drift or calibration offset compared to neighbors, though within acceptable bounds.

C00, C07, C11: second_bedroom_occupancy is always 0. If the room was ever occupied, the sensor failed to detect it.

C11: second_bedroom_window operates (curtain opens), indicating some automation or manual interaction occurred in the room, yet no occupancy change was logged for the window area or general room occupancy.

Temperature values in C07 (25.4-25.5 C) are slightly higher than living_room (25.4-25.5 C) but lower than master_bedroom at times, showing no extreme outliers that would suggest a broken sensor.

No explicit fault codes or alarm events are present.

The room activity count for second_bedroom is 342, which is moderate, but the specific activities logged (window curtain) do not necessarily trigger occupancy sensors depending on their type (PIR vs mmWave) and placement.

Without evidence of actual human presence during these times, we cannot confirm the occupancy sensor is wrong; it may simply be correct that the room was empty.

Consistent 'unoccupied' status for second_bedroom_occupancy across all three time chunks (C00, C07, C11) despite moderate room activity counts.

Normal, physically plausible temperature trends for second_bedroom_temp_sensor that correlate with overall house temperature patterns.

Lack of any explicit error messages, stuck value loops, or impossible state transitions in the provided logs.

Logs confirming whether anyone was actually present in the second_bedroom during the recorded times to verify occupancy sensor accuracy.

Raw diagnostic logs or health check results from the Matter controller for the second_bedroom devices.

Information on the type of occupancy sensor (PIR vs. others) to understand why it might not have triggered during window operation.

Check for continuous telemetry presence of second_bedroom sensors in the gaps between C00, C07, and C11 to rule out communication dropout or device offline status.

Verify if 'second_bedroom_window' operation in C11 correlates with any occupancy change in other sensors (e.g., living_room) to confirm if the room was actually occupied during that event.

Check for explicit fault codes or connection errors in Matter logs for the target devices.

The investigator correctly identified that temperature readings are normal and occupancy is consistently 'unoccupied'.

However, the investigation relies on only three sparse time chunks (C00, C07, C11). This leaves a large gap where the sensor's connectivity and reporting stability are unknown. A sensor could be intermittently failing or offline between these snapshots.

The hypothesis that the occupancy sensor might be 'stuck' is speculative because there is no independent evidence (like motion detection from another source or user confirmation) that anyone was present in the second bedroom during the observed periods. The window operation in C11 is an automation/manual action but doesn't prove human presence at that exact moment sufficient to trigger a PIR/mmWave sensor depending on placement/sensitivity.

To definitively conclude 'normal', we need to see consistent reporting over a longer period or confirm the device is online and healthy via controller diagnostics. To conclude 'abnormal', we need direct evidence of failure (e.g., stuck values, repeated timeouts, or contradiction with known presence). Currently, the evidence is insufficient to distinguish between a healthy empty room and a faulty sensor.

Risk of false alarm is medium because concluding 'normal' based on sparse data might miss intermittent faults, while concluding 'abnormal' based on lack of occupancy events without proof of presence is also risky.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 480,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "second_bedroom": 342,
    "kitchen": 308,
    "bathroom": 52,
    "entrance": 51
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1158,
    "Occupancy": 380,
    "OnOff": 16,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "OperationalStatus": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "LockState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 1,
  "occupancy_events": 380,
  "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

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "second_bedroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "second_bedroom_temp_sensor",
      "second_bedroom_occupancy_sensor",
      "second_bedroom_window_sensor",
      "second_bedroom_light",
      "second_bedroom_curtain"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 second_bedroom 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "second_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "second_bedroom_temp_sensor",
    "second_bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C07",
    "C11"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Missing telemetry logs for specific devices (e.g., occupancy sensor) despite room activity presence in other chunks.",
    "Intermittent data availability vs. complete silence."
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline check to see if all second_bedroom sensors (temp, occupancy) report at the start of the log period.",
    "C07: Check for any anomalies or missing data during a period with moderate activity; specifically look for the absence of occupancy reports which might indicate a fault or configuration issue.",
    "C11: Verify if the 'missing' devices reappear or remain silent during a period with significant device interaction (curtain operation), helping distinguish between a device fault and simple lack of triggering events."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The second_bedroom sensors (temperature and occupancy) are


DF-02-FP: 夏季午后持续升温（正常日照效应）

No definitive device fault detected; the prolonged 'occupied' state is consistent with normal human presence (e.g., sleeping), and the temperature anomaly was transient.

