只在儿童房一个房间内发生，kids_room_occupancy=1，有小孩在场

No confirmed safety anomaly; the evening cooking event is incomplete in logs but lacks evidence of hazard, and morning events were supervised.

Explanation: The primary safety concern identified by the investigator was potential unattended cooking. For the morning event (C05-C06), the cook surface was turned on at 06:32 and off at 07:28. Crucially, C06 shows dining room occupancy starting at 07:28:06, immediately following the shutdown, which strongly supports the hypothesis that the meal was prepared and consumed under supervision. No alarms triggered.

Explanation: For the evening event (C20), the cook surface was turned on at 18:36:30, but the log ends at 18:40:00. While this creates an information gap regarding whether the stove was left on, there is no evidence of a fire, smoke alarm activation, or other hazardous outcome within the available data. The absence of confirmation does not constitute positive evidence of an anomaly.

Explanation: Sensor dropouts (None values) for the kitchen temperature sensor occurred transiently during high-load appliance usage but recovered immediately. This pattern is consistent with common IoT telemetry noise or temporary network congestion rather than a persistent device fault or safety-critical failure.

Explanation: Given the lack of explicit alarm events, the plausible normal explanation for the morning routine, and the inconclusive nature of the truncated evening log, the evidence does not support a definitive anomaly classification. However, due to the unresolved state of the evening cooking, confidence is low.

C06: kitchen_cook_surface turns OFF at 07:28:00, followed by dining_room_occupancy becoming occupied at 07:28:06, indicating supervised meal consumption.

C20: Log truncation at 18:40:00 leaves the state of the kitchen_cook_surface (turned ON at 18:36:30) unknown.

No smoke_co_alarm or water_leak_detector events triggered during any cooking windows.

Retrieve subsequent log chunks (e.g., C21) to verify if the evening cook surface was turned off.

Monitor kitchen sensors for recurrence of dropout patterns during high-power appliance use to rule out electrical interference.

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

Absence of explicit alarm events despite high 'alarmish_count' metrics (likely telemetry noise or non-critical state changes)

Potential unattended appliance usage (cook_surface/dishwasher) during occupied periods

Lock state fluctuations requiring verification of entry/exit logic vs. fault

Temperature trends indicating normal HVAC operation without overheating risks

C00: Establishes baseline overnight conditions (unoccupied, stable temps, no alarms).

C05: Captures morning occupancy onset and initial activity in master bedroom/bathroom; checks for early hazards.

C20: Represents evening active period; verifies continued safe operation and lock status as residents settle in.

Normal morning routine with supervised cooking. The cook surface was turned on for breakfast preparation and manually turned off by the occupant shortly after, indicating active supervision.

C05: kitchen_cook_surface turns ON at 06:32:38 while master_bedroom_occupancy is occupied (raw=1).

C06: kitchen_cook_surface turns OFF at 07:28:00, approximately 55 minutes later.

C06: dining_room_occupancy becomes occupied at 07:28:06, immediately following the cook surface shutdown, suggesting the meal was consumed or the activity concluded normally.

Temperature sensors in the kitchen show stable readings (24-25°C) during this period, with no sudden spikes indicative of uncontrolled heat generation.

The 55-minute duration is relatively long for simple breakfast prep, though not impossible for a full meal.

Occupancy logs for the kitchen itself are sparse/missing in C05/C06, relying on adjacent room occupancy as a proxy for supervision.

Normal evening routine with supervised cooking. The cook surface was activated for dinner preparation and remained on through the end of the provided log window, consistent with ongoing meal preparation.

C20: kitchen_cook_surface turns ON at 18:36:30.

C20: living_room_occupancy and entrance_occupancy remain occupied (raw=1) throughout the evening chunks (C19-C20), indicating residents are home.

No smoke alarms or water leak detectors triggered during these periods.

Temperature trends remain within normal HVAC operating ranges.

The log ends at 18:40:00, only 3.5 minutes after the cook surface was turned on. We do not have the 'outcome' chunk to confirm it was turned off, leaving a small window of uncertainty regarding whether it was left unattended after the logs stopped.

Transient sensor dropout due to network noise or sleep mode, not hardware failure. The kitchen temperature sensor briefly returns None but recovers immediately.

C05: kitchen_temp_sensor reports None at 06:33:08, then reports valid data (24.85 C) at 06:35:00.

C20: kitchen_temp_sensor reports None at 18:37:00, immediately after the cook surface turns on. No further data is shown in the truncated C20, but previous patterns show quick recovery.

Other sensors in the same vicinity (living_room, master_bedroom) continue reporting stable values, isolating the issue to the single device rather than a systemic network collapse.

The recurrence of None values coinciding with high-power appliance usage (cook surface) could suggest electromagnetic interference or power fluctuation, which might indicate a wiring issue rather than just 'noise', though current evidence is insufficient to prove fault.

Potential unattended cooking risk in the morning. The cook surface remained on for ~55 minutes without direct kitchen occupancy confirmation, raising a low-level fire risk if the occupant left the area.

During the interval 06:33-07:28, kitchen_occupancy is not explicitly logged as 'occupied' in the provided snippets (only master/kids/dining rooms are tracked closely).

The gap between turning on the stove and the next confirmed kitchen-adjacent activity (dining room occupancy at 07:28) is significant.

Master bedroom occupancy is confirmed throughout, suggesting an adult is present in the house.

The eventual turn-off suggests intentional action, not a malfunction.

Incomplete safety verification for evening cooking. The logs cut off shortly after the cook surface was turned on, preventing confirmation of safe termination.

Log ends at 18:40:00. The state of the cook surface at 18:40:00 is unknown (likely ON, but not confirmed OFF).

Without the post-cooking outcome chunk, we cannot rule out that the user walked away immediately after turning it on.

This is a data limitation rather than a confirmed hazard. The probability of immediate abandonment is lower than the morning scenario where the duration was longer before the last known check-in.

Sensor reliability concern. Repeated transient 'None' values from the kitchen temperature sensor when the cook surface is active may indicate EMI or power instability, potentially compromising other smart home automations dependent on that sensor or network segment.

C05: None at 06:33:08 (Cook surface ON since 06:32:38).

C20: None at 18:37:00 (Cook surface ON since 18:36:30).

Pattern suggests correlation between high-load appliance activation and sensor dropout.

Single isolated dropouts are common in IoT devices and often recover automatically.

Does not constitute a direct safety threat unless the sensor is critical for fire mitigation (which standard temp sensors are not; smoke detectors are).

C06: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff = off (raw=False) at 07:28:00 confirms the morning cooking event was terminated.

C06: dining_room_occupancy = occupied (raw=1) at 07:28:06 provides strong contextual evidence that the occupant was present and likely consuming the meal, supporting the 'supervised' hypothesis.

C20: Log truncation at 18:40:00 leaves the evening cook surface state unresolved, creating the primary information gap for safety assessment.

Confirmation of kitchen_cook_surface state after 18:40:00 to verify if it was turned off.

Direct kitchen_occupancy logs for the 06:33-07:28 window to definitively prove supervision during the morning cooking event.

Smoke_co_alarm or water_leak_detector status specifically during the cooking windows to rule out any latent hazards that didn't trigger alarms.

C05: kitchen_cook_surface turns ON at 06:32:38 while master_bedroom_occupancy is occupied (raw=1).

C06: kitchen_cook_surface turns OFF at 07:28:00, approximately 55 minutes later.

C20: kitchen_cook_surface turns ON at 18:36:30.

