触发间隔不规律（不是周期性的），且频率较低（几分钟一次不是几十秒一次）

The entrance occupancy sensor is functioning normally; observed transient 'unoccupied' readings and telemetry gaps are consistent with normal debounce logic or temporary signal loss that self-corrected without hardware failure.

Explanation: The investigator identified two potential anomalies: a transient 'unoccupied' reading at 14:08:45 (C14) and a telemetry gap between 14:14:10 and 14:16:32 (C15).

Explanation: However, the supervisor noted that these events lack definitive proof of hardware failure (e.g., stuck values, explicit alarms) and could be explained by normal operational parameters like debounce settings or intermittent connectivity.

Explanation: Crucially, the device recovered fully and continued to report regular updates in subsequent chunks (C16, C17), indicating no persistent fault.

Explanation: According to Matter Notes and Supervisor guidelines, a single transient dropout or spike that recovers does not constitute a device fault. Without corroborating evidence of physical absence (lock/contact logs) or repeated failures, the behavior is best classified as normal variance rather than a malfunction.

Explanation: Therefore, the sensor is judged to be working normally.

Sensor transitions to 'unoccupied' at 14:08:45 but returns to 'occupied' shortly after, with no persistent state change.

Telemetry gap from 14:14:10 to 14:16:32 resolves with a return to 'occupied' status, followed by continuous reporting.

No explicit fault or alarm events recorded for the entrance sensor.

Monitor the sensor for recurrence of similar gaps or transient unoccupied states during periods of known presence.

Verify sensor placement and sensitivity settings if false negatives persist.

C00 provides the baseline state (unoccupied) and confirms the device is present in logs.

C15 shows a clear state change from occupied to unoccupied at 14:14:10, followed by a return to occupied at 14:16:32. This represents a complete, valid state cycle (Occupied -> Unoccupied -> Occupied).

No explicit fault, alarm, or error events are present in the logs for the entrance sensor.

The sensor recovers fully and continues to report regular updates (every ~30-60 seconds) in subsequent chunks (C16, C17), indicating no persistent stuck condition.

The 2-minute gap between 14:14:10 and 14:16:32 is longer than the typical 30-second update interval seen elsewhere, which could indicate a temporary communication dropout rather than just polling delay.

The entrance occupancy sensor exhibits intermittent connectivity issues or unstable sensing behavior, characterized by a transient false-negative (unoccupied) reading while likely still occupied, followed by a period of missing telemetry.

In C14, the sensor reports 'unoccupied' at 14:08:45, but other sensors (master_bedroom, kids_room) remain 'occupied', suggesting the entrance might have been misread or the person hadn't fully left yet.

In C15, after reporting 'unoccupied' at 14:14:10, there is a significant gap until 14:16:32 when it reports 'occupied' again. During this 2+ minute window, no intermediate states were recorded, unlike the frequent updates seen in other devices.

The pattern of transient unoccupied readings (14:08:45, 14:14:10) amidst continuous activity in adjacent rooms suggests potential sensitivity issues or intermittent signal loss.

The device eventually recovered and continued to function correctly, so this does not constitute a permanent malfunction.

Without access-control data (lock/contact) for the entrance door during these specific timestamps, it is impossible to confirm if the 'unoccupied' readings were physically accurate (i.e., someone actually left and re-entered quickly).

The sequence in C15: `entrance_occupancy` transitions to `unoccupied` (raw=0) at 14:14:10, then remains silent/unreported until `occupied` (raw=1) at 14:16:32. This 2-minute gap contrasts with the ~30-60 second update frequency of other devices.

The transient `unoccupied` reading at 14:08:45 in C14, which contradicts the sustained `occupied` status of all other room sensors, indicating a potential false negative or momentary loss of detection.

Door lock and contact sensor logs for the entrance area during the windows of 14:08:45 and 14:14:10-14:16:32 to verify if physical access occurred.

Configuration details regarding the sensor's polling interval and debounce settings to determine if the observed gaps are within expected operational parameters.

Verify if the 'unoccupied' readings at 14:08:45 and 14:14:10 were transient glitches or persistent states by checking adjacent timestamps in C14/C15.

Check for explicit fault/alarm events from the entrance sensor during the gap periods (14:14:10-14:16:32).

Corroborate occupancy status with door lock/contact sensor logs to determine if the 'unoccupied' state was physically accurate (i.e., someone actually left).

Review chunks prior to C13 (e.g., C12) to establish baseline behavior and check for similar intermittent gaps earlier in the day.

The investigator correctly identified potential anomalies (transient unoccupied readings and a telemetry gap) but concluded the device is likely normal based on eventual recovery. However, the query asks to judge if it works *normally* and identify faults if abnormal.

A single 2-minute gap followed by recovery might be a communication dropout rather than a sensor fault, but two transient 'unoccupied' spikes amidst continuous activity in other rooms suggest sensitivity issues or intermittent signal loss.

The current evidence is ambiguous: it shows behavior that deviates from the stable pattern of other sensors, but lacks definitive proof of hardware failure (stuck values, alarms).

We need to check if these gaps/spikes are isolated incidents or part of a recurring pattern. Checking C12 (pre-C13) and potentially later chunks (C18+) will help determine if this is a chronic issue or a one-off event.

Also, verifying against door lock data is crucial to rule out physical absence as the cause for 'unoccupied' states.

The entrance occupancy sensor is functioning normally. The brief transition to 'unoccupied' at 14:14:10 followed by a return to 'occupied' represents a transient detection event (e.g., someone stepping out briefly or a false negative) that immediately corrected itself, which is within normal operational variance for PIR sensors.

C15 shows the sensor reporting 'occupied' (raw=1) at 14:11:32, 14:13:20, and consistently from 14:16:32 onwards through the end of the log window.

The initial state in C00 was 'unoccupied', establishing a valid baseline.

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or stuck-value patterns (where the value never changes back) are present.

The rapid flip-flop between occupied/unoccupied around 14:14 could indicate sensitivity issues or environmental interference, though not necessarily a hard fault.

The entrance occupancy sensor exhibits intermittent instability or 'chatter', characterized by a rapid, short-duration drop to 'unoccupied' while the area remains logically occupied (as evidenced by other sensors). This suggests a potential sensor drift or calibration issue causing false negatives.

In C15, at 14:14:10, `entrance_occupancy` flips to `unoccupied` (raw=0).

Just 2 seconds later at 14:14:10 (same second entry, likely subsequent processing or immediate re-detection), it returns to `occupied`? No, looking closely at C15: 14:14:10 is unoccupied. Next entrance entry is 14:16:32 which is occupied. There is a gap of ~2 minutes where the last known state was unoccupied, but master_bedroom went occupied at 14:16:00. Wait, let's re-read C15 carefully.

Correction on Evidence A1: At 14:14:10, entrance goes unoccupied. The next entrance log is 14:16:32 (occupied). Between 14:14:10 and 14:16:32, there are no entrance logs. However, `master_bedroom_occupancy` becomes occupied at 14:16:00. If the person moved from entrance to bedroom, the entrance should have gone unoccupied and stayed so, OR if they were lingering, it might flicker. But the key anomaly flagged by triage is 'fails to transition back'. Let's look at the sequence again.

Sequence: 14:11:32 Occupied -> 14:13:20 Occupied -> 14:14:10 Unoccupied. Then NO entrance logs until 14:16:32 Occupied. This implies the sensor did NOT report 'unoccupied' continuously or recover smoothly; it dropped out or failed to update for 2 minutes, then suddenly reported occupied again. Or, more likely, the 'Unoccupied' at 14:14:10 was a glitch, and it took 2 minutes to re-establish presence.

Actually, looking at the pattern: 14:11:32 Occ, 14:13:20 Occ, 14:14:10 Unocc. Then 14:16:32 Occ. The gap between 14:14:10 and 14:16:32 is significant. If the person was still in the house (Master Bedroom occupied at 14:16:00), why did Entrance stay Unoccupied for 2+ minutes without logging? This suggests a communication dropout or sensor failure to maintain state.

Furthermore, after 14:16:32, it stays Occupied. The 'stuck' nature might refer to the fact that it didn't clear when the person left the immediate vicinity if they were just moving rooms, or conversely, it failed to detect them leaving/entering correctly.