Explanation: The master_bedroom_occupancy sensor transitions to 'occupied' at 06:07 and remains so until the end of the logs (11:42). While this duration (>5 hours) is long, it is a plausible scenario for a bedroom (sleeping or resting).

Explanation: Per Matter Notes and Supervisor guidance, a 'device-fault' conclusion requires direct evidence such as stuck values, explicit alarms, or impossible transitions. The absence of an 'unoccupied' transition alone is circumstantial and does not prove a fault without confirming the room was actually empty.

Explanation: The master_bedroom_temp_sensor shows a transient drop to 24.00 C at 10:56 but immediately recovers to ~25.4 C at 11:00. This single isolated event does not constitute a persistent malfunction or drift, especially given the lack of corroborating errors in other sensors or the network.

Explanation: Other sensors in the home (living_room, entrance) show normal activity patterns, indicating the hub and network are healthy, ruling out a systemic communication failure.

Explanation: Without pre-event baseline data (C00-C02) or post-log confirmation of departure, we cannot distinguish between a 'stuck sensor' and 'prolonged occupancy'. Therefore, we must default to the normal hypothesis (human presence) rather than assuming a fault.

master_bedroom_occupancy remained 'occupied' from 06:07 to 11:42 without transition.

master_bedroom_temp_sensor recovered from a transient 24.00 C reading at 10:56 back to baseline by 11:00.

No explicit alarm or fault events logged for the occupancy sensor.

Monitor the master_bedroom_occupancy sensor for future transitions to 'unoccupied' to confirm if the occupant has left.

Check physical presence in the master bedroom via camera or manual inspection if automation behavior seems incorrect.

Review historical logs (pre-06:07) to establish typical occupancy duration baselines for this specific sensor.

OccupancySensing.Occupancy stuck at 'occupied' (raw=1) for extended duration without transition to 'unoccupied'

Lack of occupancy state changes during periods where temperature suggests normal environmental conditions

The master_bedroom_occupancy sensor is functioning correctly, detecting a prolonged period of human presence (e.g., sleeping or resting) starting around 06:07 and continuing through the end of the logs at 11:42.

C04 shows the first transition to 'occupied' at 06:07:00, followed by immediate light activation (06:07:04), indicating a genuine user entry event.

The occupancy state remains 'occupied' continuously from 06:07 until the end of the provided logs (11:42), which is consistent with a person staying in the bedroom for over 5 hours.

The master_bedroom_temp_sensor reports fluctuating values (e.g., 24.85 C to 25.56 C) throughout this period, showing normal environmental dynamics and no signs of hardware failure (stuck values).

Other rooms (living_room, kitchen) show typical daily activity patterns (transitions between occupied/unoccupied), suggesting the hub and network are generally healthy.

The duration of occupancy (>5 hours) is long but plausible for a morning routine or sleep.

Lack of an 'unoccupied' transition does not prove fault; it simply proves the room was not empty during the observation window.

The master_bedroom_occupancy sensor has a 'stuck' fault, failing to detect departure or reset its state after the initial entry, resulting in a persistent 'occupied' signal despite potential absence.

From C04 (06:07) through C09 (11:42), the master_bedroom_occupancy sensor never transitions back to 'unoccupied'.

In contrast, other sensors like living_room_occupancy and entrance_occupancy show frequent transitions, indicating the system's ability to detect departures is functional elsewhere.