No smoke alarms or water leak detectors triggered during these periods.

Temperature trends remain within normal HVAC operating ranges.

C05: kitchen_temp_sensor reports None at 06:33:08, then reports valid data (24.85 C) at 06:35:00.

The gap between turning on the stove and the next confirmed kitchen-adjacent activity (dining room occupancy at 07:28) is significant.

Log ends at 18:40:00. The state of the cook surface at 18:40:00 is unknown (likely ON, but not confirmed OFF).

Without the post-cooking outcome chunk, we cannot rule out that the user walked away immediately after turning it on.

C05: None at 06:33:08 (Cook surface ON since 06:32:38).

C20: None at 18:37:00 (Cook surface ON since 18:36:30).

Pattern suggests correlation between high-load appliance activation and sensor dropout.

Verify kitchen_cook_surface state in C06 to confirm morning cooking was supervised and terminated.

Retrieve post-18:40 chunks (e.g., C21) to determine if evening cook surface was turned off or left unattended.

Check for explicit smoke_co_alarm or water_leak_detector events during cooking windows to rule out latent hazards.

The investigator correctly identified the primary safety risk as potential unattended cooking but relied heavily on 'absence of evidence' (missing kitchen occupancy logs) rather than direct confirmation of supervision or termination.

For the morning event (C05), the investigation claims the cook surface was turned off at 07:28:00, but this timestamp falls in C06. The provided text for C06 is missing from the 'Focused Chunks' list in the prompt's context window (only C00, C05, C10, C20 were listed as focus chunks, though C06 content is present in the full log block). However, the investigator's output cites C06 data. If C06 is not fully reviewed or if the truncation logic is flawed, this is a risk.

Crucially, for the evening event (C20), the log ends at 18:40:00 with the cook surface ON. The investigator notes this uncertainty but does not request the subsequent chunk (C21) to resolve it. A composite-safety verdict cannot be made without confirming the outcome of the active hazard.

The 'sensor dropout' hypothesis (A3) is flagged as high false-alarm risk because it relies on transient None values which recovered immediately, lacking evidence of persistent fault or hazardous consequence.

Action: Request C21 to close the evening cooking loop. Re-evaluate morning supervision using C06 explicitly.

Normal morning and evening cooking routines with standard HVAC operation. The kitchen cook surface is activated during occupied periods (morning and evening), which aligns with typical meal preparation. Temperature readings remain within comfortable residential ranges (22-25°C), indicating stable environmental conditions without overheating.

C05: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 06:32, followed by normal occupancy in adjacent rooms (master bedroom, kids room).

C20: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 18:36, with continuous occupancy in living room, dining room, and entrance.

Temperature sensors show gradual, consistent changes across all rooms (e.g., C00 night cooling, C05/C10 daytime warming), consistent with natural thermal dynamics or standard HVAC cycling.

No smoke alarms or water leak detectors triggered in any chunk.

Does not fully account for the brief telemetry dropout of the kitchen temperature sensor coinciding with cook surface activation, though this could be a transient network issue rather than a safety failure.

Assumes supervision based on general house occupancy, but does not confirm that a specific individual was actively monitoring the cooking process.

Potential unattended cooking risk due to lack of direct supervision in the kitchen during cook surface activation. While other parts of the house are occupied, the kitchen itself has no dedicated occupancy sensor logs showing presence *during* the active cooking windows in C05 and C20. The simultaneous loss of kitchen temperature telemetry suggests a potential device fault or environmental interference that might mask early signs of overheating or fire.

C05: Kitchen cook surface turns ON at 06:32:38. No 'kitchen_occupancy' event is logged turning ON or remaining ON immediately before or during this time. The last known state for kitchen occupancy is not explicitly shown as 'occupied' in the provided snippets for that exact minute, unlike master bedroom/kids room.

C05: At 06:33:08, kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None', shortly after cook surface activation. This creates a blind spot for heat monitoring.

C20: Kitchen cook surface turns ON at 18:36:30. Similar to C05, there is no explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' log confirming someone is standing in the kitchen. Occupancy is confirmed in Living Room (18:07) and Dining Room (18:08), but these are distinct zones.

C20: At 18:37:00, kitchen_temp_sensor again reports 'None' during cook surface activity.

The absence of a 'kitchen_occupancy' log does not definitively prove the kitchen is empty; it may simply mean the sensor didn't trigger or report in the sampled chunks, whereas other rooms did.

The query anchor targets 'composite-safety', and while unattended cooking is a risk, there is no evidence of escalation (smoke, high temp, alarm) to confirm a hazardous outcome.

The 'None' values for temperature could be explained by sensor maintenance, network dropouts, or the sensor being physically moved/covered, rather than a safety-critical failure.

Sensor malfunction or data integrity issue in the kitchen environment. The repeated occurrence of 'None' values for the kitchen temperature sensor precisely when the cook surface is activated suggests a correlation between the appliance's power draw/heat emission and the sensor's ability to report data. This could indicate a hardware fault or electromagnetic interference affecting the sensor.

C05: kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None at 06:33:08, immediately following cook_surface OnOff=on at 06:32:38.

C20: kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None at 18:37:00, immediately following cook_surface OnOff=on at 18:36:30.

In both instances, the value returns to normal in subsequent timestamps (e.g., 06:35:00 and 18:40:00), indicating intermittent failure rather than permanent breakage.

Intermittent 'None' values are common in IoT devices due to Wi-Fi congestion or sleep modes, and do not necessarily constitute a 'malfunction' requiring repair unless they persist.

Without explicit error codes from the device, this remains a hypothesis based on correlation rather than causation.

Correlation between kitchen_cook_surface activation and kitchen_temp_sensor reporting 'None' in both C05 and C20.

Absence of explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' logs during the active cooking periods in C05 and C20, despite occupancy in adjacent rooms.

Lack of any smoke alarm or water leak detector triggers throughout the entire day.

Direct occupancy logs for the kitchen zone to confirm if anyone was present during cooking.

Status of the kitchen smoke/co alarm to ensure it is functional and not silenced.

Explanation for the 'None' temperature readings (e.g., device logs, error codes) to distinguish between network glitch and physical sensor failure.

Duration of the cook surface usage beyond the initial 'On' command to assess if it was left on unattended for an extended period.

C05: kitchen_cook_surface turns ON at 06:32:38 while master_bedroom_occupancy is occupied (raw=1).

C06: kitchen_cook_surface turns OFF at 07:28:00, approximately 55 minutes later.

C20: kitchen_cook_surface turns ON at 18:36:30.

No smoke alarms or water leak detectors triggered during these periods.

Temperature trends remain within normal HVAC operating ranges.

C05: kitchen_temp_sensor reports None at 06:33:08, then reports valid data (24.85 C) at 06:35:00.

The gap between turning on the stove and the next confirmed kitchen-adjacent activity (dining room occupancy at 07:28) is significant.

Log ends at 18:40:00. The state of the cook surface at 18:40:00 is unknown (likely ON, but not confirmed OFF).

Without the post-cooking outcome chunk, we cannot rule out that the user walked away immediately after turning it on.

C05: None at 06:33:08 (Cook surface ON since 06:32:38).

C20: None at 18:37:00 (Cook surface ON since 18:36:30).

Pattern suggests correlation between high-load appliance activation and sensor dropout.

C05: kitchen_cook_surface turns ON at 06:32:38 while master_bedroom_occupancy is occupied (raw=1).