The logs do not show a permanent 'stuck' value (e.g., always 1 or always 0). It does change states eventually.

The gap in logs between 14:14:10 and 14:16:32 could be due to low-frequency polling rather than a fault, although the sudden jump from Unoccupied to Occupied without an intermediate 'Occupied' confirmation during the gap is suspicious.

Sensor Malfunction / False Negative: The sensor failed to detect occupancy during a critical transition period (14:14-14:16), potentially leading to incorrect automation triggers (e.g., lights turning off incorrectly).

At 14:14:10, the sensor reports Unoccupied.

At 14:16:00, Master Bedroom reports Occupied, implying human presence in the home.

At 14:16:32, Entrance reports Occupied again.

The interval between 14:14:10 and 14:16:32 shows the Entrance sensor as Unoccupied (last known state) despite high activity in adjacent zones, suggesting it missed the person's presence or failed to update its status correctly during the movement.

Without continuous logging, we cannot confirm if the sensor was truly offline or just infrequent. However, the inconsistency with the Master Bedroom timeline supports a malfunction hypothesis.

C15: [2026-06-05T14:14:10] entrance_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = unoccupied (raw=0)

C15: [2026-06-05T14:16:32] entrance_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied (raw=1)

C15: [2026-06-05T14:16:00] master_bedroom_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied (raw=1)

Logs for the entrance_occupancy sensor between 14:14:10 and 14:16:32 to determine if it remained unoccupied or if there were intermediate updates.

Status of the door lock or contact sensor during this period to corroborate physical entry/exit events.

Configuration settings for the occupancy sensor (e.g., timeout duration) to judge if the 2-minute gap is expected behavior.

No explicit fault, alarm, or error events are present in the logs for the entrance sensor.

Verify if the gap between 14:14:10 and 14:16:32 is due to sensor polling intervals or actual data loss by checking adjacent chunks (C14/C16).

Check for explicit fault/alarm events in the device logs.

Corroborate with door lock/contact sensor states to determine if physical access occurred during the 'unoccupied' gap.

The investigator correctly identified a suspicious pattern (transient unoccupied state followed by a gap) but lacks sufficient evidence to confirm a fault. The gap could be normal polling behavior or a brief communication dropout rather than a sensor malfunction.

The hypothesis of 'sensor_stuck' or 'malfunction' is speculative without seeing the intermediate state or confirming that the device failed to update when it should have (vs. just not reporting).

Need to check C14 (pre-gap) and C16 (post-gap) to see if there are more frequent updates or if this is indeed an isolated incident. If the sensor reports frequently otherwise, a 2-minute gap might be significant; if it only reports every few minutes, it might be normal.

Do not conclude 'normal' yet, as the transient drop to 0 while other sensors show activity is anomalous. Do not conclude 'fault' yet, as it recovered. Refinement is needed.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 398,
    "master_bedroom": 518,
    "kids_room": 518,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 217,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 53,
    "entrance": 231,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1083,
    "OnOff

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "entrance_occupancy_sensor",
      "entrance_contact_sensor",
      "entrance_door_lock"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 entrance 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "entrance_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C15"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "sensor_stuck_value",
    "missing_transitions"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00 provides the baseline state (unoccupied) and confirms the device is present in logs.",
    "C15 captures the specific time window where the sensor transitions to 'occupied' but fails to transition back, showing a potential stuck fault."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The entrance occupancy sensor is functioning normally. The brief transition to 'unoccupied' at 14:08:45 and the gap in reporting between 14:14:10 and 14:16:32 are consistent with normal sensor polling intervals, debounce logic, or transient signal loss that self-corrected without hardware failure.",
      "evidence": [
        "C14 shows the sensor transitioning to unoccupied (raw=0) at 14:08:45 but immediately returning to occupied (raw=1) at 14:08:00 (likely a log ordering artifact or rapid re-entry) and remaining occupied through 14:13:20.",
        "C15 shows a clear state change from occupied to unoccupied at 14:14:10, followed by


触发间隔不规律（不是周期性的），且频率较低（几分钟一次不是几十秒一次）

Entrance sensors (occupancy, contact, lock) are functioning normally based on available evidence; no faults detected.

Explanation: The supervisor correctly identified that the initial investigation was limited to morning (C06) and evening (C18) windows, leaving a significant gap (C08-C16) unverified for potential intermittent faults or connectivity drops.

Explanation: However, reviewing the provided chunks C04-C07 and C17-C19 reveals consistent and logical behavior for all three target devices: entrance_occupancy, front_door_contact, and front_door_lock.

Explanation: In C06, the sequence Lock(unlock) -> Contact(open) -> Occupancy(occupied) -> Contact(closed) -> Lock(lock) demonstrates full functional integrity of the sensor chain during an entry event.

Explanation: In C18 and C19, similar sequences occur. Specifically, in C19, the door remains unlocked and open while occupancy stays 'occupied', which is logically consistent with a person being inside and not a sensor error (which might falsely report 'unoccupied' if the door were open but no motion detected).

Explanation: There are no explicit fault codes, alarm events, or contradictory state transitions (e.g., lock reporting locked while contact reports open without occupancy confirmation) in any of the reviewed chunks.

Explanation: While the gap in telemetry between C07 and C17 prevents a 'high' confidence assertion of continuous health across the entire day, there is no evidence within the sampled data to suggest a malfunction. The absence of anomalies in multiple distinct operational contexts (morning exit/entry, evening entry) supports the conclusion of normal operation.

C06 sequence: LockState=unlocked -> Contact=false -> Occupancy=occupied -> Contact=true -> LockState=locked (Full functional chain)

C18/C19 sequence: Consistent occupancy reporting during prolonged door-open/unlocked states, ruling out stuck-on-unoccupied faults.

Absence of 'None' values or error logs for entrance devices in C04-C07 and C17-C19.

Monitor entrance sensors over the next 24 hours to verify continuity during the previously missing afternoon/evening window.

Check network connectivity logs for the entrance zone to rule out intermittent wireless issues that might have caused gaps in the historical record.

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.

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

Sensor data consistency during access events

Contact sensor state vs occupancy correlation

Lock operation success/failure indicators

Entrance sensors (occupancy, contact, lock) are functioning normally. The logs show consistent state transitions during entry/exit events, with no evidence of stuck values, communication failures, or logical contradictions.

C06 (Morning Entry): Lock unlocks -> Contact opens -> Occupancy detects presence -> Lock auto-locks -> Contact closes. All states transition logically and sequentially.

C18 (Evening Entry): Lock unlocks -> Contact opens -> Occupancy detects presence. Consistent with C06 pattern.

C19 (Late Evening Exit): Lock unlocks -> Contact opens -> Occupancy remains occupied (person inside). No contradictory 'unoccupied' signal despite door being open/unlocked.

Occupancy Sensor: Reports 'occupied' continuously from the moment of entry in all chunks (C06, C17, C18, C19), indicating it is not stuck on 'unoccupied'.

Contact Sensor: Reports 'false' (open) when the door is unlocked/opened and 'true' (closed) after auto-lock in C06, showing it responds to physical state changes.

The analysis relies on specific event windows; intermittent faults between these windows cannot be fully ruled out without continuous telemetry, though no error logs were found in adjacent chunks.

No device fault detected. The previous suspicion of intermittent faults was based on insufficient data scope. The expanded view confirms stable operation across morning, afternoon, and evening cycles.

Supervisor requested checks for 'None' values or connectivity drops. Scanning C04-C07 and C17-C19 reveals no 'None' values for entrance_occupancy or front_door_contact.

Lock state flips (5 total) correlate perfectly with manual unlock events followed by either auto-lock (C06) or continued occupancy (C19/C18).

No explicit alarm/fault events are present in any of the focused or adjacent chunks.

Temperature sensor 'None' value in C05 (kitchen) is unrelated to entrance sensors and appears as an isolated transient issue, not a systemic failure.

Cannot guarantee absence of micro-interruptions that do not generate log entries.

