FG-03-FP: 烟雾报警器自检触发CO检测

The home is in a safe state with no evidence of fire, intrusion, or device failure; observed anomalies are explained by normal evening routines and transient telemetry noise.

Explanation: 1. **Fire/Smoke Risk**: The kitchen smoke alarm performed a successful self-test at 15:01 (C09) with no alarms triggered. During the cooking window (18:46-19:30), there were no smoke or CO alarm activations, and temperatures remained within normal ranges for a kitchen environment (peaking ~27°C). The transient `None` readings from the temperature sensor at 18:47 and 19:31 are isolated telemetry glitches that recovered immediately, lacking any corroborating hazard signals like high heat or smoke.

Explanation: 2. **Unattended Cooking**: While the cook surface was active, living room occupancy logs confirm a person was present in the adjacent space continuously from 18:09 through the end of the cooking period. This supervision mitigates the 'unattended' risk hypothesis significantly.

Explanation: 3. **Security/Lock Status**: The front door was unlocked manually at 18:09 and locked automatically at 22:02. The lock engaged successfully via an auto-lock event (C14), indicating no mechanical malfunction. The extended unlock period is consistent with normal evening activity and does not constitute a security breach or fault.

Explanation: 4. **Appliance Safety**: The dishwasher started at 20:15 (C13) while the home was occupied. No water leak detector alerts or error codes were recorded during its operation or subsequent hours. The system state at the end of the logs shows all devices stable and secure.

Kitchen smoke alarm self-test completed successfully at 15:01 without triggering alarms (C09).

Living room occupancy confirmed as 'occupied' (raw=1) throughout the entire cooking duration (18:09-19:30+), providing human supervision (C11-C12).

Front door lock state transitioned to 'locked' via Auto operation at 22:02, confirming functional security protocol (C14).

No water leak detector events or dishwasher fault codes recorded after start time at 20:15 (C13).

Monitor the kitchen temperature sensor for recurrence of `None` values to rule out intermittent connectivity issues, though current data suggests it is non-critical.

Smoke/CO alarm activation in kitchen (potential fire or gas risk)

Water leak sensor activity in bathroom (potential flooding risk)

Door lock state changes (security/access risk)

Appliance operation (dishwasher/cook surface) without corresponding occupancy or with high temperature readings

Normal evening routine with supervised cooking and standard security protocols.

Kitchen cook surface was turned on at 18:46 and off at 19:30, a duration of ~44 minutes consistent with meal preparation.

Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' (raw=1) continuously from 18:09 through the entire cooking window (18:46-19:30), indicating an adult was present in the adjacent space to supervise.

Front door lock operated normally: unlocked manually at 18:09 for entry, then locked automatically at 22:02 via scheduled routine.

Smoke/CO alarm self-test completed successfully at 15:01 without triggering alarms, confirming device health.

Dishwasher started at 20:15 while living room was occupied, a normal household activity.

Does not fully explain the transient `None` reading from the kitchen temp sensor at 18:47 and 19:31, though this is likely telemetry noise rather than a safety failure given the lack of other hazard indicators.

Potential unattended cooking risk due to temporary loss of environmental monitoring during active heating.

The kitchen temperature sensor reported `None` exactly one minute after the cook surface was turned on (18:47), creating a blind spot in thermal monitoring during the initial high-heat phase.

The kitchen temperature sensor again reported `None` immediately after the cook surface was turned off (19:31), potentially missing residual heat or smoke generation from cooling food/pans.

While living room occupancy suggests supervision, the specific loss of direct kitchen environmental data during these critical transition points represents a gap in automated safety verification.

No evidence of actual fire, smoke, or excessive heat; temperatures returned to normal ranges once sensors recovered.

Occupancy logs confirm human presence nearby, mitigating the 'unattended' aspect significantly.

The `None` readings are isolated incidents and do not indicate a persistent sensor malfunction or total system failure.

Minor security anomaly: Door left unlocked for extended period before auto-lock engaged.

Front door was unlocked manually at 18:09 and did not re-lock until 22:02, a duration of nearly 4 hours.

If the auto-lock schedule is set for earlier (e.g., 21:00), this delay indicates either a configuration mismatch or a failure of the auto-lock mechanism to engage as expected.

The lock eventually engaged successfully at 22:02, showing no mechanical failure.

Extended unlocking periods are common in households with ongoing evening activities; without a specific 'auto-lock failed' error code, this is more likely a behavioral choice or configuration setting than a fault.

Living room occupancy = occupied (raw=1) from 18:09 to 20:09+ confirms human supervision during the cooking event, strongly supporting N1 over A1.

Cook surface OnOff state transitions (On at 18:46, Off at 19:30) provide a clear timeline for the cooking activity.

Kitchen temp sensor `None` values at 18:47 and 19:31 are the primary triggers for the unattended cooking hypothesis but lack corroborating hazard signals (smoke, high temp).

Front door lock state changes (Unlocked at 18:09, Locked at 22:02) show functional operation despite the long interval.

Confirmation of the front door auto-lock schedule settings to determine if the 22:02 lock was early, on-time, or late.

Audio or video context from the kitchen/living room to verify if the occupant in the living room was actively aware of the kitchen activity.

Detailed logs for the water leak detector in the bathroom to rule out any silent leaks during the long occupancy period.

Verify dishwasher completion status and any associated water leak events in the post-20:15 timeframe (C15/C16).

Confirm if the 'None' temperature readings at 18:47 and 19:31 were isolated telemetry glitches or part of a broader sensor failure pattern by checking adjacent timestamps.

Check for any explicit smoke/CO alarm activation logs (not just self-test) during the cooking window to definitively rule out fire risk.

Validate the front door auto-lock schedule configuration against the 22:02 lock event to determine if it was a scheduled routine or manual override.

The investigator correctly identified the key safety-relevant chunks (C09-C13) but failed to include the subsequent chunks (C14-C16) which contain the conclusion of the dishwasher cycle and the final state of the home security (auto-lock).

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis relies heavily on transient `None` values from the temperature sensor. While noted as a weakness, the investigation does not sufficiently corroborate this with other hazard indicators (smoke, high temp spikes) nor does it check if the sensor recovered properly immediately after. The risk of false alarm is high because the anomaly is based on missing data points rather than positive hazard evidence.

The 'lock malfunction' hypothesis is weak; the lock eventually engaged, and extended unlocking periods are common behaviors. This should be downgraded or dismissed unless specific configuration errors are found.

Crucially, the dishwasher started at 20:15 (C13), but the report ends before confirming its completion or checking for leaks in C14-C16. A comprehensive safety assessment cannot ignore the active appliance's outcome.

The investigator's focus on 'telemetry noise' vs 'safety failure' is appropriate, but the conclusion that the home is safe is premature without verifying the dishwasher and ensuring no secondary alarms triggered.

The home is in a normal, safe state. The kitchen smoke alarm event was a scheduled self-test, and the dishwasher/cook surface operations were supervised or completed safely.

C09: `kitchen_smoke_alarm` shows `TestInProgress=true`, followed by `COState=1` then `0`, and finally `SelfTestComplete()`. This sequence explicitly indicates a diagnostic self-test rather than a fire/CO emergency.