At 10:56, the master_bedroom_temp_sensor reports a sudden drop to 24.00 C (raw=2400) before returning to ~25.4 C at 11:00. While temperature alone isn't definitive proof of sensor fault, combined with the stuck occupancy, it raises suspicion of a broader device/node instability or intermittent connectivity issue affecting the sensor cluster.

The supervisor feedback explicitly noted that without post-chunk data confirming a return to 'unoccupied', the 'stuck' hypothesis cannot be ruled out, especially given the lack of any departure event in nearly 6 hours of logs.

There is no explicit error code or alarm event logged for the occupancy sensor.

The temperature spike/drop at 10:56 is isolated and recovered immediately, which might just be a transient reading error rather than a permanent sensor fault.

It is entirely possible a person was present in the room for the entire duration, making the 'stuck' label incorrect.

The master_bedroom_occupancy sensor is experiencing intermittent reporting failures or 'ghost' occupancy, where it fails to update state accurately due to communication issues with the hub.

The temperature sensor on the same node/room shows a significant anomaly at 10:56 (24.00 C vs baseline ~25.4 C), suggesting potential power or communication instability on the local device group.

The occupancy sensor updates appear somewhat irregular in timing compared to the strict 5-minute temperature polling, potentially indicating asynchronous or lost packets.

The temperature anomaly is brief and self-correcting.

No repeated 'None' values or complete dropout sequences are observed for the occupancy sensor itself.

Absence of any 'unoccupied' transition for master_bedroom_occupancy from 06:07 to 11:42 (approx. 5.5 hours).

Presence of active transitions in other rooms (living_room, entrance) proving the system can detect departures.

The isolated temperature anomaly at 10:56 (24.00 C) in the master bedroom, which coincides with the ongoing stuck-occupancy state, hinting at potential node-level instability.

Logs beyond 11:42 to confirm if/when the master_bedroom_occupancy eventually transitions to 'unoccupied'.

Direct diagnostic status or battery level of the master_bedroom_occupancy sensor.

Confirmation of physical presence in the master bedroom via external means (e.g., camera, manual check) to validate the 'prolonged stay' hypothesis.

Verify pre-06:07 occupancy history to establish baseline behavior (frequency of transitions) for the master_bedroom sensor.

Check for explicit fault/alarm events in Matter logs which are currently absent but required for definitive 'device-fault' labeling per protocol notes.

Correlate the 10:56 temperature anomaly with any other node instability or power cycles to rule out transient environmental causes vs. hardware failure.

The investigator correctly identifies the prolonged 'occupied' state as suspicious but fails to distinguish between a 'stuck sensor' (fault) and 'prolonged human presence' (normal behavior) without historical context.

Per Matter Notes, a device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence (alarms, stuck values, impossible transitions). The current evidence is circumstantial (absence of 'unoccupied').

The temperature spike at 10:56 is isolated and recovered; relying on this for a 'sensor_malfunction' diagnosis is weak and risks a false alarm if not corroborated by repeated errors or alarms.

Chunks C00-C02 are missing from the focus list but are critical to determine if the sensor normally reports frequent transitions. Without this baseline, we cannot confirm the 06:07-11:42 period is anomalous for this specific device.

Do not conclude 'normal' or 'fault' yet. Refine investigation to include pre-event chunks and look for explicit error codes.

The master bedroom occupancy sensor is functioning correctly, indicating that a person remained in the room continuously from 06:42 through at least 09:40. The temperature sensor is also normal, showing stable readings consistent with an occupied, climate-controlled environment.

master_bedroom_occupancy reports 'occupied' (raw=1) consistently from 06:42 to 09:40 without interruption.

master_bedroom_temp_sensor reports valid, fluctuating temperatures between ~24.89 C and 25.56 C, indicating active sensing and environmental changes likely due to body heat or HVAC interaction.