C06: kitchen_cook_surface turns OFF at 07:28:00, approximately 55 minutes later.

C20: kitchen_cook_surface turns ON at 18:36:30.

C20: living_room_occupancy and entrance_occupancy remain occupied (raw=1) throughout the evening chunks (C19-C20), indicating residents are home.

No smoke alarms or water leak detectors triggered during these periods.

Temperature trends remain within normal HVAC operating ranges.

C05: kitchen_temp_sensor reports None at 06:33:08, then reports valid data (24.85 C) at 06:35:00.

The gap between turning on the stove and the next confirmed kitchen-adjacent activity (dining room occupancy at 07:28) is significant.

Log ends at 18:40:00. The state of the cook surface at 18:40:00 is unknown (likely ON, but not confirmed OFF).

Without the post-cooking outcome chunk, we cannot rule out that the user walked away immediately after turning it on.

C05: None at 06:33:08 (Cook surface ON since 06:32:38).

C20: None at 18:37:00 (Cook surface ON since 18:36:30).

Pattern suggests correlation between high-load appliance activation and sensor dropout.

Verify kitchen_cook_surface OffOff state and duration in C06 (post-morning cooking) to confirm if it was left unattended.

Verify kitchen_cook_surface OffOff state and duration in C19 (post-evening cooking) to confirm if it was left unattended.

Check for any smoke_co_alarm or water_leak_detector events in the full day log, not just the focused chunks.

Confirm if 'kitchen_temp_sensor' None values are isolated incidents or part of a broader connectivity issue affecting other devices.

The investigator correctly identified potential risks (unattended cooking, sensor dropout) but relied heavily on missing logs ('absence of evidence') rather than positive fault evidence.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is weak because the sensor recovers immediately; this is likely transient network noise or sleep mode, not a hardware fault requiring repair based on current data.

The 'unattended_cooking' risk is speculative. The investigation lacks the crucial 'outcome' chunks (C06 and C19) that would show whether the cook surface was turned off. Without knowing if the appliance was left on, we cannot assess the actual safety risk.

The query asks for a comprehensive safety status. Concluding 'unsafe' based solely on missing occupancy logs and transient telemetry gaps is a high false-alarm risk. We need to see the end of the cooking events to determine if they were supervised/terminated normally.

Request C06 and C19 to close the loop on the cooking events and verify device health over a longer period.

## 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: 三室两厅 (3BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- dining_room: 餐厅灯<dimmable_light>, 餐厅运动传感器<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>
- kids_room: 儿童房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 儿童房灯<dimmable_light>, 儿童房窗帘<window_covering>, 儿童房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 儿童房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 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>, 客厅副灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅氛围灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘1<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器1<contact_sensor>, 客厅窗户传感器2<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bathroom: 主卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 主卫灯<onoff_light>, 主卫运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧床头灯<onoff_light>, 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_bathroom: 次卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 次卫灯<onoff_light>
- second_bedroom: 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧空调<air_conditioner>, 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": 403,
    "master_bedroom": 519,
    "kids_room": 520,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 217,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 52,
    "entrance": 227,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1082,
    "OnOff": 30,

## 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": [
      "all"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor",
      "temperature_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "kitchen_water_leak_detector",
    "entrance_door_lock",
    "entrance_contact_sensor",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "kitchen_dishwasher"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C10",
    "C20"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Absence of explicit alarm events despite high 'alarmish_count' metrics (likely telemetry noise or non-critical state changes)",
    "Potential unattended appliance usage (cook_surface/dishwasher) during occupied periods",
    "Lock state fluctuations requiring verification of entry/exit logic vs. fault",
    "Temperature trends indicating normal HVAC operation without overheating risks"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Establishes baseline overnight conditions (unoccupied, stable temps, no alarms).",
    "C05: Captures morning occupancy onset and initial activity in master bedroom/bathroom; checks for early hazards.",
    "C10: Represents mid-day active period; critical for checking if kitchen appliances (cook_surface/dishwasher) are monitored while occupants are present.",
    "C20: Repre


路径是 儿童房→卫生间→儿童房，直来直去没有去其他地方，持续时间短

No active safety threats detected; the home is in a normal unoccupied state with stable environmental conditions.

Explanation: The logs cover a period from early morning to mid-morning (approx. 01:10 to 11:30) where all occupancy sensors consistently report 'unoccupied' (raw=0). This indicates no human presence or activity that would trigger immediate safety concerns like falls or intrusions.

Explanation: There are no explicit alarm events for smoke, carbon monoxide, or water leaks in any of the provided chunks. The absence of these alarms, combined with the lack of other hazard indicators, supports a safe status.

Explanation: Temperature readings show gradual, oscillating fluctuations within a normal range (approx. 22.9°C to 25.6°C). While there is a slight upward trend consistent with passive solar heating or ambient changes in an empty house, the rates of change are slow and do not exhibit the rapid spikes characteristic of fire or equipment failure.

Explanation: Lock states remain static (no flips), and contact sensors show no anomalies, ruling out unauthorized entry or door/window breaches during this window.

Explanation: The supervisor noted missing chunks (C05, C09, C10) but confirmed that the available data does not show monotonic spikes indicative of active hazards. Without evidence of device faults or explicit alarms, the hypothesis of undetected fire risk remains speculative and unsupported by direct telemetry.

All occupancy sensors report 'unoccupied' throughout the timeline.

No smoke, CO, or water leak alarm events present in logs.

Temperature values fluctuate gradually between ~23°C and ~25.5°C without rapid spikes.

Zero lock state transitions or contact sensor triggers.

Verify HVAC system status if temperature trends continue to rise abnormally in future reports.

Ensure smoke/CO detectors are functioning correctly via periodic self-tests.

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

enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code

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

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

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

Absence of explicit alarm events despite presence of safety devices

Normal temperature fluctuations without fault indicators

Consistent unoccupied states indicating no immediate intrusion or emergency activity

The home is in a standard unoccupied state with normal HVAC operation. The gradual temperature rise observed from early morning through mid-morning is consistent with passive solar heating or ambient environmental changes in an empty house, without any active hazards.

All occupancy sensors across all rooms (living_room, bedrooms, kitchen, entrance, etc.) consistently report 'unoccupied' (raw=0) throughout the entire timeline (C01-C08).

No explicit alarm events (smoke, water leak, carbon monoxide) are present in any chunk.

Temperature readings show smooth, gradual fluctuations (e.g., Kitchen: 22.90°C to 25.47°C over ~10 hours), which is physically plausible for a building envelope responding to external conditions or slow internal heat gain.

Lock state flips are 0, and no contact sensor anomalies are reported, indicating no unauthorized entry attempts.

Device connectivity appears stable; no repeated timeouts or fault codes are visible.

Relies on the assumption that 'no alarms' equals 'no risk', ignoring potential silent failures or delayed reactions.

Does not account for the possibility of a hazard developing slowly without triggering immediate thresholds.

Potential undetected fire or thermal hazard in the kitchen due to sustained, unmonitored heat accumulation. While no smoke alarm triggered, the kitchen temperature shows a steady, monotonic increase over several hours while the room remains unoccupied, suggesting a heat source (e.g., left-on appliance, electrical fault) that has not yet reached the alarm threshold or failed to trigger.

Kitchen temperature rises steadily from 22.90°C at 01:10 to 25.47°C by 11:30, a delta of ~2.6°C over 10+ hours.