C12: `kitchen_cook_surface` turns off at 19:30. Immediately after, `kitchen_window_contact` closes (19:30:30), suggesting the occupant secured the room before leaving or sleeping.

C13: `kitchen_dishwasher` turns on at 20:15 with `OperationalState=1`. While the bedroom becomes unoccupied, the living room remains occupied throughout the evening (C12-C13), implying supervision of the appliance.

Temperatures across all rooms remain within normal residential ranges (21-26 C) with no sudden spikes indicative of fire.

Assumes that 'living room occupied' equates to active supervision of the kitchen, which may not be true if the occupant is distracted or in an adjacent area without direct line-of-sight.

Does not account for potential CO leaks that might not trigger the alarm immediately if the sensor is faulty, though the self-test suggests it was functional recently.

Potential Carbon Monoxide (CO) risk or false alarm during the self-test, or unattended cooking risk if the cook surface was left on longer than logged or if the window closure was forced.

C09: During the self-test (15:01), `COState` briefly hit `1` before returning to `0`. While labeled as a test, a transient CO reading could indicate a real leak that triggered the sensor's sensitivity threshold during the test cycle, or a sensor glitch.

C12: At 19:31, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`. This telemetry dropout coincides with the cook surface turning off and the window closing. If the sensor failed due to heat/smoke/CO, this is a safety blind spot.

C13: The dishwasher runs while the bedroom is unoccupied. If the 'living room occupancy' is stale or from a different person who is unaware of the kitchen status, there is a minor unattended appliance risk.

The `SelfTestComplete()` event strongly argues against a genuine emergency during the 15:01 window.

The single `None` temperature reading is insufficient to prove sensor failure or hazard; it could be a network drop.

No explicit CO alarm (siren/light) is recorded, only the internal state flag.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk: The cook surface was used, but the occupant left the immediate vicinity (bedroom unoccupied) while appliances were still active or recently active.

C12: Cook surface turns off at 19:30. Bedroom occupancy drops to `unoccupied` at 19:24. There is a 6-minute gap where the kitchen might have been unattended before the surface was turned off.

C13: Dishwasher starts at 20:15. Bedroom remains unoccupied. Living room is occupied, but if the occupant is not in the kitchen, the dishwasher is running unattended.

C12: Kitchen window closes at 19:30:30. If this was done remotely or by someone else, it might indicate an attempt to contain something or secure the house quickly.

The cook surface was turned off, mitigating the immediate fire risk.

Living room occupancy suggests someone is home, reducing the severity of 'unattended' compared to an empty house.

No smoke or high-temperature alarms were triggered.

C09: `kitchen_smoke_alarm | SmokeCoAlarm.TestInProgress = true` followed by `SelfTestComplete()`. This confirms the alarm activity was a diagnostic test, not a fire/CO event.

C12: `kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = off` at 19:30:00. This confirms the heat source was deactivated.

C12: `kitchen_window_contact | BooleanState.StateValue = false` at 19:30:30. Window closed shortly after cooking stopped.

C12: `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:31:00. Telemetry dropout immediately following cooking cessation.

Confirmation of whether the `COState=1` during the test was a simulated value or a real detection that cleared.

Status of the `water_leak_detector` in the bathroom (mentioned in focus devices but no specific leak events seen in chunks).

Details on who was in the living room vs. kitchen to confirm supervision of the dishwasher.

Reason for the `kitchen_temp_sensor` going `None` (network error vs. environmental interference).

Smoke/CO alarm self-test completed successfully at 15:01 without triggering alarms, confirming device health.

Dishwasher started at 20:15 while living room was occupied, a normal household activity.

Front door was unlocked manually at 18:09 and did not re-lock until 22:02, a duration of nearly 4 hours.

Verify kitchen_cook_surface state prior to 19:30 (was it on before the log gap in C12 starts at 18:55?)

Check for water_leak_detector activity in bathroom chunks (C09-C13 only show occupancy, no leak events)

Confirm door_lock status and any access events in entrance chunks

Investigate cause of kitchen_temp_sensor dropout at 19:31 (network vs. environmental)

The investigator correctly identified the smoke alarm self-test as benign, avoiding a high false-alarm risk there.

However, the analysis of 'unattended cooking' relies heavily on the assumption that the cook surface was active immediately before the 18:55 start of Chunk C12. The logs in C12 begin with the surface already off or not logged. Without C10/C11 to confirm the pre-18:55 state, the 'unattended' hypothesis is speculative.

The 'sensor malfunction' hypothesis regarding the single None reading is weak; it is treated as a potential safety blind spot but lacks corroboration of actual hazard (no temp spike, no smoke). This keeps false-alarm risk at medium rather than low, as we cannot fully rule out transient interference without more context.

Crucially, the query asks for a comprehensive safety report including water leaks and door locks. The current evidence set (C09, C12, C13) contains NO data on water leaks or door locks. The investigation must address these target devices explicitly or confirm their absence via other chunks.

Requesting C10 and C11 to bridge the gap between afternoon (C09) and evening (C12) activities, specifically to establish the state of the cook surface and any other appliance usage.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 400,
    "bedroom": 354,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "bathroom": 222,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 386,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "TestInProgress": 2,
    "COState": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 386,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-05T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-05T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathro

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "bathroom",
      "entrance",
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "cook_surface",
      "dishwasher"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "bathroom",
    "entrance",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_alarm",
    "bathroom_water_leak_detector",
    "front_door_lock",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "kitchen_dishwasher"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C09",
    "C13",
    "C12"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Smoke/CO alarm activation in kitchen (potential fire or gas risk)",
    "Water leak sensor activity in bathroom (potential flooding risk)",
    "Door lock state changes (security/access risk)",
    "Appliance operation (dishwasher/cook surface) without corresponding occupancy or with high temperature readings"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C09: Contains 'kitchen_smoke_alarm' in top devices and has a high alarmish_count (27), suggesting a critical safety event like smoke detection.",
    "C13: Shows dishwasher operational state and occupancy patterns, relevant for assessing appliance safety and usage context.",
    "C12: Covers evening hours with high alarmish counts and occupancy transitions, providing context for when alarms might have been triggered or false positives occurred."
  ],
  "late


FG-04-FP: 低电量报警但传感器仍正常工作

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

The kitchen smoke/CO alarm has a low battery alert and experienced a transient detection event, indicating degraded safety device reliability.

Explanation: The investigator identified a critical safety device fault: `kitchen_smoke_alarm` logged `BatteryAlert = 1` at 10:24 (C00).

Explanation: Shortly after, at 10:34, the same device logged `SmokeState = 1` (C05), which cleared by 10:44. This transient event, combined with the low battery, suggests potential false positives or reduced sensitivity/reliability.

Explanation: The supervisor noted that the 'unattended cooking' hypothesis (A1) relies on missing telemetry for the cook surface during the evening temperature spike, making it speculative. However, the safety device degradation is directly evidenced in the logs.

Explanation: According to Matter Notes and Supervisor guidelines, a device-fault conclusion requires direct evidence like explicit alarms/fault events. The `BatteryAlert` and subsequent `SmokeState` transition constitute direct evidence of device health/safety status degradation.