C06 sequence: LockState=unlocked(2) at 07:13:23 -> Contact=false at 07:13:25 -> Occupancy=occupied(1) at 07:13:26 -> LockState=locked(1) at 07:13:34. This demonstrates full functional chain integrity.

Absence of 'None' or error codes in entrance_occupancy logs across C04, C05, C06, C07, C17, C18, C19.

Consistency of 'occupied' status in entrance_occupancy during periods where the door is known to be open/unlocked (e.g., C19 17:51 onwards), preventing false 'unoccupied' triggers.

Network packet loss logs or MQTT disconnect/reconnect events to definitively rule out wireless interference causing missed updates (though current logs show no gaps).

Verify entrance_occupancy and front_door_contact logs in the afternoon/evening chunks (C08-C16) to ensure no intermittent failures or 'None' values occurred outside the selected morning/evening windows.

Check for any explicit fault/alarm events in the full timeline, not just the focused chunks.

Confirm that the 'occupied' state in C17-C19 is consistent with actual presence (e.g., cross-reference with other room occupancy or light states) to rule out sensor drift or stuck-on faults.

The investigator correctly identified normal behavior in C06 and C18 but failed to account for the significant gap in evidence between the morning (C07 end) and evening (C17 start).

Chunks C08 through C16 are missing from the analysis. If the sensors were faulty during this period (e.g., intermittent connectivity loss, stuck states), the current conclusion of 'normal' is unsupported.

The query asks to check if sensors are working normally based on history; limiting the review to two short windows is insufficient for a comprehensive health check.

No direct fault evidence was found in the provided chunks, but absence of evidence in the unreviewed chunks does not constitute evidence of absence.

Request investigation into the intermediate chunks to confirm continuous operation.

Entrance sensors (occupancy, contact, lock) are functioning normally. The logs show consistent state transitions during morning and evening entry events, with no evidence of stuck values, communication failures, or contradictory states.

In C06 (Morning), the front door lock successfully transitions from locked to unlocked (raw=2) upon manual operation, followed by a contact sensor change (false->true indicating open/closed sequence relative to entry) and occupancy detection (raw=1).

In C18 (Evening), the front door lock successfully unlocks (raw=2), contact sensor reports false (open), and occupancy is detected (raw=1).

The entrance_occupancy sensor consistently reports 'occupied' (raw=1) throughout both observation windows, which is expected behavior for a person present in the entrance area after entering.

No explicit fault events, alarm codes, or impossible state transitions (e.g., lock reporting locked while contact is open and occupancy is present without a corresponding close event) are observed.

The analysis relies on two specific time windows; intermittent faults outside these windows are not captured.

Contact sensor logic interpretation depends on the assumption that 'false' means open and 'true' means closed (or vice versa depending on wiring/logic), but the transition sequence (unlock -> contact change -> occupancy) is coherent in both chunks.

C06: LockOperation(Manual) -> LockState(unlocked) -> Contact(false) -> Occupancy(occupied) -> Contact(true) -> LockOperation(Auto) -> LockState(locked). This sequence demonstrates full functional integrity of all three devices.

C18: LockOperation(Manual) -> LockState(unlocked) -> Contact(false) -> Occupancy(occupied). This confirms the same baseline behavior in the evening.

Absence of any 'None' values, repeated retries, or contradictory states (e.g., LockState=locked while DoorLock.LockState raw code suggests otherwise, or contact/occupancy mismatches persisting over time).

Logs for other times of day to ensure no intermittent connectivity issues exist.

Explicit definition of BooleanState.StateValue semantics for the contact sensor (whether false=open or true=open) to fully rule out logical inversion, though the temporal correlation with lock operations makes this unlikely to be a fault.

Check for intermittent connectivity drops or 'None' values in entrance_occupancy and front_door_contact logs outside the specific entry windows.

Verify if the contact sensor state (false/true) correlates correctly with the lock state transitions in other events (e.g., auto-lock sequences).

Ensure no fault alarms or retry logs are present in the broader context of C06/C18.

The investigator concludes sensors are normal based solely on two successful entry sequences (C06, C18). This is insufficient to rule out intermittent faults, stuck states, or communication issues that might occur at other times.

While no direct fault evidence was found in the selected chunks, a 'device-health' assessment requires checking for absence of faults over a wider range, not just presence of success in isolated windows.

The investigator correctly identified the relevant devices but failed to check adjacent chunks for potential transient errors or missing telemetry that would indicate instability.

Requesting adjacent chunks (pre/post of C06 and C18) to verify continuous operation and lack of error logs.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 402,
    "master_bedroom": 519,
    "kids_room": 514,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 217,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 53,
    "entrance": 236,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1089,
    "OnOff

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "entrance_occupancy",
      "front_door_contact",
      "front_door_lock"
    ],
    "target_question": "Check if entrance sensors are working normally; if abnormal, specify fault type."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "front_door_contact",
    "front_door_lock"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C18"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Sensor data consistency during access events",
    "Contact sensor state vs occupancy correlation",
    "Lock operation success/failure indicators"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06 contains a clear morning entry sequence (unlock, contact open/close, occupancy change) providing baseline normal behavior for all three device types.",
    "C18 contains an evening entry sequence with similar actions, allowing comparison of sensor response patterns and checking for any anomalies or missing telemetry in the contact/occupancy logs compared to C06.",
    "Comparing these two chunks allows verification of whether the contact sensor and occupancy sensor are reporting consistent states relative to the lock operations and physical presence."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Entrance sensors (occupancy, contact, lock) are functioning normally. The logs show consistent state transitions during entry/exit events, with no ev


DF-02-FP: 夏季午后持续升温（正常日照效应）

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

The master_bedroom sensors are operating normally; the persistent 'occupied' state is consistent with prolonged human presence during a morning routine.

Explanation: The temperature sensor (`master_bedroom_temp_sensor`) reports continuous, physically plausible readings (approx. 24-25°C) throughout all chunks, indicating no hardware fault or drift.

Explanation: The occupancy sensor (`master_bedroom_occupancy`) transitions from `unoccupied` to `occupied` at 06:07, immediately followed by the light turning on, which confirms valid detection of entry.

Explanation: Although the `master_bedroom_occupancy` remains `occupied` until the end of the logs (09:22), this is corroborated by concurrent activity in adjacent rooms (master_bathroom, kids_room) and the `entrance_occupancy` remaining `occupied`, suggesting the household has not fully evacuated.

Explanation: The supervisor correctly noted that the lack of an 'unoccupied' transition prevents a definitive 'high' confidence conclusion, but there is no direct evidence of a stuck sensor (e.g., failure to detect entry, contradictory states). The behavior fits a normal scenario of extended occupancy.

Explanation: Per device-health protocols, without explicit fault codes or impossible transitions, and given the strong contextual support for human presence, the anomaly hypothesis is rejected.

C04: `master_bedroom_occupancy` transitions to `occupied` (raw=1) at 06:07:00, followed by `master_bedroom_light` turning on at 06:07:10.

C03-C08: Continuous temperature logs for `master_bedroom_temp_sensor` show stable values between 23.90 C and 25.52 C.

C06-C08: `entrance_occupancy` remains `occupied` (raw=1) throughout the period, supporting the narrative that occupants are still present in the home/suite.

Monitor subsequent logs to confirm if `master_bedroom_occupancy` eventually transitions back to `unoccupied` after the resident leaves.

No immediate maintenance required; continue standard monitoring.

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

Missing temperature sensor logs in specific chunks while other sensors report normally.

The master_bedroom occupancy sensor is functioning correctly. The transition to 'occupied' at 06:07 corresponds to a resident waking up and entering the room, corroborated by the light turning on shortly after. The persistent 'occupied' state reflects the resident remaining in the bedroom for an extended period (morning routine), which is consistent with the concurrent activity in the master bathroom and kids' room.

C04 shows `master_bedroom_occupancy` transitioning from `unoccupied` (raw=0) to `occupied` (raw=1) at 06:07:00.

Immediately following the occupancy change, `master_bedroom_light` turns on at 06:07:10, indicating human presence and interaction.

Subsequent chunks (C05-C08) show correlated activity in adjacent rooms (master_bathroom, kids_room), supporting a narrative of a household morning routine rather than a stuck sensor.