This rise is slightly more pronounced than other rooms (e.g., Living Room rose from 23.08°C to 25.35°C, delta ~2.3°C), though the difference is marginal.

The kitchen is unoccupied for the entire duration, meaning there is no human supervision to detect or mitigate a developing issue.

The query targets safety risks; the absence of an alarm does not rule out a sub-threshold hazard or a sensor failure specific to the kitchen environment.

Supervisor feedback explicitly flagged the need to check for 'slow-rising heat signatures' indicative of HVAC failure or window opening, but also noted the risk of missing data gaps where critical events could occur.

The temperature rise is gradual and within typical daily variation ranges for an unoccupied house; it lacks the rapid spike characteristic of a fire.

No corroborating evidence such as smoke particles, CO levels, or power surges is available.

The hypothesis relies heavily on inferring a hazard from normal-looking telemetry trends without positive confirmation of a fault or alarm.

If this were a true fire risk, one would expect either a faster temperature rise or an eventual alarm trigger, neither of which occurred.

Security vulnerability due to prolonged unoccupied status with no verification of entry/exit logs. The home has been completely unoccupied for over 10 hours with no lock activity, raising questions about whether the home was secured properly before departure or if a breach went unnoticed due to lack of occupancy detection.

All occupancy sensors remain at 0 for the entire period.

Lock state flips are 0, implying no doors were opened or closed during this window.

If occupants left earlier and returned later, the gap in activity logs creates a blind spot for potential intrusion between the last known state and the current report.

Supervisor notes highlight the need to verify door lock state transitions to rule out unauthorized entry during unoccupied periods.

Zero lock flips is consistent with a securely locked, unoccupied home.

No motion or contact sensor triggers suggest no physical entry occurred.

Intrusion requires positive evidence of entry; absence of occupancy alone is insufficient to claim intrusion.

Consistent 'unoccupied' (raw=0) status across all rooms and devices for the entire 10+ hour period.

Absence of any explicit alarm events (smoke, leak, CO) in all chunks.

Steady, gradual temperature increase in all rooms, particularly the kitchen, without sudden spikes or drops.

Zero lock state flips and no contact sensor anomalies.

Data from C05 (mid-morning peak) and C09/C10 (afternoon) to confirm if the temperature trend continues, stabilizes, or reverses.

Explicit status of smoke/CO/water leak detectors in the full log set to confirm they are online and functioning, not just absent from the focused chunks.

Context on household schedule: Are occupants expected to be away? Is this a vacation home?

HVAC system logs to determine if the temperature rise is due to system failure (e.g., heater stuck on) or passive environmental factors.

Verify presence of smoke/CO/water leak alarm events in the full log set (not just temperature/occupancy).

Check for explicit device fault or connectivity error logs.

Confirm if the 'unoccupied' state is consistent with expected household schedule to rule out intrusion vs. normal absence.

Analyze temperature trends in C05 and C09/C10 to determine if the rise stabilizes, reverses, or continues accelerating.

The investigator correctly identifies that no explicit alarms are present and temperatures are within plausible physical ranges (scaled correctly).

However, the investigation relies heavily on a 'hypothesis' of undetected fire risk based solely on gradual temperature rise in an unoccupied home. This is speculative without corroborating evidence (smoke, CO, power usage) or a clear deviation from baseline behavior.

The current chunks (C01-C04, C06-C08) show stable, oscillating temperatures typical of passive heating/cooling cycles in an empty house. There is no monotonic spike indicative of active fire.

Crucially, the triage identified C05 and C10 as key chunks for checking mid-morning peaks and afternoon stability. These are missing from the provided focused chunks. Without them, we cannot confirm if the trend was anomalous or normal.

The conclusion 'home is safe' is premature because it assumes no silent failures occurred. The conclusion 'home is unsafe' is unsupported by direct evidence.

Need to retrieve C05 and C09/C10 to complete the temporal picture and check for any missed alarm triggers or fault codes that might have been truncated or omitted in the initial selection.

The home is in a normal, unoccupied state with stable environmental conditions. All temperature readings are within typical residential ranges (22-25°C) and show natural diurnal fluctuations without sudden spikes indicative of fire or equipment failure. No occupancy events, lock changes, or alarm triggers have occurred.

All rooms consistently report 'unoccupied' (raw=0) across all three time chunks (C00, C05, C10).

Temperature sensors show gradual, small-magnitude variations (e.g., Living Room: 22.73°C to 22.92°C in C00; 24.86°C to 25.26°C in C05), consistent with ambient thermal inertia rather than rapid heating from a hazard.

Lock state flips count is 0, indicating no entry/exit activity.

No explicit alarm, fault, or emergency events are present in the logs.

Relies on the assumption that the absence of alarms confirms safety, which is true only if devices are functioning correctly (which cannot be fully verified without fault logs).

Potential undetected hazard due to lack of supervisory context for high-risk areas (Kitchen). While temperatures are normal, the complete absence of human presence in the kitchen during morning hours (when cooking typically occurs) combined with the lack of any smoke/water leak alarm data raises a low-probability risk of an unattended incident that failed to trigger alarms or was not logged. However, given the static nature of the logs, this is primarily a monitoring gap hypothesis rather than an active threat.

Kitchen temperature remains stable (~22.7°C - 25.2°C) with no spikes, making active fire or boiling water unlikely.

Kitchen occupancy is consistently 'unoccupied'.

No smoke_co_alarm or water_leak_detector events are recorded in the provided chunks, despite these being target devices.

The query asks for safety analysis, but the logs only provide telemetry for temp/occupancy/locks, lacking direct sensor status for smoke/water detectors other than the absence of their specific event logs.

There is no evidence of a hazard source (no heat spike, no leak signal).

The 'risk' is speculative based on missing data rather than positive identification of a problem.

Normal household operation often involves periods where the kitchen is empty and safe.

Consistent 'unoccupied' status across all rooms and time periods.

Stable, non-spike temperature readings in the kitchen and other rooms.

Absence of any explicit alarm or fault events in the Matter-style logs.

Direct status updates from smoke/co2 alarms and water leak detectors (only inferred by absence of events).

Contextual information about whether the home is supposed to be occupied at these times (e.g., is it a vacation home?).

Logs for the full 24-hour period to rule out transient events that may have occurred outside the sampled chunks.

No explicit alarm events (smoke, water leak, carbon monoxide) are present in any chunk.

Lock state flips are 0, and no contact sensor anomalies are reported, indicating no unauthorized entry attempts.

Device connectivity appears stable; no repeated timeouts or fault codes are visible.

Kitchen temperature rises steadily from 22.90°C at 01:10 to 25.47°C by 11:30, a delta of ~2.6°C over 10+ hours.

All occupancy sensors remain at 0 for the entire period.

Lock state flips are 0, implying no doors were opened or closed during this window.

Check for explicit alarm events (smoke, water leak) in the full timeline, not just inferred from absence.

Verify door lock state transitions and contact sensor status to rule out unauthorized entry during unoccupied periods.

Analyze temperature trends across all chunks to detect any slow-rising heat signatures or sudden drops indicative of HVAC failure or window opening.

Confirm if 'unoccupied' states are consistent with expected home usage patterns (e.g., is this a vacation home?).

Check for device fault logs or connectivity drops that might explain missing data.

The investigator correctly identifies that current telemetry shows no active hazards but relies heavily on the 'absence of evidence' argument.

The query asks for a comprehensive safety analysis, but the investigation only covers three sparse time chunks (midnight, early morning, early afternoon). This leaves large gaps where critical events (like cooking fires or break-ins) could occur undetected.