Explanation: While the fire risk from unattended cooking is uncertain due to missing stove logs, the safety device failure is confirmed. In a composite-safety context, a compromised smoke alarm is a significant risk factor.

Explanation: Therefore, the most robustly supported anomaly is the safety device failure/degradation.

C00: kitchen_smoke_alarm | SmokeCoAlarm.BatteryAlert = 1 at 10:24:00

C05: kitchen_smoke_alarm | SmokeCoAlarm.SmokeState = 1 at 10:34:00, returning to 0 at 10:44:00

Replace the batteries in the kitchen smoke/CO alarm immediately.

Test the smoke alarm functionality after battery replacement to ensure proper operation.

Investigate the cause of the transient smoke detection at 10:34 (e.g., cooking fumes, steam) to rule out actual hazards.

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.

kitchen living_room bedroom entrance bathroom

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

Low battery alert on smoke/CO alarm (safety device degradation)

Door lock state transitions (security access verification)

Temperature trends in kitchen vs living room (potential appliance usage or HVAC issues)

C11: Shows evening activity with high event counts and specific temperature readings in the kitchen (26.73 C), helping to assess if elevated temps are due to normal cooking or potential hazards, alongside occupancy confirmation.

The kitchen temperature spike at 19:35 was caused by normal cooking activity, which concluded before the dishwasher started. The smoke alarm triggered briefly due to cooking fumes (false positive) and cleared immediately after the cook surface was turned off.

C00 shows a low battery alert on the kitchen smoke alarm, indicating potential sensitivity or false positives.

C11 shows kitchen temperature rising from ~26.73 C to ~25.88 C between 19:35 and 19:50, then dropping steadily to 22.49 C by 20:55.

C05 shows the cook surface was active earlier in the day (10:24-10:39), proving the device is functional and used for cooking.

C11 shows the living room occupancy remained 'occupied' throughout the evening (19:39-21:05), suggesting someone was present in the home, likely monitoring the kitchen area.

The smoke alarm state returned to 0 (clear) at 10:44 in C05, showing it recovers normally after transient events.

Does not explain why the cook surface logs are missing for the 19:35-20:05 window in C11, relying on inference rather than direct appliance telemetry.

Assumes the occupant in the living room was actively supervising the kitchen, which is not explicitly confirmed by sensor data.

The front door lock operation at 07:11 was a standard manual exit followed by an automatic re-lock, with no security breach.

C04 shows a manual unlock event at 07:11:16, followed immediately by an auto-lock event at 07:11:21.

The contact sensor showed a brief open/close sequence consistent with the door being opened and then closed.

No subsequent unauthorized entry or lock failures were recorded.

None significant; this appears to be a standard operational sequence.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk: The cook surface was left active during a period where the primary kitchen presence was unverified, leading to a temporary smoke alarm trigger. The lack of cook_surface logs in the critical evening window creates a blind spot regarding whether the appliance was actually on or if the temperature rise was due to another heat source.

C11 shows a significant kitchen temperature elevation (26.73 C) at 19:35, significantly higher than the baseline (~22-23 C) seen in other rooms and previous times.

C11 shows the living room occupancy as 'occupied' but does not show any 'kitchen_occupancy' events, creating a gap in verifying who was in the kitchen.

C05 confirms the cook surface can generate heat and trigger smoke alarms (seen earlier in the day).

The absence of `cook_surface` OnOff logs in C11 for the 19:35-20:05 window means we cannot confirm if the heat source was the stove, leaving the cause of the temp spike ambiguous.

If the stove was on and unattended, the high temperature could escalate, posing a fire risk.

Direct evidence of the cook surface being ON during the 19:35 spike is missing from the provided chunks.

The temperature trend in C11 is decreasing after 19:50, suggesting the heat source was removed or dissipated, which contradicts a sustained fire scenario.

The smoke alarm did not trigger an audible alarm (only SmokeState=1 logged, which might be a sensor reading, not necessarily an alarm sound), and it cleared quickly.

Safety Device Degradation: The kitchen smoke/CO alarm has a low battery alert (C00) and experienced a transient fault (SmokeState=1 in C05). This indicates the device may be unreliable for detecting actual hazards.

C00 explicitly logs `SmokeCoAlarm.BatteryAlert = 1` at 10:24:00 on June 17.

C05 logs `SmokeCoAlarm.SmokeState = 1` at 10:34:00, followed by a return to 0 at 10:44:00, indicating a transient detection event.

Low battery status compromises the reliability of the alarm's ability to detect and alert on real fires or CO leaks.

The device recovered its state (SmokeState=0), so it is not currently 'failed' in terms of connectivity, but its safety efficacy is degraded.

C00: Explicit BatteryAlert on the kitchen smoke alarm.

C11: High kitchen temperature (26.73 C) at 19:35 without corresponding cook_surface logs in that specific chunk.

C11: Living room occupancy is 'occupied' but no kitchen occupancy is logged, creating a supervision gap.

C05: Cook surface was active earlier in the day, establishing it as a heat source capable of triggering sensors.

Cook surface OnOff logs for the 19:35-20:05 window to confirm if the stove was the source of the heat.

Kitchen occupancy sensor logs to verify if anyone was present in the kitchen during the temperature spike.

Water leak detector status, which was identified as a target device but not observed in the focused chunks.

Confirmation of whether the 'SmokeState=1' in C05 was a true smoke detection or a false positive due to low battery/sensitivity.

Direct telemetry for kitchen_cook_surface (OnOff state) during the 19:35-20:05 window to confirm if the heat source was active.

Kitchen occupancy sensor logs to verify human presence/supervision during the temperature spike.

Water leak detector status check (target device in query but missing from analysis).

Verification of whether SmokeState=1 in C05 correlates with a specific event or is a known false positive due to low battery.

The investigator correctly identified the low battery alert on the smoke alarm (C00) and the door lock sequence (C04), which are valid safety/health indicators.

However, the primary 'unattended cooking/fire risk' hypothesis (A1) relies heavily on an absence of evidence (missing cook_surface logs in C11) and inferred context. The temperature spike in C11 (26.73 C) is significant but transient and cooling down by 20:55. Without direct confirmation that the stove was ON, this remains speculative.

The investigator failed to retrieve chunks C08, C09, and C10, which likely cover the critical evening transition period (approx 14:30 - 19:35) where the cook surface might have been activated or the temperature began rising. These chunks are essential to establish the causal link between appliance usage and the temperature spike.

The water leak detector, explicitly listed as a target device, was not checked. Its status is required for a comprehensive safety report.

Given the reliance on missing logs for the main safety concern, the risk of a false alarm regarding fire/unattended cooking is high. Further investigation into the missing chunks is needed to corroborate or refute the hazard.

The home is in a normal operational state with no immediate safety threats. The kitchen temperature spike observed in the evening (C11) is consistent with normal cooking activity, supported by the dishwasher turning on shortly after and subsequent temperature normalization. The smoke alarm battery alert (C00) is a maintenance issue but does not indicate an active fire or device malfunction.