Other sensors (living_room, second_bedroom, bathroom) show transitions to 'unoccupied' at regular intervals (e.g., 07:00, 08:00, 09:00), suggesting the household activity pattern involves people leaving other rooms while staying in the master bedroom.

The logs do not explicitly confirm the presence of a human subject; it could be a pet or an object triggering the sensor, though this is less likely for standard occupancy sensors unless specified.

The master bedroom occupancy sensor is stuck in the 'occupied' state (sensor_stuck). It failed to transition to 'unoccupied' despite the passage of significant time (3+ hours) and concurrent activity in other parts of the house, which typically implies occupants are moving around. This prevents automation based on vacancy (e.g., turning off lights/AC if configured for unoccupied states).

From 06:42 to 09:40, master_bedroom_occupancy remains strictly 'occupied' (raw=1).

During this same period, living_room_occupancy, second_bedroom_occupancy, and bathroom_occupancy repeatedly flip to 'unoccupied' (e.g., at 07:00, 08:00, 09:00), indicating that other sensors are working and detecting absence.

No 'unoccupied' event is recorded for master_bedroom_occupancy in the provided chunks, which is unusual for a multi-hour window in a smart home context where other rooms see vacate events.

The entrance_occupancy shows 'occupied' status concurrently, but the master bedroom's lack of any state change over 3 hours suggests a potential failure to detect departure if the room was indeed empty.

It is possible that a person genuinely stayed in the master bedroom for the entire duration (06:42-09:40), which would make the sensor behavior normal. The logs do not contain explicit evidence of someone leaving the master bedroom (e.g., a door contact opening or motion stopping followed by no re-entry).

Contrast between master_bedroom_occupancy remaining constantly 'occupied' (raw=1) from 06:42 to 09:40 versus other rooms (living_room, second_bedroom, bathroom) regularly transitioning to 'unoccupied' (raw=0) at 07:00, 08:00, and 09:00.

Absence of any 'unoccupied' transition for master_bedroom_occupancy despite the 3-hour observation window.

Logs covering the period after 09:40 to see if the sensor eventually transitions to 'unoccupied', which would confirm a temporary stuck state or prolonged occupancy.

Door contact sensor data for the master bedroom to corroborate whether the door was opened/closed, providing an independent check on entry/exit.

Lighting control logs for the master bedroom to see if lights were turned off manually or via automation, which might imply vacancy detection logic was triggered or ignored.

From C04 (06:07) through C09 (11:42), the master_bedroom_occupancy sensor never transitions back to 'unoccupied'.

Check C04 (pre-06:42) to establish the baseline state of master_bedroom_occupancy before the 'occupied' event. If it was already occupied or if there is no prior transition, the 'stuck' hypothesis weakens significantly.

Check C08 (post-09:40) to see if the sensor eventually transitions to 'unoccupied'. A long duration of 'occupied' without a subsequent 'unoccupied' event is necessary to confirm a fault rather than just prolonged occupancy.

Verify if the temperature sensor readings show any signs of failure (e.g., stuck values, impossible jumps) which might indicate a broader device issue affecting both sensors on the same hub/node.

The investigator correctly identifies the anomaly pattern (persistent 'occupied' state) but lacks the full temporal context to distinguish between a genuine fault and prolonged human presence.

Without pre-chunk (C04), we don't know if the room was empty before 06:42. Without post-chunk (C08), we don't know if it ever becomes unoccupied.

The current evidence supports a 'suspected' fault but does not meet the standard for a confirmed device-health conclusion because the 'normal' hypothesis (prolonged stay) is equally plausible with the available data.

Temperature sensor appears functional (values fluctuate reasonably), so the focus remains on the occupancy sensor's lack of state change.

Requesting adjacent chunks to close the temporal gap is essential for a definitive verdict.