The hypothesis A1 ('Potential undetected hazard') is speculative because it assumes risk based on missing data rather than positive evidence. However, dismissing it entirely without checking the missing time windows is also risky.

To provide a robust safety verdict, we need to see if any alarms were triggered in the unobserved periods or if there are any subtle indicators of malfunction (e.g., stuck sensors, communication errors) in the full log set.

The current evidence is insufficient to confirm 'safe' or 'unsafe' definitively due to the sampling gap. Refining the investigation to include adjacent chunks is necessary to cover the temporal scope requested by the 'comprehensive status report' query.

## 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: 三室两厅 (3BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- dining_room: 餐厅灯<dimmable_light>, 餐厅运动传感器<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>
- kids_room: 儿童房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 儿童房灯<dimmable_light>, 儿童房窗帘<window_covering>, 儿童房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 儿童房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 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>, 客厅副灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅氛围灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘1<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器1<contact_sensor>, 客厅窗户传感器2<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bathroom: 主卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 主卫灯<onoff_light>, 主卫运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧床头灯<onoff_light>, 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_bathroom: 次卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 次卫灯<onoff_light>
- second_bedroom: 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧空调<air_conditioner>, 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": 337,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "kids_room": 338,
    "kitchen": 288,
    "dining_room": 48,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 48,
    "entrance": 48
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1152,
    "Occupancy": 336
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 0,
  "occupancy_event

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "all"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor",
      "temperature_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety condition and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "kitchen_water_leak_detector",
    "entrance_door_lock",
    "entrance_contact_sensor",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_temp_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C10"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Absence of explicit alarm events despite presence of safety devices",
    "Normal temperature fluctuations without fault indicators",
    "Consistent unoccupied states indicating no immediate intrusion or emergency activity"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00 covers the start of the period (midnight) with baseline temperature and occupancy readings, establishing normal initial conditions.",
    "C05 covers mid-morning when temperatures peak slightly; checking for any smoke/leak alarms triggered by cooking or humidity changes.",
    "C10 covers early afternoon to verify continued stability and absence of delayed fault responses or security breaches."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "query_intent_profile": "composite-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",


BA-04-FP: 传感器触发延迟导致顺序看似跳跃

客厅occupancy在阳台和主卧之间有触发（2秒时），移动路径合理

No active safety anomaly detected in the provided telemetry; however, the assessment is limited by missing critical safety device logs (smoke/CO/water/locks), preventing a comprehensive safety verification.

Explanation: The available telemetry (C09-C15) covers temperature and occupancy sensors exclusively. It shows stable environmental conditions (22-25°C) and consistent 'unoccupied' status across all monitored rooms for the entire duration (11:30-20:30).

Explanation: There are no explicit fault codes, alarm events, or hazardous state transitions (e.g., rapid temperature spikes indicating fire, water wetness events, or lock failures) within the provided data.

Explanation: The Supervisor correctly identified that critical life-safety devices (Smoke/CO alarms, Water Leak detectors, Door Locks) are missing from the focused chunks. Concluding the home is 'safe' without this data carries a high risk of false negative if those specific devices have failed silently.

Explanation: However, based strictly on the *provided* evidence, there is no positive indicator of an anomaly. The absence of evidence is not evidence of presence, but the lack of contradictory signals means we cannot confirm an anomaly either.

Explanation: Per the rules for `composite-safety`, when the anomaly story depends mainly on missing supervision assumptions or incomplete telemetry, and no concrete hazardous sequence is visible in the available logs, the decision defaults to `none` with low confidence due to the data gap.

All occupancy sensors report 'unoccupied' (raw=0) consistently from 11:30 to 20:30.

Temperature readings remain stable between 22.5°C and 25.5°C with no anomalous spikes.

No Smoke/CO, Water Leak, or Door Lock telemetry was provided in the analyzed chunks, creating a blind spot for critical safety verification.

Request additional log chunks (specifically C00 and C18 as noted by Supervisor) that contain telemetry for Smoke/CO alarms, Water Leak detectors, and Door Locks to complete the safety assessment.

Verify the operational status (battery/connection) of all safety-critical devices remotely if possible.

Monitor for any future anomalies once the full dataset is available.

General environmental stability check (temperature trends)

Occupancy verification for security context

Absence of explicit fault/alarm events in telemetry

The home is securely unoccupied with stable environmental conditions. All monitored sensors (temperature, occupancy) are functioning normally and reporting consistent data. No safety hazards (fire, leak, intrusion) are detected.

OccupancySensing.Occupancy is consistently 0 (unoccupied) across all rooms from 11:30 to 20:30.

Temperature readings in all rooms (Living Room, Master Bedroom, Kids Room, Kitchen) remain within a narrow, stable range (approx. 22.5°C - 25.5°C), showing no sudden spikes indicative of fire or heat sources.

No lock state flips or contact sensor triggers were observed, indicating the entrance remained secure.

No explicit fault, alarm, or error events were logged in the provided chunks.

This hypothesis relies on the absence of evidence for smoke/CO alarms and water leaks, as these specific device logs were not included in the focused chunks (C09-C15). It assumes that because temperature is normal, there is no hidden fire risk, which is a probabilistic assumption rather than direct confirmation of alarm functionality.

Potential undetected safety hazard due to missing telemetry from critical safety devices (Smoke/CO/Water Leak). While environmental sensors show stability, the lack of data from explicitly requested safety devices creates a blind spot where a silent failure or early-stage event could go unnoticed.

The query explicitly targets 'smoke_co_alarm' and 'water_leak_detector', but the provided log chunks (C09-C15) contain only Temperature and Occupancy data.

Supervisor feedback highlights that concluding 'safe' without verifying these critical devices carries a medium risk of false alarm if a device has failed silently.

The investigation cannot confirm the operational status of the primary life-safety systems.

This is a meta-anomaly regarding data completeness rather than a physical anomaly in the home. There is no positive evidence of a device failure, only its absence from the current view.

Unattended cooking or localized heat source in the kitchen, though currently mitigated by stable temperatures. The kitchen temperature shows slight fluctuations (e.g., dropping from 25.44°C at 11:45 to 23.23°C at 18:00) while remaining unoccupied. If a heat source was active earlier and turned off, or if it is a low-level persistent source, it might not trigger immediate high-temp alarms but represents a latent risk.

Kitchen occupancy is 0 throughout the entire period.

Kitchen temperature trends downward significantly over the day (from ~25.4°C to ~22.8°C), suggesting cooling after a potential heat source removal or just ambient cooling. However, without baseline pre-activity temps, it's hard to rule out a small, sustained heat source that hasn't caused a spike yet.

No supervision is present in the kitchen.

There is no evidence of a temperature *rise* or sustained high temperature. The trend is cooling/stable. A fire or dangerous unattended cooking scenario would typically manifest as a rising temperature curve or an alarm event, neither of which is present. This hypothesis is weak due to lack of corroborating thermal escalation.

Consistent 'unoccupied' (raw=0) status across all PIR sensors for the entire duration (11:30-20:30).

Stable temperature ranges in all rooms (22-25°C) with no anomalous spikes.

Absence of any Smoke/CO/Water Leak telemetry in the provided chunks despite explicit query focus.

Telemetry logs for Smoke/CO alarms (status, battery, alarm events).

Telemetry logs for Water Leak detectors (status, wet/dry events).

Door Lock state history and Contact Sensor logs for the entrance to verify physical security posture.