C11: Kitchen temp rises to 26.73 C at 19:35, then steadily drops to ~22.5 C by 20:30, indicating heat dissipation rather than uncontrolled fire growth.

C11: Dishwasher turns ON at 20:05, correlating with the cooling phase of the kitchen, suggesting post-meal cleanup.

C11: Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout the evening, implying human presence and supervision in the adjacent area.

C04: Front door lock sequence shows a valid manual unlock followed immediately by auto-lock, with contact sensor confirming closure, indicating secure access control.

C00: Smoke alarm BatteryAlert=1 is a single event without associated smoke/fire alarms, typical for low-battery warnings.

Does not fully address the risk posed by the low battery on the primary fire detection device if it fails during an actual event.

Assumes the temperature drop was solely due to ambient cooling and not suppressed by ventilation or other factors.

Safety Device Degradation: The kitchen smoke/CO alarm has a low battery (BatteryAlert=1). While not an active emergency, this represents a critical failure in the home's primary fire detection system. If a fire were to occur during the period when the battery is depleted, the alarm would likely fail to sound, leaving occupants unaware of the hazard.

C00: Explicit log entry '[2026-06-17T10:24:00] kitchen_smoke_alarm | SmokeCoAlarm.BatteryAlert = 1'.

No subsequent logs show the BatteryAlert clearing or a replacement battery being installed within the monitored timeframe.

This is a known, reported fault rather than a hidden anomaly; the system is aware of it.

Does not constitute an *active* threat like a fire or intrusion, but rather a vulnerability.

Potential Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk: The kitchen temperature spiked significantly (to 26.73 C) while the living room (adjacent) was occupied, but there is no explicit 'cook_surface' or 'oven' OnOff event logged in the focused chunks. The high temperature combined with the lack of explicit appliance activation logs raises a question about whether a heating element was left on unsupervised, although the rapid cooldown suggests otherwise.

C11: Kitchen temp jumps from baseline (~22-23 C in morning) to 26.73 C at 19:35.

C11: No explicit 'cook_surface' or 'oven' OnOff events are visible in the provided focused chunks (C00, C04, C11), only the dishwasher.

C11: Occupancy is present in the living room, but not explicitly confirmed in the kitchen at the moment of the peak temp.

The temperature dropped rapidly (from 26.73 C to 22.5 C in ~1 hour), which is inconsistent with a dangerous, sustained fire or unattended oven left on for hours.

The dishwasher turning on at 20:05 provides a plausible alternative explanation for the evening activity pattern (cooking -> cleaning).

Matter logs may not capture all appliance states if they are not part of the specific attribute subscription list, so absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

C00: SmokeCoAlarm.BatteryAlert = 1 (Direct evidence of safety device degradation).

C11: Kitchen_temp_sensor MeasuredValue = 26.73 C at 19:35 followed by steady decline (Evidence of heat source, likely cooking, but rapid cooldown argues against fire).

C04: LockOperation(LockOperationType=1) followed by LockState=unlocked, then LockOperationType=0 and LockState=locked (Evidence of normal, secure door usage).

Status of the smoke alarm battery after the initial alert (was it replaced?).

Explicit OnOff or OperationalState logs for the cook surface or oven during the 19:35-20:05 window to confirm the source of the kitchen heat.

Water leak detector status (mentioned in target devices but no data in focused chunks).

C00 shows a low battery alert on the kitchen smoke alarm, indicating potential sensitivity or false positives.

The smoke alarm state returned to 0 (clear) at 10:44 in C05, showing it recovers normally after transient events.

C04 shows a manual unlock event at 07:11:16, followed immediately by an auto-lock event at 07:11:21.

The contact sensor showed a brief open/close sequence consistent with the door being opened and then closed.

No subsequent unauthorized entry or lock failures were recorded.

C05 confirms the cook surface can generate heat and trigger smoke alarms (seen earlier in the day).

If the stove was on and unattended, the high temperature could escalate, posing a fire risk.

C00 explicitly logs `SmokeCoAlarm.BatteryAlert = 1` at 10:24:00 on June 17.

Low battery status compromises the reliability of the alarm's ability to detect and alert on real fires or CO leaks.

Water leak detector status (target device in query but missing from focused chunks C00/C04/C11).

Cook surface/Oven OnOff logs during the 19:35-20:05 window to confirm or rule out unattended cooking.

Smoke alarm BatteryAlert resolution status (was it cleared?).

Verification of kitchen occupancy at 19:35 to correlate with temperature spike.

The investigator correctly identified the low battery alert and the temperature spike. However, the 'unattended cooking' hypothesis relies heavily on the *absence* of cook_surface logs in the provided chunks, which is a weak evidence standard ('absence of evidence is not evidence of absence').

The investigation misses the 'water_leak_detector', a key target device for home safety, creating a gap in the comprehensive risk assessment.

To validate the 'normal operation' vs 'fire risk' conclusion, we need the specific appliance logs (cook surface/oven) that would have triggered the temperature change, or confirmation that no such devices were active. The current chunks (C00, C04, C11) show temperatures and dishwasher activity but lack the primary heat source logs.

Requesting adjacent chunks (likely C05/C06 covering the evening transition) to find the cook surface events and water leak status.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "kitchen": 303,
    "living_room": 400,
    "bedroom": 355,
    "bathroom": 55,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 220,
    "OnOff": 20,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SmokeState": 2,
    "BatteryAlert": 1,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 220,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-17T10:24:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-18T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "kitchen": 23,
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 26,
      "bathro

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "living_room",
      "bedroom",
      "entrance",
      "bathroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "door_lock",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "cook_surface",
      "temperature_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety status and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_alarm",
    "front_door_lock",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C04",
    "C11"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Low battery alert on smoke/CO alarm (safety device degradation)",
    "Door lock state transitions (security access verification)",
    "Temperature trends in kitchen vs living room (potential appliance usage or HVAC issues)"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Contains the explicit BatteryAlert for the kitchen smoke/CO alarm, which is a critical safety device fault indicator. Also establishes baseline temperatures.",
    "C04: Captures the front door lock operation sequence (unlock/lock) and contact sensor states, essential for verifying security integrity and access patterns.",
    "C11: Shows evening activity with high event counts and specific temperature readings in the kitchen (26.73 C), helping to assess if elevated temps are due to normal cooking or potential hazards, alongside occupancy confi


BA-02-FP: 住户周末改变习惯早起做饭

住户先从卧室起床再去厨房（正常路径），虽然时间段不同寻常但行为模式是住户自己

No definitive safety anomaly detected; observed temperature spikes and sensor dropouts are consistent with normal cooking activity and transient network interference, lacking evidence of fire or unattended hazard.

Explanation: The investigation identified a significant kitchen temperature spike (peaking at 29.21°C) and sensor dropout ('None') during the first cooking event (C07). However, the temperature returned to baseline shortly after the cook surface was turned off, indicating a controlled thermal event rather than an uncontrolled fire.

Explanation: The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis relies on the absence of explicit kitchen occupancy logs. As noted by the supervisor, smart home logs often omit rooms if no transition occurs, so 'no log' does not equal 'no person'. Furthermore, occupants were present in adjacent rooms (Living Room/Bedroom), making it plausible they were supervising.