Temperature logs for `master_bedroom_temp_sensor` remain continuous and physically plausible throughout all chunks, showing no signs of hardware failure or data corruption.

The 'occupied' state persists for over 3 hours without a clear 'exit' event in the provided logs, which might seem unusual if the resident left the house, but is normal if they remained in the suite.

The master_bedroom occupancy sensor is experiencing a 'stuck' fault or logic error where it fails to release the 'occupied' state even if the room becomes empty, potentially due to a software glitch or sensor calibration issue. This is suspected because the state remains 'occupied' through multiple time windows where other indicators (like lights being off) might suggest absence, although the lack of explicit 'off' events for the light during the long duration makes this ambiguous.

`master_bedroom_occupancy` remains `occupied` (raw=1) continuously from 06:07 through 09:22 (over 3 hours).

In C06, `master_bedroom_light` turns off at 07:12:06, yet the occupancy sensor remains `occupied`. While this could mean someone is still there, it creates a potential contradiction if the room was actually vacated.

No subsequent log entries show `master_bedroom_occupancy` returning to `unoccupied`, leaving the final state of the device unknown within the observation window.

The supervisor feedback explicitly notes that `entrance_occupancy` also remains `occupied` throughout the sequence, suggesting someone is likely still in the house, possibly in the master bedroom, which validates the sensor's reading.

There is no evidence of the sensor failing to detect entry (it detected entry correctly at 06:07).

The persistence of the state is consistent with normal behavior for a bedroom during a morning routine where occupants may linger.

The correlation between `master_bedroom_occupancy` going `occupied` and `master_bedroom_light` turning on at 06:07:10 strongly supports correct operation.

The simultaneous `occupied` status of `entrance_occupancy` throughout the entire period suggests the household has not fully evacuated, making the persistent `master_bedroom_occupied` state plausible as a resident staying in the room.

Continuous temperature readings confirm the temp sensor is healthy, isolating any potential issue to the occupancy logic if one exists.

Logs beyond 09:22 to see if the `master_bedroom_occupancy` eventually transitions back to `unoccupied`, which would confirm the sensor's ability to release the state.

Confirmation of whether the resident actually left the master bedroom suite during the 07:12-09:22 window (e.g., via door contact sensors or motion in hallways not captured in these specific chunks).

Verification of `master_bedroom_occupancy` state transition to `unoccupied` after the observation window ends at 09:22.

Confirmation that the persistent 'occupied' state is not a sensor fault by checking for subsequent 'unoccupied' events in later chunks (C09+).

Cross-reference with `master_bathroom_occupancy` and `entrance_occupancy` trends to definitively rule out a stuck sensor vs. prolonged occupancy.

The investigator correctly identifies that the temperature sensor is healthy and the occupancy sensor shows a persistent 'occupied' state.

However, the conclusion that the device is 'functioning correctly' relies on the assumption that the occupant remained in the room. While plausible given other sensors, the logs provided (up to C08/09:22) do not show the sensor releasing the 'occupied' state.

A 'stuck sensor' fault cannot be ruled out without seeing the eventual transition back to 'unoccupied'. The current evidence is ambiguous: it fits both 'normal prolonged occupancy' and 'sensor fault'.

Per protocol, a device-health conclusion requires direct fault evidence or clear recovery. Since neither is present in the current chunks, we must refine the investigation to include post-09:22 data to confirm the sensor's ability to reset.

Risk of false alarm is medium because if the sensor never resets, it is a fault; if it does, it was normal. We need the resolution.

The master_bedroom occupancy sensor is functioning correctly, indicating continuous presence in the room throughout the observed period (06:22 - 08:35). The temperature sensor is also functioning normally, reporting stable and physically plausible temperature readings consistent with other rooms.

master_bedroom_occupancy reports 'occupied' (raw=1) consistently from 06:22 through 08:35 without any transition to 'unoccupied'.

master_bedroom_temp_sensor reports valid temperature values ranging from 24.91 C to 25.42 C, showing normal thermal dynamics relative to other sensors (e.g., living_room, kids_room).

No explicit fault events, alarms, or communication errors are logged for these devices.

The lack of an 'unoccupied' state is logically consistent if a person remained in the master bedroom during this morning routine window.

It assumes human presence without corroborating evidence like light switches being toggled by the occupant or specific activity patterns unique to the master bedroom (lights were off at 07:12, but lights can be off while occupied).

Does not account for potential false positives if the room was actually empty.

The master_bedroom occupancy sensor is stuck in the 'occupied' state (sensor_stuck), failing to detect when the room becomes unoccupied. This is indicated by the persistent 'occupied' signal despite the absence of other activity indicators (like lights turning on/off associated with entry/exit) and the eventual departure of occupants from adjacent areas.

master_bedroom_occupancy remains 'occupied' (raw=1) continuously from 06:22 to 08:35 (over 2 hours).

At 07:12, master_bedroom_light turns off, and front_door_lock unlocks/locks as someone leaves the house (entrance_occupancy goes occupied then likely unoccupied later, though logs show entrance_occupancy stays occupied until end of chunk, suggesting someone might still be home or just left). However, the key indicator is the lack of any 'unoccupied' transition for the master bedroom itself.

In contrast, other sensors like master_bathroom_occupancy successfully transition between 'occupied' and 'unoccupied' (e.g., 06:21 occupied -> 07:09 unoccupied -> 07:39 unoccupied -> 08:09 unoccupied), proving the system's ability to detect occupancy changes.

If the master bedroom was vacated (e.g., for the morning routine involving kitchen/bathroom), the sensor should have reported 'unoccupied'. Its failure to do so suggests a hardware or software fault keeping it stuck.

The temperature sensor shows no anomalies, isolating the fault to the occupancy logic/sensor.

It is possible that a person genuinely stayed in the master bedroom for the entire duration, making the sensor correct. Without definitive proof of vacancy (e.g., camera footage or another sensor confirming no one was there), this remains a hypothesis.

The 'entrance_occupancy' staying 'occupied' until the end of the logs complicates the narrative of everyone leaving, but doesn't rule out the master bedroom being empty if the person at the entrance is different or if the sensor is also stuck (though less likely given the context).

master_bedroom_occupancy never transitions to 'unoccupied' between 06:22 and 08:35, while master_bathroom_occupancy does multiple times.

master_bedroom_temp_sensor values are stable and realistic, ruling out general telemetry failure.

Absence of any 'unoccupied' event for master_bedroom_occupancy despite significant time passage and activity in other parts of the house.

Confirmation of actual human presence/absence in the master bedroom via external means (e.g., user confirmation, camera).

Logs for master_bedroom_occupancy before 06:22 to see if it was previously 'unoccupied' and when it first triggered.

Logs for master_bedroom_occupancy after 08:35 to see if it eventually releases or remains stuck.

Check C04 (pre-06:20) to establish the baseline state of master_bedroom_occupancy (was it unoccupied before 06:22?).

Verify if 'entrance_occupancy' staying occupied correlates with a specific person remaining in the house or if it's a sensor fault itself.

Confirm if any other sensors in the master bedroom (e.g., light switches, window contacts) changed state during the period to corroborate occupancy/departure.

The investigator correctly identifies that the temperature sensor is normal and focuses on the occupancy sensor.

However, the conclusion of a potential 'sensor_stuck' fault relies heavily on the assumption that the room was vacated. The logs show 'entrance_occupancy' remains 'occupied' throughout the entire sequence (06:30-08:35), which contradicts the narrative that everyone left the house or moved to other rooms exclusively.

Without C04, we do not know if the master bedroom was previously unoccupied. If it was already occupied at 06:20 and remained so, the sensor is working correctly.

The current evidence is ambiguous because the 'entrance_occupancy' status suggests someone might still be home, potentially in the master bedroom, making the 'stuck' hypothesis speculative rather than definitive.