Contextual data from smart plugs or cameras in the kitchen to rule out active appliances during unoccupied periods.

Smoke/CO Alarm telemetry (status, battery, alarm events)

Water Leak Detector telemetry (wet/dry status)

Door Lock state history and Contact Sensor logs for the entrance

Verification of 'unoccupied' status consistency across all rooms to rule out sensor failure or blind spots

Contextual data for kitchen appliances (smart plugs/cameras) if available to confirm no active heat sources during unoccupied periods

The investigator correctly identifies that critical safety device logs (smoke, water leak, locks) are missing from the provided chunks (C09-C15).

However, the investigation is currently based on a partial view. The query asks for a comprehensive safety assessment. Concluding the home is 'securely unoccupied' or 'safe' without verifying the operational status of life-safety devices (smoke/CO/water) and physical security (locks) is insufficient.

The current evidence only covers temperature and occupancy sensors. While these show stable environmental conditions, they do not prove the absence of fire, gas, or intrusion risks if the specific alarms/locks are faulty or silent.

The investigator's hypothesis A1 correctly flags this data gap as a risk, but the final verdict cannot be determined until the missing chunks (likely C00 for baseline/start and C18 for end/state) containing the other device types are reviewed.

False-alarm risk is high because concluding 'safety' based solely on temperature/occupancy ignores potential silent failures in smoke/water detectors or lock mechanisms.

Action: Request chunks C00 and C18 (and any others containing non-temp/occ data) to complete the composite safety picture.

The home is in a normal, unoccupied state with stable environmental conditions. All sensors are functioning within expected parameters, and no safety hazards (fire, leak, intrusion) are present.

Temperature readings across all rooms (living room, bedrooms, kitchen) remain within a narrow, comfortable range (approx. 22-24°C) throughout the day and night, showing no signs of rapid heating or cooling anomalies.

Occupancy sensors consistently report 'unoccupied' (raw=0) for all rooms at every check-in point (00:00, 15:30, 23:30), indicating the house is empty.

No lock state flips were recorded (lock_state_flips: 0), suggesting doors remained secure and undisturbed.

No explicit fault, alarm, or error events are present in the telemetry logs.

Temperature patterns show natural diurnal variation (slightly warmer in afternoon C12 vs night C00/C18) without spikes indicative of fire or equipment failure.

Relies on the assumption that 'unoccupied' status accurately reflects reality; if occupants are hiding or using non-sensor areas, this could mask an intrusion.

Does not account for potential blind spots in sensor coverage (e.g., if a fire starts in a corner not covered by temp sensors, though unlikely to go unnoticed by smoke detectors if present).

Potential undetected intrusion or security breach where occupants are bypassing occupancy sensors or the system is failing to detect unauthorized entry despite being armed/monitored.

The query specifically targets 'safety condition' and 'potential risks', implying a need to scrutinize security.

While occupancy is reported as 'unoccupied', the high frequency of occupancy updates (338 events) suggests active monitoring, yet no entry/exit events are logged for the entrance door lock or contact sensors in the provided chunks.

If the home was supposed to be occupied (e.g., during daytime C12), the complete lack of occupancy signals might indicate sensor tampering or a sophisticated intruder avoiding detection zones.

The absence of any 'lock_state_flips' (0) is notable; if the home is unoccupied, locks should ideally be engaged, but we don't see the engagement event in these specific time slices, leaving the final state ambiguous.

Lack of direct evidence: No lock opens, no motion detected, no temperature spikes.

The 'unoccupied' signal is consistent across all rooms and times, which is more likely to mean the house is genuinely empty than a coordinated cover-up.

No corroborating evidence from other devices (e.g., smart plugs turning on, cameras triggering) is available in the focused chunks.

Latent fire risk due to unattended cooking or electrical fault in the kitchen, potentially masked by slow temperature rise or sensor placement.

Kitchen temperatures in chunk C12 (afternoon) show a slight upward trend before stabilizing (24.28 -> 23.86), which could be residual heat from cooking or HVAC cycling.

If the kitchen was used for cooking during the day (C12) and then left unoccupied (as per occupancy sensors), there is a theoretical risk of unattended cooking leading to fire, although no smoke alarm triggers are visible.

The query focuses on 'kitchen_smoke_co_alarm' and 'kitchen_water_leak_detector', suggesting these are critical points of failure to evaluate.

Temperature changes are gradual and within normal ambient ranges, not indicative of a fire.

No smoke or CO alarm events are recorded.

Occupancy sensors show the kitchen as unoccupied, reducing the likelihood of active, supervised cooking, but also reducing the immediate risk of human error if no one is there.

Consistent 'unoccupied' (raw=0) status across all rooms and time periods (C00, C12, C18).

Zero lock state flips, indicating no door opening/closing events.

Stable temperature readings (22-24°C) with no sudden spikes or drops.

Absence of any explicit fault, alarm, or emergency events in the telemetry.

Status of the front door lock (locked/unlocked) at the end of the observation period.

Data from smoke/CO alarms and water leak detectors to confirm they are active and not triggered.

Camera footage or motion history to corroborate the 'unoccupied' status from PIR sensors.

Context on whether the home was intended to be occupied during the C12 (afternoon) window.

OccupancySensing.Occupancy is consistently 0 (unoccupied) across all rooms from 11:30 to 20:30.

No explicit fault, alarm, or error events were logged in the provided chunks.

The investigation cannot confirm the operational status of the primary life-safety systems.

Kitchen occupancy is 0 throughout the entire period.

No supervision is present in the kitchen.

Smoke/CO alarm status and event logs (critical for fire risk assessment)

Water leak detector status and event logs (critical for water damage risk)

Door lock state transitions (locked/unlocked) to verify security posture

Contact sensor events for entrance door to detect entry/exit

Contextual occupancy verification (e.g., smart plugs, cameras) if available

The investigator correctly identifies the home as likely unoccupied based on consistent PIR data, but fails to address the core safety components: smoke/CO alarms and water leak detectors.

The query explicitly asks for a 'comprehensive status report' including 'smoke_co_alarm' and 'water_leak_detector'. The current evidence chunks (C00, C12, C18) only contain temperature and occupancy sensors. No fault or alarm data is present in the provided logs.

Hypothesis A2 (fire risk) is speculative because it relies on the *absence* of evidence (no smoke alarm triggers) rather than positive confirmation that the alarms are functional and silent. Without checking the alarm devices themselves, we cannot confirm they are working or that no fire occurred.

Hypothesis A1 (intrusion) is weak because there is no evidence of forced entry (lock flips, contact sensor triggers). However, the lack of lock/contact data in the focused chunks means we haven't verified the physical security state.

The investigation is currently incomplete because it ignores the specific device types requested in the query anchor. We need chunks containing Smoke/CO and Water Leak telemetry to determine if these critical safety systems are active and reporting normal states.

False-alarm risk is medium: Concluding 'safe' without verifying smoke/water sensors is risky. If a fire started and the alarm failed, the conclusion would be dangerously wrong. Conversely, concluding 'unsafe' based on missing logs is also a false alarm.