Explanation: The second cooking event (C12) showed stable temperatures and no sensor dropout, demonstrating that the stove can operate safely under similar conditions. This contrast suggests the C07 anomaly was likely due to local heat interference causing temporary network packet loss or sensor saturation, rather than a persistent device fault or hazardous situation.

Explanation: There is no evidence of smoke/CO alarm activation, water leaks, or security breaches (door locks remained secure). The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is weak because the sensor recovered quickly, which is typical for transient issues, not permanent failure.

Explanation: Given the lack of positive evidence for danger (alarms, extreme temps > critical threshold, confirmed absence of humans) and the presence of a plausible normal explanation (cooking with temporary telemetry glitch), the case cannot be classified as an anomaly with high confidence.

C07: Cook surface ON 12:00-12:47, Temp peaked at 29.21°C then dropped to ~24.8°C by 13:30.

C07/C12: Kitchen temp sensor reported 'None' immediately after stove activation, suggesting transient interference.

C12: Cook surface ON 17:58-18:37 with stable temperatures (~23°C), proving safe operation capability.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered; Door Locks remained secure; Occupancy sensors active in other rooms.

Monitor kitchen temperature trends during future cooking events to verify if the 'None' dropout pattern persists.

Ensure range hood ventilation is active during cooking to mitigate localized heat buildup and potential sensor interference.

Review full-day logs including Chunk C13 to confirm no delayed alarm triggers occurred post-dinner.

kitchen living_room bedroom bathroom entrance

Cook surface activation in evening (C12) requiring verification of smoke/CO alarm status for fire safety.

General occupancy patterns vs. security device states (lock, leaks) to assess overall home safety posture.

C12 captures the evening cook surface usage ('on'), which is a primary fire risk source; checking this context against smoke alarm status is critical for safety assessment.

C05 provides early morning occupancy context and light state changes, helping to establish baseline human activity levels to distinguish between normal operation and unattended hazards.

Normal cooking activity with temporary sensor saturation or network dropout. The cook surface was active for a standard duration (approx. 45 mins in C07, 39 mins in C12), and the temperature spike in C07 was a localized thermal event near the sensor that dissipated once the stove was turned off. The 'None' values represent transient communication drops common in smart home networks, not sensor failure.

C07: Cook surface turned on at 12:00:30 and off at 12:47:00. Kitchen temp rose from ~25.3°C to peak 29.21°C, then cooled back to baseline (~24.8°C) by 13:30 after the stove was off.

C12: Cook surface turned on at 17:58:30 and off at 18:37:00. No significant temperature anomaly recorded in this window (sensor reported normal ~23°C).

Occupancy sensors show continuous 'occupied' status in Living Room and Bedroom throughout both cooking events, suggesting someone is present in the house.

Kitchen Window Contact shows 'false' (closed) during both events, indicating no open-window ventilation strategy was used, but also no forced entry.

Does not fully explain why the kitchen temperature sensor dropped to 'None' immediately after turning the stove on in C07 (12:01:00) and C12 (18:00:00), though this could be explained by heat interference or packet loss.

Assumes the occupant in the living room/bedroom is supervising the kitchen, which is an assumption based on proximity rather than direct observation of the kitchen.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk due to lack of direct supervision. While occupants are present in other rooms, there is no evidence of anyone entering the kitchen during the cooking windows. The significant temperature spike in C07 (reaching 29.21°C) indicates high heat output. If the occupant left the immediate vicinity or became distracted, the risk of unattended cooking increases. The sensor dropout ('None') during the peak heat phase in C07 prevents verification of whether the temperature continued to rise dangerously.

C07: Cook surface ON from 12:00:30 to 12:47:00. Kitchen Temp Sensor reads 'None' at 12:01:00, obscuring the initial rapid heating phase. Peak temp 29.21°C reached at 12:30:00.

C07/C08: No 'kitchen_occupancy' logs exist in the provided chunks to confirm a person was physically in the kitchen while the stove was on. Occupancy is only confirmed in Living Room/Bedroom.

C12: Cook surface ON from 17:58:30 to 18:37:00. Again, no kitchen occupancy confirmation. Dishwasher started shortly after (18:37:07), potentially adding heat/humidity load.

No smoke/CO alarm activation logs are visible in the snippets, but absence of logs does not confirm absence of alarms if the system didn't trigger or if logs were truncated.

The temperature in C07 did drop significantly after the stove was turned off, suggesting the event was controlled and not a runaway fire.

In C12, the temperature remained stable, suggesting the cooking method was less intense or better ventilated, reducing the immediate fire risk compared to C07.

Relies on the assumption that 'no kitchen occupancy log' equals 'no person in kitchen', whereas the sensor might simply not have triggered or been logged in these specific chunks.

Sensor Malfunction / Data Integrity Issue. The kitchen temperature sensor exhibits repeated 'None' values immediately following actuator commands (stove on) and during high-heat periods. This pattern suggests the sensor may be failing under thermal stress or experiencing consistent network collisions when the kitchen appliances draw power.

C07: Kitchen Temp = None at 12:01:00 (30s after stove ON). Next valid reading 26.60°C at 12:05:00.

C12: Kitchen Temp = None at 18:00:00 (30s after stove ON). Next valid reading 23.30°C at 18:00:00 (same minute, likely next poll).

C05: Kitchen Temp = None at 09:17:05 and 09:46:00. These occur without obvious appliance triggers, suggesting intermittent connectivity issues independent of heat.

The 'None' values coincide with the start of high-power usage, raising suspicion of electrical interference or sensor damage.

The sensor recovers quickly in all instances, which is typical for transient network drops rather than permanent hardware failure.

Other sensors (Living Room, Bedroom) do not show similar dropout patterns, isolating the issue to the kitchen device or its local network segment.

C07 Timeline: Stove ON (12:00:30) -> Sensor None (12:01:00) -> Temp Spike (12:30:00, 29.21°C) -> Stove OFF (12:47:00) -> Recovery. This sequence links appliance use directly to data loss and thermal anomaly.

Absence of Kitchen Occupancy Logs: Unlike other rooms, the kitchen has no explicit occupancy transitions in the provided chunks, creating a supervision blind spot during critical safety events.

C12 vs C07 Contrast: C12 shows stove ON but stable temps and no sensor dropout, proving the stove can operate safely/normally, making the C07 anomaly more suspicious as a potential deviation or sensor-specific issue.

Direct Kitchen Occupancy Logs: Confirmation of whether a human was physically present in the kitchen during the cooking windows.

Smoke/CO Alarm Status: Explicit logs showing whether any alarms were triggered or silenced during the C07/C12 events.

Ventilation State: Status of range hood or exhaust fan, which would explain the temperature dynamics and air quality.

Network Diagnostics: Logs explaining the cause of the 'None' readings (e.g., signal strength, retry counts) to distinguish between fault and interference.

Smoke/CO Alarm logs for the entire day (specifically around C07 and C12 cooking events) to rule out fire/smoke presence.

Kitchen Occupancy Sensor logs to confirm human presence during cooking windows.

Range Hood/Ventilation status to explain temperature dynamics in C07 vs C12.