Need to check C04 to see the transition into the observed period and clarify the initial state.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 525,
    "kids_room": 516,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 218,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 59,
    "entrance": 232,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1161,
    "Occupancy": 1096,

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "master_bedroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "master_bedroom_occupancy_sensor",
      "master_bedroom_temp_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 master_bedroom 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "master_bedroom_occupancy_sensor",
    "master_bedroom_temp_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C05",
    "C06",
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "OccupancySensing.Occupancy stuck at 'occupied' (raw=1) for extended duration despite lack of other activity indicators or logical transitions.",
    "Missing temperature sensor logs in specific chunks while other sensors report normally."
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C05 shows the transition to 'occupied' state and high alarmish count, establishing the baseline of the suspected fault.",
    "C06 is critical as it contains a missing temperature log for another device (kitchen), suggesting potential logging gaps, but more importantly, it shows the master_bedroom occupancy remaining 'occupied' without clear release, and provides context for the next chunk.",
    "C07 confirms the persistence of the 'occupied' state into the morning routine, allowing assessment of whether this is a transient glitch or a stuck sensor/fault."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The master_bedroom occupancy sensor is functioning correctly. The


DF-04-FP: 门锁响应延迟但最终成功锁定

The front door contact sensor exhibited transient chattering (rapid false-to-true state flip) during a lock operation, indicating mechanical instability or hardware fault.

Explanation: Analysis of C06 reveals that at 07:10:30, the `front_door_contact` sensor reported `false` followed immediately by `true` within seconds, coinciding with the manual unlock and auto-lock sequence of the `front_door_lock`.

Explanation: This rapid toggling is characteristic of 'chattering' in reed switch sensors, often caused by mechanical vibration, loose mounting, or internal contact issues during the physical movement of the door.

Explanation: While the system recovered and subsequent logs (C07-C09) show stable behavior, the presence of this specific fault pattern constitutes an abnormal device event. The supervisor's note correctly identifies that a single recovery does not rule out intermittent hardware degradation.

Explanation: Other entrance devices (`entrance_occupancy`, `front_door_lock`) operated normally without contradictory states or persistent failures, isolating the issue to the contact sensor.

C06: `front_door_contact | BooleanState.StateValue = false` at 07:10:30 followed by `true` at 07:10:30/31.

C06: `front_door_lock` transition from unlocked to locked occurred simultaneously (07:10:28-07:10:31), providing the mechanical context for the chattering.

Inspect the physical mounting of the front door contact sensor to ensure it is secure and aligned properly.

Monitor the sensor over the next few days for recurrence of rapid state flips to determine if the fault is intermittent or degrading.

Lock operation event without corresponding contact sensor closure confirmation.

The entrance sensors (occupancy and door contact) are functioning normally. The rapid state toggle observed in C06 was a transient mechanical 'chatter' or protocol-level update burst triggered by the physical act of unlocking/locking the door, which self-resolved immediately without affecting system stability.

C05 shows `front_door_contact` is not present prior to 07:10, establishing no pre-existing instability baseline, but C06 shows the toggle happens exactly at the moment of lock operation.

In C06, the `front_door_lock` successfully transitions from unlocked to locked within 3 seconds (07:10:28 to 07:10:31), indicating the primary security device is working correctly.

Post-event logs in C07, C08, C09 show `entrance_occupancy` reporting consistently as 'occupied' (raw=1) for the remainder of the day, with no further erratic toggles or dropouts.

No explicit fault codes, alarms, or repeated non-recovery events are present in the structured signals or focused chunks.

Does not fully explain why two distinct log entries for `BooleanState.StateValue` appeared in rapid succession (false then true) if the door remained closed, though this could be interpreted as a single event with multiple status updates.

The front door contact sensor exhibits intermittent hardware failure (chattering/mechanical instability). Although it recovered, the rapid false-to-true transition during a lock operation suggests a loose connection or faulty reed switch that may degrade over time.

C06 records `front_door_contact | BooleanState.StateValue = false` followed immediately by `true` within 2 seconds (07:10:30 to 07:10:30/31), coinciding with the manual unlock and auto-lock sequence.

This pattern is consistent with 'contact sensor rapid state flipping' identified in the triage output as a potential hardware fault indicator.

The occupancy sensor (`entrance_occupancy`) correctly detected presence (transitioning to occupied at 07:10:31), confirming that the environment change was real, making the contact sensor's brief 'false' reading likely erroneous relative to the door's final locked state.

The anomaly was isolated to a single event window; subsequent hours (C07-C09) show stable behavior, failing the 'repetition/persistence' criterion for definitive malfunction classification.

It is possible the 'false' reading was a valid intermediate state during the mechanical unlocking process before the door was fully closed/locked, rather than a sensor error.

The specific timestamp alignment in C06: `front_door_lock` unlocks at 07:10:28, `front_door_contact` flips false->true at 07:10:30, and locks at 07:10:31. This tight coupling suggests the contact sensor activity was driven by the door movement itself.

The absence of any further contact sensor logs or occupancy glitches in C07, C08, and C09 indicates the issue did not persist or recur, weakening the case for a permanent hardware fault.

Historical frequency of similar rapid toggles for the `front_door_contact` sensor outside of this specific event window.

Physical inspection data regarding the mounting integrity of the door contact sensor.

Clarification on whether the 'false' reading in C06 represents a distinct log entry or a protocol-level state update artifact.

The investigator correctly identifies the contact sensor chattering but fails to check for other potential faults in the 'entrance' area, specifically the `front_door_lock` state consistency and any explicit fault codes.

The analysis relies heavily on the assumption that the single chattering event is benign because it recovered. However, without historical data (pre-C04) or post-event stability confirmation beyond C09, a definitive 'normal' verdict is premature for a hardware fault diagnosis.

Missing check for `front_door_contact` logs in chunks prior to C06 to establish a baseline of normal operation vs. intermittent failure.

The investigation is on-topic and correctly identifies the primary anomaly (contact sensor chattering).

However, the conclusion leans towards 'normal' based on recovery, which is risky for a device-health query where 'abnormal' includes intermittent faults. The evidence shows a clear transient fault (chattering), but lacks sufficient context to rule out degradation or future recurrence definitively.

The investigator notes missing historical frequency data, which is crucial for distinguishing between a one-off glitch and a developing hardware fault.

Since the current chunks (C04-C09) show the fault and subsequent stability, but lack pre-fault baseline, the evidence is insufficient for a final 'healthy' verdict. A 'refine_investigation' is needed to either confirm no further issues or gather more history if available, but given the provided chunks end at C09, the best action is to acknowledge the ambiguity and potentially abstain or refine if more data were hypothetically available. In this constrained environment, 'refine_investigation' highlights the insufficiency of the current snapshot for a definitive health status.

False alarm risk is medium: labeling it 'normal' might miss a degrading sensor; labeling it 'faulty' might be an overreaction to a single transient event. The current output balances this by presenting both hypotheses but doesn't resolve it.

The entrance sensors (occupancy and door contact) are functioning normally. The rapid state change in the door contact sensor at 07:10:30 is a transient mechanical 'chatter' or bounce event immediately following the manual lock operation, which resolved itself instantly without affecting system stability.

C06 shows `front_door_contact` toggling from false to true within 2 seconds (07:10:30-07:10:31), coinciding with the `front_door_lock` manual operation.

Subsequent logs for `entrance_occupancy` (C06 and C07) show consistent 'occupied' states every ~30 seconds, indicating the occupancy sensor is reporting data correctly.

No further erratic behavior or stuck values are observed in the door contact or occupancy sensors after the initial event.

The lock successfully transitions to 'locked' (raw=1) shortly after the contact toggle, suggesting no persistent security fault.

Does not fully explain why the contact sensor triggered twice in 2 seconds if the door was physically stable, though this is common in mechanical switches.

The front door contact sensor exhibits intermittent chattering or mechanical instability, potentially indicating a loose mounting, worn switch mechanism, or electrical noise issue. While it recovered, the immediate double-toggling upon lock actuation suggests a hardware sensitivity or alignment problem.

C06: At 07:10:30, `front_door_contact` reports `false`, then immediately at 07:10:31 reports `true`. This rapid flip (chattering) occurred right after the user manually operated the lock.

This pattern is distinct from normal single-state changes and indicates the sensor is struggling to maintain a stable boolean state during physical interaction.

Although the occupancy sensor works fine, the contact sensor's instability could lead to missed open/close events or false alarms in the future.

The anomaly was isolated to a single event window; there is no evidence of repeated failures or persistent stuck states in the provided logs.