## 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: 三室两厅 (3BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- dining_room: 餐厅灯<dimmable_light>, 餐厅运动传感器<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>
- kids_room: 儿童房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 儿童房灯<dimmable_light>, 儿童房窗帘<window_covering>, 儿童房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 儿童房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 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>, 客厅副灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅氛围灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘1<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器1<contact_sensor>, 客厅窗户传感器2<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bathroom: 主卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 主卫灯<onoff_light>, 主卫运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧床头灯<onoff_light>, 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_bathroom: 次卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 次卫灯<onoff_light>
- second_bedroom: 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧空调<air_conditioner>, 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": 337,
    "master_bedroom": 337,
    "kids_room": 336,
    "kitchen": 288,
    "dining_room": 48,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 48,
    "entrance": 48,
    "balcony": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1152,
    "Occupancy": 338,
    "StateValue": 1
  },
  "l

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "all"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "all_sensors",
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor"
    ],
    "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",
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "kitchen_water_leak_detector",
    "entrance_door_lock",
    "entrance_contact_sensor",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C12",
    "C18"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "General environmental stability check (temperature trends)",
    "Occupancy verification for security context",
    "Absence of explicit fault/alarm events in telemetry",
    "Lock state consistency"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Represents the start of the monitoring period (midnight), establishing baseline temperature and occupancy states when the house is likely empty/sleeping.",
    "C12: Represents mid-afternoon, a time when activity might differ from night; checks for any anomalies during daytime hours.",
    "C18: Represents the end of the day/night transition, checking for any late-night issues or changes in state before the next cycle."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "query_intent_profile": "composite-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "d


BA-04-FP: 传感器触发延迟导致顺序看似跳跃

客厅occupancy在阳台和主卧之间有触发（2秒时），移动路径合理

No active safety anomaly detected; the home is in a secure state with normal occupancy and resolved appliance usage.

Explanation: The primary security event (front door lock/unlock) at 17:48 shows a standard manual unlock followed by an immediate auto-lock, consistent with resident entry/exit rather than intrusion or malfunction.

Explanation: The evening cooking session (18:13-19:25) was successfully terminated with an explicit 'off' command at 19:25, mitigating any unattended cooking risk identified in earlier hypotheses.

Explanation: Occupancy sensors confirm continuous presence in adjacent rooms (dining/living) during cooking windows, providing reasonable assurance of supervision despite the lack of direct kitchen occupancy logs.

Explanation: Transient temperature sensor dropouts ('None') recovered quickly and did not indicate persistent device failure or hazardous environmental conditions.

Explanation: No smoke, CO, or water leak alarms were triggered, and all critical devices are in safe states.

C06 (07:45): Front door lock manual unlock -> auto lock sequence.

C23 (19:25): Explicit 'kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = off' confirming end of cooking.

C21/C23: Continuous occupancy in dining/living rooms during cooking periods.

Routine maintenance check on kitchen temperature sensor connectivity to prevent future data gaps.

Continue monitoring for any recurrence of transient sensor dropouts.

Door lock state transition (unlocking) during occupied hours

Contact sensor state change (door open/closed)

Occupancy patterns indicating presence vs absence

Temperature trends for environmental comfort/safety

These chunks cover both the specific security trigger (lock/contact) and the broader behavioral context (occupancy) required for a composite safety assessment.

Normal household activity with standard security and appliance usage. The front door was manually unlocked for entry/exit, then automatically re-locked by the smart lock mechanism. The cook surface was used for cooking in both morning and evening sessions and was turned off after use.

C06 (07:45): Front door lock state changed to 'unlocked' via Manual operation, followed quickly by 'locked' via Auto operation. This is a standard pattern for residents entering or leaving home.

C06 (07:28): Kitchen cook surface turned OFF at 07:28, following an ON event at 06:35 (C05). This indicates a completed cooking session.

C22/C23 (19:25): Kitchen cook surface turned OFF at 19:25, following an ON event at 18:13 (C21). This indicates a completed evening cooking session.

Occupancy logs show consistent presence in bedrooms and living areas during active hours, supporting the likelihood that someone was present to manage appliances.

Does not account for potential gaps in supervision if the person left the kitchen while the stove was on, though the eventual 'off' state mitigates this risk.

Unattended Cooking Risk (Mitigated). The cook surface was activated for extended periods (approx. 53 mins in morning, 72 mins in evening) without explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' logs confirming continuous presence in the kitchen. While the device was eventually turned off, there were intervals where the hazard source was active without direct sensor confirmation of human supervision in the immediate vicinity.

C05 (06:35): Cook surface turns ON. No 'kitchen_occupancy' log confirms presence in the kitchen immediately after. The next relevant occupancy log is 'dining_room_occupied' at 07:28.

C06 (07:28): Cook surface turns OFF. Duration ~53 minutes.

C21 (18:13): Cook surface turns ON. No 'kitchen_occupancy' log confirms presence. Next relevant occupancy is 'dining_room_occupied' at 18:23.

C23 (19:25): Cook surface turns OFF. Duration ~72 minutes.

The absence of 'kitchen_occupancy' events during these high-risk windows relies on inference from other rooms, which is less robust than direct confirmation.

The cook surface was successfully turned off in both instances, meaning no fire occurred. The risk was latent but not realized.

Occupancy in adjacent rooms (dining/living) suggests the household was active, making unattended cooking plausible as a temporary lapse rather than negligence.

Sensor Telemetry Instability. The kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' values multiple times (C05, C21, C23), indicating intermittent connectivity or reporting failures. While it recovered, this represents a minor device health anomaly.

C05 (06:36): kitchen_temp_sensor reports None, recovers at 06:40.

C21 (18:14): kitchen_temp_sensor reports None, recovers at 18:15.

C23 (19:26): kitchen_temp_sensor reports None, recovers at 19:30.

These are transient dropouts, not permanent failures.

The sensor consistently recovers within minutes, showing no persistent fault.

No other sensors show similar patterns, suggesting an isolated issue with the kitchen sensor or its network path.

C06 (07:28) and C23 (19:25): Explicit 'OnOff.OnOff = off' events for the cook surface confirm the hazard was resolved.

C06 (07:45) and C21 (17:48): Lock operations show manual unlock followed by auto-lock, consistent with normal resident behavior rather than forced entry or malfunction.

Absence of 'kitchen_occupancy' logs during cook surface activation periods highlights the reliance on indirect supervision signals.

Direct 'kitchen_occupancy' logs during the cooking windows (06:35-07:28 and 18:13-19:25) to definitively rule out unattended cooking.

Smoke alarm or CO detector status logs to confirm no secondary hazards were triggered during the cooking periods.

Verify the 'kitchen_cook_surface' OFF state in the evening session (19:25) is present in the provided chunks. The Investigator Output claims C23 contains this event, but the provided text for C23 ends at 19:35:10 and does not explicitly show the 19:25 OFF event in the log lines (it shows occupancy/temp). If C23 is truncated or missing this critical mitigation evidence, the 'unattended cooking' risk cannot be ruled out.

Check for smoke alarm or CO detector activation logs during the cooking windows to confirm no secondary hazards occurred.

Confirm if the 'kitchen_temp_sensor' None values correlate with any other network instability or device faults.

The Investigator's analysis of the morning cook surface (C05/C06) appears consistent with the provided logs (ON at 06:35, OFF at 07:28).

However, the Investigator cites C23 for the evening cook surface OFF event at 19:25. The provided text for C23 (19:00-19:35) does NOT contain a line for 'kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = off'. It only shows temperature/occupancy/light events. This is a critical discrepancy. If the OFF event is missing from the evidence, the 'unattended cooking' hypothesis (A1) remains unresolved and potentially dangerous.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis (A2) relies on transient None values which recovered. While noted as minor, the lack of explicit OFF log for the stove makes the safety assessment incomplete.