Water Leak Detector logs for bathroom/kitchen to rule out secondary hazards.

The investigator correctly identifies the temperature spike in C07 and sensor dropout ('None') as anomalies. However, the conclusion of 'unattended cooking' or 'fire risk' is speculative because it relies heavily on the *absence* of kitchen occupancy logs rather than positive evidence of danger (like smoke alarms triggering or temperatures reaching critical levels).

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is plausible but weak; the sensor recovers quickly, which is typical for transient network issues or thermal interference, not necessarily a permanent fault requiring immediate device-health intervention without further data.

Crucially, the investigation lacks Smoke/CO alarm logs. In a composite-safety query, the absence of these logs in the provided chunks (C05-C12) means we cannot confirm if a fire occurred or if the system is functioning. The current analysis assumes safety based on lack of evidence, which is a high false-alarm risk.

Chunk C13 is likely needed to cover the post-dinner period (after 19:10) and potentially capture any delayed alarm triggers or final state verifications.

The investigator's focus on 'unattended cooking' due to missing occupancy logs is a logical gap; smart home logs often omit rooms if no transition occurs, so 'no log' != 'no person'. This needs corroboration from other sensors (smoke, CO, or direct kitchen occupancy).

Normal household activity with standard cooking and appliance usage. The kitchen temperature spike in C08 is attributed to normal cooking heat dissipation, and the cook surface activation in C12 is supervised by occupants present in adjacent rooms (living/bedroom), with no evidence of fire or unattended hazard.

C05: Cook surface turned on at 09:16 and off at 09:45 (29 mins). Kitchen temp remained stable (~25.5°C) except for a brief None reading, suggesting controlled cooking.

C08: Kitchen temp spiked to 28.40°C at 12:50 but decayed steadily to baseline (24.77°C) by 13:40 without further increase, consistent with cooling after a heat source was removed or vented.

C12: Cook surface on from 17:58 to 18:37. Occupancy sensors show 'occupied' status in living_room and bedroom throughout this period, implying supervision.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered in any chunk.

Door lock state shows only 1 flip, indicating no forced entry or repeated failed attempts.

Assumes supervision based on occupancy in other rooms; does not confirm if the person in the living room is actually monitoring the kitchen.

Does not account for potential sensor drift causing the C08 temperature spike, though recovery makes malfunction unlikely.

System health is nominal. Telemetry gaps (None values) are transient communication drops common in Matter networks, not indicative of device failure. Temperature readings are within expected operational ranges for a residential environment.

Kitchen temp sensor returns valid values immediately after 'None' events (e.g., C05 09:17 -> 09:20, C12 17:59 -> 18:00).

All temperature values are scaled correctly (centi-degrees) and fall within comfortable human ranges (21-28°C).

Lock state transitions are minimal and do not indicate jamming or motor failure.

Relies on the assumption that transient 'None' values are benign network issues rather than intermittent sensor faults.

Potential Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk in C08. The kitchen temperature spiked significantly (to 28.40°C) while the cook surface status was not explicitly logged as 'on' in the immediate vicinity of the peak, or the duration of heating was prolonged. Although occupants were detected in other rooms, there is no direct confirmation of supervision in the kitchen during the peak heat event.

C08: Kitchen temp rises sharply to 28.40°C at 12:50, then decays over ~50 minutes. This suggests a significant heat source was active.

C08: No explicit 'cook_surface On' log is visible in the provided snippet for this time window, unlike C05 and C12 where it is clearly recorded. This creates an ambiguity about whether the heat came from the cook surface or another source (oven, etc.).

C08: Occupancy in living_room and bedroom is constant, but no one is logged in the kitchen itself during the peak temperature event.

Absence of smoke alarm trigger despite a 4+ degree temperature rise above ambient.

The cook surface might have been on but the log was missed or sampled outside the specific timestamp.

The temperature rise could be due to environmental factors (sunlight, HVAC failure) rather than a fire hazard.

Recovery to baseline suggests the heat source was removed, mitigating immediate danger.

Sensor Malfunction / Data Integrity Issue in Kitchen Temp Sensor. The kitchen temperature sensor exhibits inconsistent behavior, including sudden 'None' values and potentially inaccurate spikes compared to other sensors, raising concerns about its reliability for safety monitoring.

C05: Kitchen temp reads 'None' at 09:17 and 09:46, while other sensors remain stable.

C08: Kitchen temp reads 28.40°C at 12:50, which is a notable outlier compared to bedroom (24.09°C) and living room (24.98°C), even accounting for cooking heat.

C12: Kitchen temp reads 'None' at 17:59, shortly after cook surface activation.

The sensor recovers quickly each time, which is more characteristic of network jitter than hardware failure.

The C08 spike correlates temporally with likely cooking activity, making it physically plausible rather than purely erroneous.

C08 Kitchen Temperature Spike (28.40°C) vs. Ambient (~24°C): Indicates a strong localized heat source, but lacks explicit cook_surface 'On' log in the snippet, creating uncertainty about the source and supervision.

C12 Cook Surface Activity with Occupancy elsewhere: Confirms cooking happens, but relies on indirect supervision inference.

Transient 'None' Values in Kitchen Sensor: Occurs in all chunks, suggesting a recurring connectivity or sampling issue with the kitchen temp sensor specifically.

Explicit smoke/CO alarm logs for the entire day to rule out undetected combustion products.

Detailed cook_surface state logs for the C08 time window (12:50-13:40) to confirm if the stove was on during the temperature spike.

Camera or audio data to verify if the occupant in the living room was actively supervising the kitchen during C08 and C12.

HVAC system logs to determine if the C08 temperature spike could be attributed to a duct leak or heater malfunction rather than cooking.

C07: Kitchen Temp = None at 12:01:00 (30s after stove ON). Next valid reading 26.60°C at 12:05:00.

C12: Kitchen Temp = None at 18:00:00 (30s after stove ON). Next valid reading 23.30°C at 18:00:00 (same minute, likely next poll).

The 'None' values coincide with the start of high-power usage, raising suspicion of electrical interference or sensor damage.

Verify cook_surface state during the C08 temperature spike (12:50-13:40) to confirm if the stove was on.

Check for smoke/CO alarm activation logs specifically around the C08 event window.

Confirm if the 'None' values in kitchen_temp_sensor are isolated network drops or indicate sensor failure.

Review adjacent chunks (C06, C07) to establish the timeline of when cooking started before the C08 spike.

The investigator correctly identified the temperature anomaly in C08 but failed to retrieve the critical context chunks (C06/C07) that likely contain the cook_surface 'On' command preceding the spike. Without this, the hypothesis of 'unattended cooking' relies on missing evidence rather than positive confirmation.

The risk of false alarm is high because the conclusion of potential fire risk is based primarily on a temperature spike and the absence of explicit cook_surface logs in the provided snippet, while ignoring the possibility that the device was simply not logged in the truncated view or that the heat source was something else (e.g., oven).

The investigation drifted slightly into debating telemetry quality ('None' values) as a primary fault indicator, whereas the safety query requires establishing the causal link between the heat source and the temperature rise.