The system did not report an explicit fault code, and the lock operation completed successfully, minimizing immediate safety impact.

C06 timestamp 07:10:30-07:10:31: `front_door_contact` toggles false->true in rapid succession immediately following `front_door_lock` manual operation.

C06/C07: `entrance_occupancy` consistently reports 'occupied' (raw=1) with regular intervals, confirming the occupancy sensor is healthy and distinguishing its status from the contact sensor.

Historical frequency of similar contact sensor chattering events to determine if this is an isolated incident or a recurring hardware defect.

Physical inspection of the door contact sensor alignment and mounting stability.

Logs for any subsequent lock operations to see if the contact sensor behaves consistently or only during specific interactions.

Check C05 for the state of `front_door_contact` prior to the lock operation at 07:10:28 to establish a baseline (was it already unstable or just changed?).

Check C08 for any subsequent lock operations or contact sensor events to determine if the 'chattering' is a recurring pattern or an isolated incident.

Verify if the rapid toggle in C06 represents two distinct log entries or a single event with multiple status updates (protocol semantics check).

Confirm if `entrance_occupancy` behavior correlates with the door contact state changes to rule out cross-sensor interference.

The investigator correctly identified the target devices and the suspicious event (rapid toggle in C06).

However, concluding 'normal' vs 'malfunction' based on a single 1-second window is insufficient for a definitive device-health verdict. The evidence shows a transient anomaly but lacks historical context (frequency) or post-event stability confirmation.

The risk of false alarm is medium because the anomaly was self-resolving and did not lead to security breaches or persistent faults in the observed window, but it could indicate early-stage hardware failure.

Need adjacent chunks (C05 before, C08 after) to assess recurrence and baseline stability before finalizing the health status.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 402,
    "master_bedroom": 516,
    "kids_room": 521,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 219,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 54,
    "entrance": 235,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1092,
    "OnOff

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "entrance_occupancy_sensor",
      "front_door_contact",
      "front_door_lock"
    ],
    "target_question": "Check if entrance sensors are working normally; if abnormal, specify fault type."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "front_door_contact",
    "front_door_lock"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Contact sensor rapid state flipping (false -> true) indicating chattering or mechanical instability.",
    "Lock operation event without corresponding contact sensor closure confirmation."
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06 contains the specific event sequence showing the front door lock operation and the immediate, rapid toggling of the contact sensor state (false to true), which is the primary evidence for potential hardware fault (chattering).",
    "C07 provides the subsequent context where the occupancy sensor reports 'occupied', helping to distinguish between a transient glitch and a sustained presence, while confirming no further erratic contact sensor behavior in the immediate follow-up."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The entrance sensors (occupancy and door contact) are functioning normally. The rapid state toggle observed in C06 was a transient mechanical 'chatter' or protocol-level update


触发间隔不规律（不是周期性的），且频率较低（几分钟一次不是几十秒一次）

Insufficient evidence to confirm a sensor fault; the persistent 'occupied' state is consistent with normal occupancy behavior or long timeout settings.

Explanation: The entrance_occupancy sensor transitions to 'occupied' at 16:33 following a door unlock event and remains 'occupied' through the end of the provided logs (23:28).

Explanation: While this duration (~7 hours) is unusually long for an entrance area without further entry/exit events, it does not constitute definitive proof of a hardware fault ('stuck value') because the logs do not show the state clearing.

Explanation: A plausible normal explanation exists: a resident may have remained in the entrance zone (e.g., foyer, mudroom) or the sensor has a configured debounce/timeout setting that extends the occupied state significantly.

Explanation: Other sensors in the home (living room, master bedroom) show dynamic changes, indicating the system generally handles occupancy correctly, but this does not rule out a specific configuration issue or prolonged presence at the entrance.

Explanation: Without evidence of the state failing to clear after a sufficient period of absence (which would require logs beyond 23:28 showing no one was there), we cannot distinguish between a configuration anomaly and a hardware malfunction.

Explanation: Per guidelines, device-fault labels require direct fault evidence such as stuck values with impossible transitions or explicit alarms. The current data shows stable reporting intervals, arguing against random glitches, but lacks the negative confirmation needed to diagnose a fault.

entrance_occupancy reports 'occupied' continuously from 16:33 to 23:28.

No subsequent 'unoccupied' transition is observed in the provided chunks.

Sensor reports stable telemetry with regular intervals, ruling out communication dropout.

Review sensor configuration for occupancy timeout/debounce settings.

Monitor the sensor status in the early morning hours to see if it eventually clears to 'unoccupied'.

Corroborate with other data sources (e.g., cameras, other motion sensors) to verify if anyone was present in the entrance area during the late night.

C00: Baseline check for entrance occupancy at start of day (expected unoccupied).

C00 shows the sensor correctly reports 'unoccupied' at night when no one is present.

C18 shows the sensor transitions to 'occupied' immediately after the front door lock operation and contact sensor change, indicating it responds to physical events.

C19-C22 show consistent 'occupied' readings with regular reporting intervals (~5 minutes), indicating stable telemetry rather than a stuck value glitch.

C27 shows the sensor remains 'occupied' late into the night, which is plausible if a resident is still active in the home or near the entrance.

It assumes human behavior that isn't explicitly logged (no other sensors confirm someone was *only* at the entrance).

Relies on the assumption that the resident did not leave the detection zone for over 7 hours, which is possible but less common for an entrance sensor unless it's a large foyer or the person is stationary.

The entrance occupancy sensor has a 'stuck value' fault or extended timeout issue, failing to clear to 'unoccupied' despite the absence of further entry/exit events or lock operations after the initial trigger at 16:33.

The sensor transitions to 'occupied' at 16:33:03 following a door unlock event.

No subsequent 'unoccupied' transition is observed in chunks C19 through C27 (spanning ~7 hours).

No new lock operations or door contact changes occur after 17:52 in the provided logs, yet the occupancy remains high.

Other sensors (living_room, master_bedroom) show dynamic changes (e.g., living_room goes unoccupied at 17:00, then occupied again at 17:52; master_bathroom clears multiple times), suggesting the system generally handles occupancy clearing correctly.

The lack of any 'unoccupied' log for the entrance sensor during this long period, while other rooms clear, suggests the entrance sensor might be stuck or has an abnormally long debounce/timeout setting.

It cannot rule out the possibility that a resident was genuinely present in the entrance area for the entire duration (e.g., working from home near the door, hosting guests).

Without explicit fault codes or contradictory motion data (e.g., camera showing empty entrance), this remains a behavioral vs. hardware ambiguity.

Absence of 'unoccupied' transition for entrance_occupancy between 16:33 and 23:28 despite no new entry events.

Contrast with other sensors (e.g., master_bathroom, living_room) which do clear and re-occupy, showing the system supports dynamic occupancy states.

Initial correct response to door lock/contact event at 16:33 proves the sensor is not completely dead.

Visual confirmation (camera) or motion data from other sources to verify if anyone was actually present at the entrance during the 16:33-23:28 window.

Configuration details of the entrance occupancy sensor (e.g., timeout settings, sensitivity) to determine if a 7+ hour 'occupied' state is within normal operational parameters.

Logs from intermediate chunks C19-C26 were requested by supervisor but are included in the focused chunks here; however, explicit 'unoccupied' events are still missing in all provided chunks.

Verify if entrance_occupancy transitions to 'unoccupied' in the late night/early morning chunks (C23-C26) following the lock event at 22:45.

Check for any explicit fault/alarm events from the entrance sensor or door lock in the full log sequence.

Confirm if the 'stuck' state persists until the end of the provided logs or if it clears, which would indicate a configuration issue (long timeout) rather than a hardware fault.

The investigator correctly identified the primary anomaly: the entrance_occupancy sensor remains 'occupied' from 16:33 through C27 (23:28) without transitioning back to 'unoccupied', despite no further entry events and other sensors clearing.

However, the conclusion of a 'fault' is premature. The logs provided stop at 23:28. It is highly probable that the sensor simply has a long debounce/timeout setting or the resident was present until very late. Without seeing the transition to 'unoccupied' (or lack thereof) in the subsequent hours (C23-C26), we cannot distinguish between a 'stuck value' hardware fault and a 'long timeout' configuration behavior.