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "master_bedroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "master_bedroom_occupancy_sensor",
      "master_bedroom_temperature_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 master_bedroom 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "master_bedroom_occupancy_sensor",
    "master_bedroom_temperature_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C05",
    "C06",
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "OccupancySensing.Occupancy stuck at 'occupied' (raw=1) for extended duration without transition to 'unoccupied'",
    "Lack of occupancy state changes during periods where temperature suggests normal environmental conditions"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C05 shows the initial transition of master_bedroom_occupancy to 'occupied' around 06:42, establishing the start of the potential fault.",
    "C06 and C07 show continuous 'occupied' status with no transitions back to 'unoccupied', despite the passage of time and other room activities, which is necessary to confirm a 'stuck' state or failure to detect departure.",
    "These chunks allow verification that the sensor is not just reporting high occupancy but failing to update state, which constitutes the primary evidence for device health assessment."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The master_bedroom_occupancy sensor is functioning correctly, detecting a


DF-01-FP: 空调恒温控制导致温度稳定

有微小波动（±0.2°C），不是完全固定值；且空调处于开启状态

The living room temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally; observed temperature spikes are transient telemetry anomalies that self-correct without indicating hardware failure.

Explanation: The investigator identified two isolated high-temperature spikes (25.00 C at 18:45 and 25.01 C at 20:15) in the living room sensor logs.

Explanation: Per Matter protocol notes and supervisor guidance, scaled temperature values alone are insufficient to declare a device fault without direct evidence like stuck states, repeated non-recovery, or explicit alarm events.

Explanation: Both spikes were single-point events that immediately returned to baseline (~22.7-23.0 C) within 5-10 minutes, which is characteristic of transient telemetry noise or signal interference rather than persistent sensor malfunction or drift.

Explanation: No other devices in the home reported similar simultaneous temperature increases, ruling out a global environmental event (e.g., HVAC failure or fire).

Explanation: The occupancy sensor demonstrated correct state transitions (unoccupied to occupied) and stable reporting throughout the log, showing no signs of failure.

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

C15: Temperature spike to 25.00 C at 18:45 recovered to 22.98 C by 18:50.

C16: Temperature spike to 25.01 C at 20:15 recovered to 22.68 C by 20:20.

C08: Occupancy sensor successfully transitioned from unoccupied (0) to occupied (1) and remained stable.

Monitor the sensor for recurrence of these specific ~25 C spikes over the next 24-48 hours.

If spikes persist or become frequent, check for local heat sources or perform a factory reset on the sensor.

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

C00: Temperature starts at 22.61 C and drifts naturally to 23.08 C over 80 minutes while the room is unoccupied, showing no stuck values.

C08: Occupancy sensor successfully transitions from 'unoccupied' (raw=0) to 'occupied' (raw=1) at 09:53 and remains active during the day, confirming detection capability.

C16: After a transient spike at 20:15, the temperature immediately returns to baseline (22.68 C at 20:20), indicating rapid recovery rather than a persistent fault.

No explicit alarm, fault, or error events are logged for either device in any chunk.

Does not fully explain the cause of the isolated high-temperature spikes (25.00 C range) seen in C15 and C16, though these are likely telemetry noise or minor environmental factors.

The temperature sensor experienced intermittent telemetry errors or transient hardware glitches, evidenced by isolated high-value spikes that deviate significantly from the surrounding baseline and other room sensors.

C15: At 18:45, the sensor reports 25.00 C, which is ~2 degrees higher than the previous reading (23.00 C) and inconsistent with other rooms (~23.00 C). It recovers to 22.98 C by 18:50.

C16: At 20:15, the sensor reports 25.01 C, again ~2.2 degrees higher than the preceding (22.76 C) and succeeding (22.68 C) readings, and inconsistent with other rooms (~22.60 C).

These spikes are isolated single-point events with immediate recovery, lacking the persistence required for a definitive 'stuck' or 'drift' diagnosis but suggesting potential signal integrity issues.

Per protocol, scaled temperature values alone are insufficient for a fault conclusion without direct fault evidence (alarms, repeated non-recovery).

The anomalies are transient and self-correcting, which is characteristic of telemetry noise rather than permanent hardware failure.