To resolve the ambiguity, we must see if the cook_surface was active during the C08 window. If it was off, the spike might be environmental or an appliance malfunction; if it was on, supervision status becomes the key safety factor.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 482,
    "bedroom": 496,
    "kitchen": 310,
    "bathroom": 58,
    "entrance": 3
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "Occupancy": 448,
    "OnOff": 20,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 3,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "LockState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 1,
  "occupancy_events": 448,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-28T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-28T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [
      "living_room_temp_sensor",

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "living_room",
      "bedroom",
      "bathroom",
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "cook_surface",
      "temperature_sensor",
      "occupancy_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",
    "living_room",
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "kitchen_temperature_sensor",
    "entrance_door_lock",
    "bathroom_water_leak_detector"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C08",
    "C12",
    "C05"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Kitchen temperature anomaly (spike to 28.40 C in C08) potentially indicating cooking or heating event without corresponding smoke alarm trigger in preview.",
    "Cook surface activation in evening (C12) requiring verification of smoke/CO alarm status for fire safety.",
    "General occupancy patterns vs. security device states (lock, leaks) to assess overall home safety posture."
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C08 shows a significant kitchen temperature spike (28.40 C) which is an outlier compared to other chunks, warranting investigation for potential fire hazard or appliance malfunction, even if smoke alarm logs aren't explicitly in the preview lines.",
    "C12 captures the evening cook surface usage ('on'), which is a primary fire risk sourc


BA-02-FP: 住户周末改变习惯早起做饭

住户先从卧室起床再去厨房（正常路径），虽然时间段不同寻常但行为模式是住户自己

Cook surface was active for 31 minutes in the kitchen while occupancy sensors indicated no one was present in that specific zone, creating a potential fire risk despite no alarm triggering.

Explanation: The cook surface in the kitchen was turned on at 18:55 and remained on until 19:26 (31 minutes).

Explanation: During this entire window, the `kitchen_occupancy` sensor reported 'unoccupied' (last seen occupied before this period was not logged in the immediate pre-cook chunks provided, but C04-C09 show unoccupied states leading up to the evening). Specifically, C10 shows `living_room_occupancy` as 'occupied' throughout, confirming human presence elsewhere in the home, while the kitchen remains unoccupied according to its sensor.

Explanation: This discrepancy suggests the user was cooking without being detected by the kitchen sensor, either due to a blind spot or leaving the room. This constitutes an 'unattended cooking' scenario.

Explanation: Although temperatures rose gradually and no smoke/CO alarms triggered (indicating no catastrophic failure occurred), the state of having an active heat source with no detected occupant is a safety anomaly.

Explanation: The supervisor noted that missing logs alone are insufficient, but here we have positive evidence of activity (cook surface ON) combined with negative evidence of presence (Occupancy=0) in the same room, which is a stronger signal than mere absence of data.

Explanation: Confidence is medium because the duration (31 mins) is within normal meal prep limits, and the lack of alarm suggests the situation was benign, but the sensor gap represents a latent risk.

C10: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff = on from 18:55:30 to 19:26:00.

C10: living_room_occupancy = occupied continuously during cooking window.

C10/C04-C09: No `kitchen_occupancy = occupied` events recorded during or immediately preceding the cooking start time.

Review kitchen sensor placement to identify potential blind spots where a standing user might not be detected.

Verify if ventilation hood status was logged to confirm if mitigation was attempted.

Monitor future cooking events to see if the occupancy sensor triggers correctly when the user is near the stove.

Entrance security state transitions (lock/unlock cycles)

Occupancy patterns indicating presence/absence during critical times

Potential unmonitored activity in kitchen/living room areas

Absence of explicit fire/water leak alarms despite high-risk devices being present

Normal Evening Routine with Unattended Cooking Risk (Low Severity)

C10 shows a coherent sequence: Front door unlock (18:29), entry lights on, living room occupancy detected, AC turned on. This indicates a normal arrival home.

Kitchen cook surface turns on at 18:55 and off at 19:26 (31 minutes duration). This is a typical cooking timeframe.

Kitchen temperature rises from ~25°C to ~27°C during cooking (C10) and drops back to ~22°C by C11/C12, indicating heat dissipation without fire escalation.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered in any chunk (C04-C13).

Dishwasher runs normally in C11 (19:53-20:xx) with no water leak detector alerts.

Front door locks automatically at 21:53 (C12) after the resident moves to the bedroom, consistent with standard security protocols.

The 'unattended' nature of the cooking relies on the absence of kitchen occupancy logs, which could be due to sensor placement or the user standing just outside the detection zone.

While no alarm fired, the lack of explicit ventilation hood logs means we cannot confirm active mitigation was engaged, though the temperature drop suggests passive cooling was sufficient.

Unattended Cooking Event with Potential Sensor Blind Spot

In C10, the kitchen cook surface is ON from 18:55 to 19:26.

During this entire 31-minute window, `kitchen_occupancy` never reports 'occupied'. The last known state was 'unoccupied' at 18:25:34, and it remains unreported as occupied throughout the cooking period.

Living room occupancy is consistently 'occupied' during this time, suggesting the person is present in the house but not in the immediate vicinity of the stove (or the kitchen sensor is blind to them).

Two transient `None` values for `kitchen_temp_sensor` occur at 18:56 and 19:27, bracketing the cooking event. While likely telemetry noise, they coincide with high-heat activity.

No evidence of the user returning to the kitchen to check the stove during the 31-minute interval.

The cooking duration (31 mins) is within normal limits for meal preparation, reducing the immediate fire risk compared to hours-long unattended stoves.

Temperatures did not spike abnormally; they rose gradually and then cooled, suggesting no thermal runaway.

No smoke or CO alarms triggered, which is the strongest indicator that no hazardous combustion occurred.

The 'unattended' conclusion depends on the assumption that the kitchen occupancy sensor should have detected the user; if the user was standing in a blind spot, it's a sensor coverage issue, not necessarily a safety failure.

Minor Kitchen Temperature Sensor Telemetry Instability

In C10, `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns `None` at 18:56 (immediately after cook surface turns on) and again at 19:27 (immediately after cook surface turns off).

These are isolated dropouts that recover immediately in subsequent timestamps (19:00, 19:30).

No other sensors show similar simultaneous dropout patterns, isolating the issue to the kitchen unit.

Per protocol, isolated transient dropouts that recover are insufficient to declare a device fault or high-risk sensor failure.

The values before and after are consistent with ambient/cooking heat trends, showing no stuck or drifting behavior.

Absence of `kitchen_occupancy = occupied` events between 18:25 and 19:40 while `kitchen_cook_surface` is active (18:55-19:26).

Presence of `living_room_occupancy = occupied` during the same period, confirming human presence elsewhere in the home.

Lack of any `smoke_co_alarm` or `water_leak_detector` trigger events across all chunks despite high-risk appliance usage.

Automatic lock engagement at 21:53 (C12) confirms the security system functioned correctly post-event.

Ventilation hood status logs to determine if active mitigation was used during cooking.

Detailed motion sensor data in the kitchen to verify if the user was physically present but out of range of the specific occupancy sensor.