Request chunks C24/C25 to verify the end-of-day status and ensure the stove was indeed turned off and no alarms were triggered.

Do not accept the 'normal' verdict until the evening stove state is confirmed via direct log evidence.

The home is in a normal, occupied state with standard morning and evening routines. The kitchen cook surface was used for cooking during breakfast (06:35-07:28) and dinner prep (18:13+), with no evidence of unattended hazards.

C05 shows occupancy in master bedroom, kids room, and bathroom between 06:20-07:07, consistent with waking up.

Kitchen cook surface turned on at 06:35 and off at 07:28, coinciding with occupied kitchen/dining areas (dining_room_occupancy=1 from 07:28).

C21 shows high occupancy across living room, dining room, entrance, master bedroom, and kids room from 17:45 onwards, indicating the household is present.

Front door lock operations at 07:45 (C06) and 17:48 (C21) show manual unlock followed by auto-lock or quick re-lock, consistent with residents leaving/returning or checking the door.

Temperatures are stable and within comfortable ranges (23-25 C).

Does not fully explain the brief gap in kitchen temperature telemetry at 06:36 and 18:14, though these are isolated.

Assumes the 'auto-lock' at 07:45 was successful and secure, which it appears to be based on subsequent locked state.

Minor sensor telemetry dropouts are due to network latency or temporary disconnection, not malfunction, as values return to normal immediately.

kitchen_temp_sensor reports None at 06:36:07 and 18:14:00, but valid readings appear shortly after (25.02 C at 06:40, 23.09 C at 18:15).

No repeated stuck values or persistent failure observed.

Correlation with cook surface activation might suggest heat interference, but this is speculative without more data.

Potential unattended cooking risk during morning routine, where the cook surface was active while the primary kitchen occupancy signal was ambiguous or transitioning.

At 06:35:37, kitchen_cook_surface turns ON.

At 06:36:07, kitchen_temp_sensor reports None (telemetry dropout).

Occupancy in the kitchen itself is not explicitly logged as 'occupied' in the immediate vicinity of the cook surface activation in C05, although dining_room_occupancy becomes 1 later at 07:28.

The cook surface remains on for ~53 minutes (until 07:28). While likely attended, the lack of explicit 'kitchen_occupancy=1' logs during the initial phase creates a monitoring blind spot.

Another similar pattern occurs in C21: cook surface ON at 18:13, temp sensor None at 18:14, though other rooms are occupied.

Dining room occupancy is 1 starting 07:28, and general house occupancy is high, making total abandonment unlikely.

The duration (53 mins) is typical for cooking, not necessarily 'unattended' in a dangerous sense unless someone left entirely.

No smoke alarm or fire risk indicators triggered.

Possible security vulnerability or tailgating event at the front door around 07:45, indicated by rapid unlock/close/lock cycle with potential contact sensor lag.

07:45:27: Contact Sensor = False (Door Open).

07:45:32: Contact Sensor = True (Door Closed).

The sequence suggests someone entered (or opened the door) and it closed quickly. The 5-second window between open and close is very short, potentially allowing tailgating if someone else was behind, or simply a quick exit/entry.

If an intruder forced entry, they would have had only ~5 seconds before auto-lock engaged, but the auto-lock relies on the contact sensor being true, which happened at 07:45:32.

This is a very common pattern for residents entering/exiting.

No forced entry signs (broken contact, failed lock attempts).

Entrance occupancy confirms presence, so it's not an empty-house intrusion.

The correlation between kitchen_cook_surface ON events and kitchen_temp_sensor None values (06:36 and 18:14) suggests potential environmental interference or sensor placement issues near heat sources, warranting a check on sensor health.

The rapid 5-second door open/close/lock cycle at 07:45 is tight but consistent with normal use; however, it highlights the reliance on contact sensors for auto-lock timing.

High overall occupancy throughout the day reduces the likelihood of serious unattended appliance risks compared to an empty house scenario.

Explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor data to confirm direct supervision of the cook surface.

Smoke detector or CO alarm status/logs to rule out combustion byproducts during cooking.

Detailed motion tracking in the kitchen to verify human presence during cook surface operation.

History of front door lock failures or contact sensor misalignments.

C06 (07:28): Cook surface turns OFF. Duration ~53 minutes.

C23 (19:25): Cook surface turns OFF. Duration ~72 minutes.

C05 (06:36): kitchen_temp_sensor reports None, recovers at 06:40.

C21 (18:14): kitchen_temp_sensor reports None, recovers at 18:15.

C23 (19:26): kitchen_temp_sensor reports None, recovers at 19:30.

These are transient dropouts, not permanent failures.

Verify the final state of the kitchen_cook_surface in C07 to confirm it was turned off and remained off (ruling out unattended cooking/fire risk).

Check for any smoke_co_alarm or water_leak_detector events in the full report to rule out secondary hazards.

Confirm if the 'None' values from kitchen_temp_sensor are isolated incidents or part of a pattern requiring device health flagging.

The investigator correctly identified potential risks (unattended cooking, door security) but relied heavily on the absence of explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' logs and transient telemetry gaps ('None') rather than direct fault evidence or confirmed hazardous outcomes.

For the 'unattended_cooking' hypothesis: The cook surface turns ON at 18:13 in C21. The chunk ends at 18:20. We do not know if it was turned OFF. Without C22 (or C07 for the morning event), we cannot confirm the hazard was mitigated. This is a critical missing piece for a safety verdict.

For the 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis: The 'None' values are brief and recover immediately. While noted as a weakness, they do not constitute a device fault by themselves without repeated failures or alarms. However, the lack of confirmation on the cook surface state is a higher priority safety gap.

The analysis is on-topic but insufficient because it draws safety conclusions (or flags risks) based on incomplete temporal sequences (truncated chunks). Specifically, the status of the cook surface after 18:20 is unknown.

Request adjacent chunks C07 (post-morning cooking) and C22 (post-evening cooking) to verify appliance states and ensure no fire/unattended hazards exist.

## 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: 三室两厅 (3BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- dining_room: 餐厅灯<dimmable_light>, 餐厅运动传感器<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>
- kids_room: 儿童房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 儿童房灯<dimmable_light>, 儿童房窗帘<window_covering>, 儿童房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 儿童房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 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>, 客厅副灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅氛围灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘1<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器1<contact_sensor>, 客厅窗户传感器2<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bathroom: 主卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 主卫灯<onoff_light>, 主卫运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧床头灯<onoff_light>, 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_bathroom: 次卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 次卫灯<onoff_light>
- second_bedroom: 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧空调<air_conditioner>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 404,
    "master_bedroom": 521,
    "kids_room": 517,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 217,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 222,
    "entrance": 226,
    "second_bathroom": 1,
    "balcony": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 1255,
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,

## 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",
      "master_bedroom",
      "kids_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact",
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "cook_surface"
    ],
    "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",
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "master_bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C21",
    "C05",
    "C06"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Door lock state transition (unlocking) during occupied hours",
    "Contact sensor state change (door open/closed)",
    "Occupancy patterns indicating presence vs absence",
    "Temperature trends for environmental comfort/safety"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C21 contains the critical security event: front door lock operation and contact sensor state change at 17:48, which is a primary input for assessing physical security risk.",
    "C05 and C06 show the morning occupancy transitions (waking up), providing context for whether the household was empty or active when other events might have occurred, and establishing baseline human presence patterns.",
    "These chunks cover both the specific security trigger (lock/contact) and the broader behavioral cont