No corroborating evidence (e.g., HVAC malfunction, fire risk) exists to support a physical temperature rise.

The immediate recovery of temperature values after the 25.00 C+ spikes in C15 and C16 (returning to ~22.7 C within 5-10 minutes) strongly supports the normal hypothesis of telemetry noise over a persistent sensor malfunction.

The successful state transition of the occupancy sensor in C08 (0 -> 1) confirms the device's core logic is functional, ruling out total sensor failure.

Historical data on the frequency of such spikes to determine if this is a recurring pattern or an isolated incident.

Diagnostic logs from the sensor itself (if available) to check for internal error codes during the spike timestamps.

Check for recurrence of the ~25.00 C spikes in the missing afternoon/evening chunks (C10-C14) to determine if this is a persistent intermittent fault or isolated noise.

Verify if the 'None' values in kitchen_temp_sensor correlate with any specific events or are just data gaps, as they might indicate broader telemetry issues in the cluster.

Confirm that the occupancy sensor transitions in C08 and subsequent chunks are consistent and not showing 'stuck' states or rapid flickering indicative of hardware failure.

The investigator correctly identified transient temperature spikes (~25.00 C) in C15 and C16 but concluded the device is 'normal' based solely on immediate recovery. This is insufficient for a definitive health verdict without ruling out intermittent faults.

Per protocol, scaled temperature values alone are not enough for a fault conclusion, but repeated or patterned anomalies require investigation. The current evidence only covers two isolated points in time.

The investigation missed the large gap between C09 (ending 12:50) and C15 (starting 18:40). We need to see if these spikes occurred earlier in the day (e.g., during cooking hours in C07/C08/C09) or if they are unique to the evening.

Risk of false alarm is medium because dismissing potential sensor drift/intermittent failure based on two recovered points is risky; however, there is no direct fault evidence (alarms/stuck values) yet.

Request adjacent chunks to establish a baseline frequency of these anomalies.

The living room temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally. The temperature readings show expected diurnal variation (rising from ~23°C at night to ~25°C in the morning, then dropping back to ~22-23°C in the evening), consistent with a typical residential environment without active heating/cooling anomalies. Occupancy transitions from unoccupied to occupied align with human presence patterns.

C00: Temperature starts at 22.61 C and rises gradually to 23.08 C over 1h20m while unoccupied, showing stable sensor behavior.

C00: Occupancy remains 'unoccupied' (raw=0) consistently during the early morning hours.

C08: Occupancy transitions to 'occupied' (raw=1) at 10:38, coinciding with higher ambient temperatures (25.45 C), suggesting solar gain or HVAC activity affecting the room.

C16: Occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout the evening period (19:48-20:55).

C16: Temperature drops from 24.98 C to ~22.65 C by 20:55, consistent with cooling down after sunset or HVAC adjustment.

Does not account for the single anomalous spike in C16.

The living room temperature sensor experienced a transient malfunction or reporting error around 20:15 on 2026-06-13. A reading of 25.01 C was recorded immediately following a reading of 22.76 C, which is physically inconsistent with the gradual cooling trend observed before and after this point. This represents a potential sensor glitch or communication artifact.

C16: At 20:15:00, `living_room_temp_sensor` reports `TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = 25.01 C (raw=2501)`.

C16: Preceding reading at 20:10:00 was 22.58 C. Following reading at 20:20:00 was 22.68 C.

C16: Other sensors in the house (master_bedroom, second_bedroom, kitchen) remained stable in the 22.5-22.7 C range during this period, making a sudden 2.4 C rise in the living room highly unlikely as an environmental event.

C16: The value reverted to normal (22.68 C) within 5 minutes, indicating it was a transient fault rather than a permanent drift or stuck value.

The anomaly is isolated to a single data point and recovered immediately, which may be classified as telemetry noise rather than a hardware fault.

No explicit alarm or fault code was generated by the device.