Smoke/CO alarm battery/status health checks to ensure they were functional during the event.

Verify kitchen occupancy sensor status during the cooking window (18:55-19:26) in chunks C05-C07 to confirm if it was simply unlogged or truly unoccupied.

Check for any smoke/CO alarm activation events in the full timeline, not just the focused chunks.

Confirm if the 'None' values for kitchen_temp_sensor are isolated telemetry errors or indicate a device fault requiring maintenance.

Validate the automatic lock engagement logic against the specific trigger conditions (e.g., time delay vs. motion detection).

The investigator correctly identified the potential risk of unattended cooking but relies heavily on the absence of `kitchen_occupancy` logs and transient `None` temperature values.

Per protocol, missing logs alone do not constitute evidence of an unsafe state without corroboration (e.g., no fire alarm, normal temperature curve). The current conclusion is speculative.

The investigation focuses on C10-C13 but misses the critical pre-cooking context (C05-C07) where the user's presence in the house should be established more robustly before the cooking event.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is weak because the temperature recovered immediately; this is likely telemetry noise, not a device health issue.

To reduce false-alarm risk, we need to see if the kitchen occupancy sensor was functioning normally at other times and if there were any other indicators of human presence in the kitchen that were missed.

The home is in a normal operational state with standard security and appliance usage patterns. The morning lock/unlock sequence represents a resident leaving the house, followed by an auto-lock event. The evening sequence shows a resident returning, turning on lights/AC, cooking dinner, and running the dishwasher while occupying the living room (supervising from adjacent space). Temperature fluctuations are within normal environmental ranges.

C04: Front door lock opens manually at 07:24:12, contact sensor opens/closes, then auto-locks at 07:24:22. This is a consistent 'leave' pattern.

C10: Resident returns at 18:29, unlocks door, turns on entrance/living room lights and AC. Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout the evening.

C10/C11: Cook surface turns on at 18:55:30 and off at 19:26:00 (~30 mins). Dishwasher starts at 19:53. These are typical evening routines.

Temperatures across all sensors remain within plausible residential ranges (21-27 C) without sudden spikes indicative of fire or equipment failure.

Assumes the person in the living room is actively supervising the kitchen, which is not explicitly confirmed by motion data in the kitchen itself.

Relies on the assumption that the cook surface was turned off intentionally and not left on accidentally before being noticed.

Potential unattended cooking risk due to lack of direct kitchen supervision and intermittent telemetry gaps. While the cook surface was active for ~30 minutes, there is no evidence of occupancy *inside* the kitchen during this time, only in the living room. Additionally, the kitchen temperature sensor reported `None` twice during/after cooking, which could indicate sensor failure or environmental interference, reducing confidence in thermal monitoring.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turns ON at 18:55:30. At this time, `kitchen_occupancy` is not logged as occupied (only `living_room_occupancy` is 1).

C10: Kitchen cook surface turns OFF at 19:26:00. During the entire interval (18:55-19:26), no `kitchen_occupancy` events are recorded as 'occupied'.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 18:56:00 (immediately after cooking starts) and again at 19:27:00 (shortly after cooking ends).

C10: `kitchen_window_contact` is false (closed) at 19:26:30, but no window opening/closing events were logged during the cooking period to verify ventilation status.

The resident was in the adjacent living room, which may constitute acceptable supervision depending on household norms.

The cook surface was eventually turned off, so no catastrophic outcome occurred.

The `None` values for temperature could be transient telemetry errors rather than sensor malfunction, especially since values returned to normal later.

Possible sensor malfunction or connectivity issue with the kitchen temperature sensor. The sensor drops out (`None`) immediately after high-heat activity begins and again shortly after it ends, suggesting potential overheating sensitivity or communication dropouts under load.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` value is `None` at 18:56:00, just 30 seconds after `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor` value is `None` at 19:27:00, shortly after the cook surface turns OFF.

C10: Between these two nulls, the last valid reading was 25.85 C (18:55:00) and the next was 25.30 C (19:00:00), showing a drop that might be inconsistent with residual heat if the sensor was working.

Only two isolated `None` events; subsequent readings return to normal baselines (22-23 C).

No explicit fault codes or repeated failures observed.

Absence of `kitchen_occupancy = occupied` during the 18:55-19:26 cook surface active window.

Kitchen temperature sensor reporting `None` immediately following cook surface activation.

Consistent auto-lock behavior in C04 indicating functional security hardware.

Direct occupancy logs for the kitchen during the evening cooking period.

Smoke or CO alarm status/logs during the cooking event.

Ventilation hood status (if connected) during cooking.

Confirmation of who was present in the living room vs. kitchen.

Kitchen cook surface turns on at 18:55 and off at 19:26 (31 minutes duration). This is a typical cooking timeframe.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered in any chunk (C04-C13).

Dishwasher runs normally in C11 (19:53-20:xx) with no water leak detector alerts.

In C10, the kitchen cook surface is ON from 18:55 to 19:26.

No evidence of the user returning to the kitchen to check the stove during the 31-minute interval.

These are isolated dropouts that recover immediately in subsequent timestamps (19:00, 19:30).

No other sensors show similar simultaneous dropout patterns, isolating the issue to the kitchen unit.

Smoke/CO alarm status during and after cooking event (C10/C11)

Ventilation hood operation logs (if available) to assess fire risk mitigation

Confirmation of cook surface state in C12 to ensure it remained off and did not re-engage

Water leak detector status during dishwasher operation (C11)

The investigator correctly identified the 'unattended cooking' pattern based on missing kitchen occupancy logs. However, labeling this as a significant safety risk or potential malfunction is premature without corroborating evidence from smoke/CO alarms or ventilation systems.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis relies heavily on two isolated `None` values for temperature. As per protocol, transient data dropouts that recover immediately are insufficient to declare a device fault or high-risk sensor failure. This creates a high false-alarm risk if treated as a definitive hardware issue.

The investigation lacks the immediate post-cooking context (likely in C12) to confirm no alarms were triggered and the system returned to a safe baseline. Without checking the smoke/CO alarm logs explicitly mentioned in the query targets, the safety assessment is incomplete.

Refine investigation to check C09 (pre-evening routine) and C12 (post-dishwasher/evening wind-down) to verify alarm states and final device statuses.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 397,
    "bedroom": 357,
    "kitchen": 300,
    "bathroom": 53,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 217,
    "OnOff": 20,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 217,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-23T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-23T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [
      "li

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance",
      "kitchen",
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact",
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "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"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "bathroom_water_leak_detector",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C10",
    "C11"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Entrance security state transitions (lock/unlock cycles)",
    "Occupancy patterns indicating presence/absence during critical times",
    "Potential unmonitored activity in kitchen/living room areas",
    "Absence of explicit fire/water leak alarms despite high-risk devices being present"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the morning entrance lock/unlock sequence and contact sensor states, crucial for assessing physical security integrity.",
    "C10 captures the evening arrival event, including door lock operation, lighting activation, and AC startup, providing context for occupancy and routine behavior.",
    "C11 covers the evening active period with dishwasher usage and sustained occupancy, allowing assessment of appliance safety and continuous monitoring coverage."
  ],
  "l