The current evidence shows consistent reporting intervals (~5 mins) with stable values, which argues against a random glitch but supports a persistent state. We need the post-23:28 data to see if the state eventually clears.

No direct fault codes or impossible transitions were found; only behavioral ambiguity exists.

The entrance occupancy sensor is functioning normally. It correctly reports 'unoccupied' during the early morning hours (00:00-01:10) when no activity is expected, and transitions to 'occupied' at 16:33 coincident with door lock operations and contact sensor changes, indicating a person entered. The sensor remains 'occupied' through the evening as other rooms show occupancy, which is consistent with a resident being present in the house.

C00: entrance_occupancy is unoccupied (raw=0) from 00:00 to 01:10, matching the lack of other activity.

C18: At 16:33:03, entrance_occupancy transitions to occupied (raw=1) immediately after front_door_lock operation and front_door_contact state change, suggesting entry.

C27: entrance_occupancy remains occupied (raw=1) from 22:47 onwards, consistent with the rest of the house (living_room, dining_room, kids_room) showing occupancy patterns typical of an evening at home.

The logs do not explicitly show the 'unoccupied' transition back to 0 for the entrance sensor after the person presumably moves deeper into the house or leaves, but this could be due to sampling frequency or the person remaining near the entrance area.

The entrance occupancy sensor may have a 'stuck value' fault or delayed clearing issue. While it correctly detects entry, it fails to clear (return to unoccupied) even late at night (23:28), whereas other sensors like master_bathroom have cleared. If the resident has moved away from the entrance, the sensor should ideally reflect that, especially if it's meant to trigger auto-locking or lighting off. However, without explicit 'unoccupied' events later in the day, it's ambiguous if this is a fault or just continuous presence detection.

C27: entrance_occupancy remains 'occupied' (raw=1) continuously from 22:47 to 23:28.

C27: Other sensors like master_bathroom_occupancy show transitions to 'unoccupied' (raw=0) at 22:48:59 and 23:18:59, indicating the system can detect absence.

No 'unoccupied' event for entrance_occupancy is recorded after 16:33 in the provided chunks, despite the passage of several hours.

The query asks if the sensor is working 'normally'. A sensor that stays 'occupied' while someone is in the house is technically correct behavior for PIR/motion sensors unless configured otherwise. There is no explicit error code or impossible state transition (like going from occupied to locked without unlocking). The 'fault' is only inferred from the lack of a negative event, which might be normal for a sensor with a long timeout or one placed in a high-traffic zone where the user lingers.

Potential 'sensor_malfunction' or 'false positive' if the entrance sensor triggered on non-human motion or heat, given it stayed occupied all evening. However, this is less likely than A1 because the initial trigger at 16:33 was correlated with door activity.

entrance_occupancy is occupied for >7 hours straight (16:33 to 23:28+).

No corroborating 'exit' events from the entrance area are visible in the logs.

Corroborated by other room occupancies (living_room, etc.) being active, making it plausible a person is indeed in the vicinity of the entrance or the whole house.

C18: Correlation between front_door_lock/contact events and entrance_occupancy transition to 'occupied' at 16:33:03 supports initial functionality.

C00: Correct 'unoccupied' status at start of day supports baseline health.

C27: Persistent 'occupied' state from 22:47 to end of log, contrasting with transient states in bathrooms, suggests either prolonged presence or a stuck sensor.

Logs after 23:28 to see if entrance_occupancy eventually clears to 'unoccupied'.

Configuration details of the entrance_occupancy sensor (e.g., timeout settings, sensitivity).

Presence of any explicit fault alarms or diagnostic messages from the entrance_occupancy device.

C00 shows the sensor correctly reports 'unoccupied' at night when no one is present.

The sensor transitions to 'occupied' at 16:33:03 following a door unlock event.

No subsequent 'unoccupied' transition is observed in chunks C19 through C27 (spanning ~7 hours).

Check for explicit 'unoccupied' transitions of entrance_occupancy between 17:13 and 22:45 to determine if the sensor cleared after initial entry.

Verify if the persistent 'occupied' state in C27 is due to continuous presence or a stuck value by checking for any intermediate clear events.

Cross-reference with other sensors (e.g., living_room, master_bedroom) to see if they also remained occupied continuously, which would support the 'continuous presence' hypothesis over 'sensor fault'.

Check for any diagnostic/fault logs associated with entrance_occupancy.

The investigator correctly identified that the sensor works initially (C00, C18) but flagged a potential 'stuck value' based on the lack of an 'unoccupied' transition in the provided chunks (C18 end to C27 start).

However, the evidence is insufficient because there is a large gap (approx. 5 hours) between the last observation in C18 (17:13) and the first observation in C27 (22:45). The sensor could have cleared and re-activated, or stayed occupied, during this unobserved period.

Without the intermediate chunks (C19-C26), we cannot distinguish between a 'stuck sensor' fault and 'normal behavior' where a resident remains near the entrance or the sensor has a long timeout.

The current conclusion relies on an absence of evidence (no 'unoccupied' log seen) rather than positive evidence of a fault (e.g., raw value stuck at 1 while other sensors show 0, or error codes). This creates a medium risk of false alarm if the resident was indeed present.

Requesting the missing chunks is necessary to close the temporal gap and verify the state history.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 402,
    "master_bedroom": 518,
    "kids_room": 516,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 220,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 55,
    "entrance": 229,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1088,
    "OnOff

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "entrance_occupancy",
      "front_door_contact",
      "front_door_lock"
    ],
    "target_question": "Check if entrance sensors are working normally; if abnormal, specify fault type."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "front_door_contact",
    "front_door_lock"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C18",
    "C27"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "sensor_stuck_value",
    "missing_data"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline check for entrance occupancy at start of day (expected unoccupied).",
    "C18: Critical event window showing door lock operation and contact sensor state change; verify if occupancy sensor transitions match physical events.",
    "C27: Late night/early morning context to check for stuck 'occupied' states or failure to clear after lock/unlock cycles."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The entrance occupancy sensor is functioning normally. The persistent 'occupied' state from 16:33 to 23:28 reflects continuous presence of a resident in the entrance area (e.g., standing near the door, waiting, or using the space as a transition zone) without leaving the detection zone.",
      "evidence": [
        "C00 shows the sensor correctly reports 'unoccupied' at night when no one is present.",
        "C18 shows the sensor tran


DF-05-FP: 烟雾报警器正常自检

有完整的自检流程（TestInProgress=true → SelfTestComplete → TestInProgress=false），不是HardwareFault

The kitchen temperature sensor experienced a transient communication dropout but recovered immediately; no persistent fault or safety hazard is detected.

Explanation: The primary evidence of potential anomaly is a single 'None' value reported by the kitchen_temp_sensor at 07:06:03 (Chunk C06).

Explanation: This event occurred shortly after the cook surface was turned on, suggesting a possible transient interference or logging glitch, but it was isolated.

Explanation: The sensor immediately resumed reporting valid, physically plausible temperatures (25.07 C) at 07:10:00, showing no stuck values, drift, or failure to recover.

Explanation: Other kitchen sensors (water leak, smoke/CO, contact) show no alarm events or explicit offline flags; their silence is consistent with normal Matter device behavior (event-driven updates only).

Explanation: According to Matter Notes and Supervisor feedback, a single transient dropout without recurrence or explicit fault codes does not constitute a device malfunction or safety failure.

kitchen_temp_sensor reports None at 07:06:03 (C06)

kitchen_temp_sensor recovers to 25.07 C at 07:10:00 (C06)

No other anomalies or alarms in kitchen sensors during the period

Monitor for recurrence of 'None' values in future logs to rule out intermittent hardware issues.

Verify battery levels and signal strength for kitchen sensors if dropouts persist.

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

Chunk C05 shows a valid reading of 25.10 C at 07:00:00.

Subsequent readings in C06, C07, C08, C09 show stable, gradual temperature changes (25.16 -> 25.14 -> 25.33 -> ... -> 25.54) consistent with normal thermal inertia and ambient conditions.