C16: The outlier temperature reading of 25.01 C at 20:15:00 in the living room, contrasting sharply with the surrounding 22.6-22.7 C readings and other rooms' stability.

Device logs for any explicit fault codes or diagnostic events from the `living_room_temp_sensor` around 20:15:00.

Contextual information about whether any heat source (e.g., oven, heater) was activated in the living room at that specific time, though unlikely given the rapid return to baseline.

The investigator identified a single transient temperature spike (25.01 C) in C16 but classified it as a potential 'sensor_malfunction' despite explicitly noting it recovered immediately and lacked alarms. According to protocol, scaled temperature values alone are not sufficient for a fault conclusion without direct fault evidence (stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarms). This single point is likely telemetry noise.

The investigation relies heavily on interpreting the anomaly as a malfunction rather than noise. A proper device-health check requires confirming if this was an isolated incident or part of a pattern. While C00 and C08 show normal operation, the lack of other chunks makes it impossible to rule out intermittent communication issues vs hardware faults definitively, though the current evidence leans towards 'normal with noise'.

The Occupancy sensor analysis is sound, showing correct transitions. However, the Temperature sensor conclusion is weak because it hinges on one outlier that fits the definition of 'telemetry noise' rather than 'device fault'.

The investigator correctly identified the data points but misapplied the fault threshold. The spike at 20:15 in C16 is a classic example of a transient error/noise event that recovers instantly. The protocol states: 'Scaled temperature values alone are not enough' for a fault conclusion. Since there are no repeated failures, stuck states, or alarm events, labeling this as a 'sensor_malfunction' is a high false-alarm risk.

The overall verdict should likely be 'Normal' (with noted telemetry noise), but the current output presents a conflicting hypothesis of malfunction. To finalize, we need to ensure the 'malfunction' hypothesis is properly dismissed based on the 'single transient spike' rule, or confirm if other chunks show similar behavior. Given the strong evidence of normalcy in C00/C08 and the recovery in C16, the case is effectively closed as 'Normal', but the current output structure suggests uncertainty. I will mark it as insufficient to allow the system to formally close the 'malfunction' query or refine the final verdict to 'Normal' with a note on noise.

Actually, looking closer, the prompt asks to judge if they work normally. The evidence shows they do, except for one noisy reading. The investigator's 'anomaly_hypothesis' is weak. The 'normal_hypothesis' is strong. The issue is the investigator didn't confidently reject the anomaly. I will recommend refining the investigation to explicitly dismiss the noise as non-faulty behavior, or simply allow final verdict if the system accepts 'Normal' as the answer. However, since the investigator raised a 'suspected' malfunction, I must flag the risk. The best action is to refine the conclusion to 'Normal' by dismissing the noise, which might require a specific step to 'close' the anomaly thread. Let's stick to 'refine_investigation' to force a clear 'Normal' verdict over the ambiguous 'maybe malfunction' state.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 488,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "kitchen": 308,
    "bathroom": 53,
    "entrance": 51
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1162,
    "Occupancy": 384,
    "OnOff": 17,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "LockState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 1,
  "occupancy_events": 384,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "living_room_temp_sensor",
      "living_room_occupancy"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 living_room 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "living_room_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C08",
    "C16"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "temperature_sensor_normal_operation",
    "occupancy_sensor_state_transitions"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline check for temperature sensor stability and initial occupancy state (unoccupied) at the start of the log.",
    "C08: Critical chunk showing the transition of the occupancy sensor from 'unoccupied' to 'occupied', verifying its ability to detect presence changes.",
    "C16: Later time period check to ensure the temperature sensor continues to report stable, realistic values and the occupancy sensor remains functional during active periods."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The living room temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally. The temperature readings show stable, realistic fluctuations consistent with a residential environment, and the occupancy sensor correctly transitions between occupied and unoccupied states without stuck values or communication failures.",
      "evidence": [
        "C00: Temperature starts a