No other sensors in the house exhibit simultaneous dropouts, suggesting the issue is local to the kitchen temp sensor's transmission rather than a network-wide fault.

Does not explain the root cause of the single 'None' event, though it attributes it to noise/glitch.

The other specified kitchen sensors (water leak, smoke/CO, contact) are operating normally, as their absence from the logs indicates they have no events to report (i.e., no leaks, no smoke, door/window closed).

Matter-style logs typically only emit updates on state changes or periodic heartbeats. The query asks for status; lack of alarm events implies no active hazard.

The kitchen window contact sensor reported 'false' (closed) at 06:58:30 in C05 and did not change state subsequently, indicating the window remained closed during the observation period.

No water leak or smoke/CO alarms were triggered in any chunk.

Relies on the assumption that these devices do not send periodic 'all clear' heartbeats if idle, which might mean we are missing data on their battery/connection health.

The kitchen temperature sensor has intermittent connectivity issues or hardware instability, evidenced by the transient 'None' value.

At 07:06:03 (C06), `kitchen_temp_sensor` explicitly reports `TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None`.

This occurs shortly after the kitchen cook surface was turned ON at 07:05:33 (C05), potentially causing electromagnetic interference or thermal shock if the sensor is poorly shielded or mounted too close to the heat source.

While it recovered quickly, the occurrence of a null value is a direct fault indicator for data integrity.

The fault was transient and self-recovering within 4 minutes.

No recurrence of 'None' values in the subsequent 3+ hours of logging (C06-C09).

Scaled temperature values remain physically plausible throughout, ruling out drift or stuck values.

Incomplete monitoring coverage due to missing telemetry from critical safety sensors (smoke/CO, water leak).

The supervisor feedback explicitly notes that logs for `kitchen_water_leak_detector`, `kitchen_smoke_co_alarm`, and `kitchen_contact_sensor` are largely absent or sparse compared to the high-frequency temp sensor.

If these devices rely on event-driven reporting without periodic heartbeats, their silence could mask a power failure or disconnection, leaving the kitchen unmonitored for leaks or fire.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; standard Matter devices often only log changes.

No explicit error codes or 'device offline' flags were generated for these devices.

The specific timestamp 07:06:03 in C06 where `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns `None`.

The immediate recovery to valid data at 07:10:00 in C06, showing no persistent failure.

The temporal proximity of the cook surface activation (07:05:33) to the sensor dropout (07:06:03).

Heartbeat or connection status logs for the kitchen water leak detector, smoke/CO alarm, and contact sensor to verify they are online and powered.

Historical frequency of 'None' or timeout errors for the kitchen temp sensor to determine if this is a recurring pattern or a one-off glitch.

Physical placement details of the temp sensor relative to the cook surface to assess interference risk.

Verify if 'kitchen_water_leak_detector', 'kitchen_smoke_co_alarm' are present in other chunks (C00-C03) to establish baseline reporting frequency.

Check for explicit 'device offline' or 'connection lost' events in the logs, rather than inferring from data absence.

Confirm if the single 'None' value at 07:06:03 is an isolated incident or part of a pattern by reviewing historical context if available.

The investigator correctly identifies the transient 'None' value but over-interprets it as potential malfunction without sufficient evidence of recurrence or hardware fault.

The hypothesis regarding missing safety sensors (water leak, smoke/CO) relies on 'absence of evidence' which is weak; Matter devices often only log state changes. Without heartbeats or periodic status logs, silence does not equal failure.

The conclusion that the temp sensor is 'functioning normally' despite a null reading is premature; while it recovered, the cause is unknown. However, labeling it as a definitive 'malfunction' based on one transient event is a high false-alarm risk.

The investigation focuses heavily on telemetry quality ('logging glitch') rather than confirming device health through direct fault indicators (alarms, error codes).

No additional chunks are strictly needed to see the recovery, but the current evidence is insufficient to definitively rule out intermittent faults or confirm full system health due to the lack of safety sensor data.

The kitchen temperature sensor is functioning normally. The single instance of 'None' at 07:06:03 was a transient communication glitch or momentary data loss that immediately resolved, as evidenced by valid readings resuming within minutes and continuing consistently thereafter.

At 2026-06-10T07:06:03, kitchen_temp_sensor reports TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None.

By 2026-06-10T07:10:00 (4 minutes later), the sensor reports a valid value of 25.07 C (raw=2507).

Subsequent readings from 07:10:00 to 08:35:00 are consistent, showing gradual temperature changes typical of an indoor environment (ranging from ~25.07 C to 25.47 C).

No other error codes, alarms, or stuck values are observed for this device in the provided logs.

The initial 'None' indicates a brief failure in reporting, which technically constitutes a minor fault, but it did not persist or affect long-term functionality.

The kitchen temperature sensor experienced a transient malfunction or communication dropout at 07:06:03. While it recovered quickly, the event represents a temporary sensor failure or network packet loss.

Explicit log entry: [2026-06-10T07:06:03] kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None.

This is the only instance of a null/missing value for the kitchen sensor in the entire 90-minute window.

The recovery was successful, with valid data appearing at 07:10:00.

The anomaly was isolated and self-correcting; there is no evidence of repeated failures, stuck states, or drift.

According to strict device-health criteria, a single transient dropout without recurrence or persistent impact is often classified as noise rather than a definitive hardware malfunction requiring replacement, though it is technically a fault event.

[2026-06-10T07:06:03] kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None

[2026-06-10T07:10:00] kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = 25.07 C (raw=2507)

Logs for other kitchen-specific sensors mentioned in the query anchor (kitchen_water_leak_detector, kitchen_smoke_co_alarm, kitchen_contact_sensor) are not present in the focused chunks, so their status cannot be fully verified, although they do not appear in the structured signals frequency list either.

Chunk C05 shows a valid reading of 25.10 C at 07:00:00.

No water leak or smoke/CO alarms were triggered in any chunk.

Logs for kitchen_water_leak_detector, kitchen_smoke_co_alarm, and kitchen_contact_sensor are missing from the current focus chunks (C06, C07). The query explicitly asks about 'sensors' (plural) in the kitchen area.

The investigation relies on a single transient 'None' value to suggest potential malfunction, but lacks evidence of recurrence or persistent failure. A broader time window is needed to establish baseline stability or identify intermittent faults.

No explicit fault/alarm events were found, but the absence of logs for other critical safety sensors (smoke/CO, leak) means their status cannot be verified as 'normal' based solely on the provided data.

The investigator correctly identified the temperature sensor's transient dropout but over-interpreted it as a potential 'malfunction' without sufficient context (recurrence, duration, impact).

Crucially, the query asks about 'kitchen sensors' generally, listing four specific devices. The current analysis only covers one (temp sensor) and admits the others are missing. This is insufficient for a complete health check.

The risk of false alarm is high because concluding 'normal' or 'abnormal' based on partial data (only temp sensor) and a single non-persistent error event is unreliable.

Need to retrieve adjacent chunks (C05 before, C08 after) to see if the temp sensor had issues earlier/later and to find logs for the other three kitchen sensors.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 401,
    "master_bedroom": 516,
    "kids_room": 515,
    "kitchen": 308,
    "dining_room": 222,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 60,
    "entrance": 232,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1094,
    "OnOff"

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "kitchen_temp_sensor",
      "kitchen_water_leak_detector",
      "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
      "kitchen_contact_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 kitchen 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_temp_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "transient_data_loss",
    "sensor_malfunction"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "Chunk C06 contains the specific anomaly where kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None' at 07:06:03, indicating a potential communication failure or sensor glitch.",
    "Chunk C07 provides the immediate follow-up context to verify if the device recovered and resumed normal reporting (which it did, showing valid temperatures in subsequent lines)."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "device-health"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The kitchen temperature sensor is functioning normally, with the 'None' value at 07:06:03 being an isolated transient communication dropout or logging glitch that immediately recovered.",
      "evidence": [
        "Chunk C05 shows a valid reading of 25.10 C at 07:00:00.",
        "Chunk C06 records 'None' at 07:06:03, but by 07:10:00, the sensor reports a valid and consistent temperature of 25.07 C.",
        "Subsequent readings in C06, C07, C08, C09 show stable, gradual temperature changes (25.16 -> 25