WD-03-FP: 住户外出但开了自动浇花系统

漏水传感器触发后在短时间内（3分钟）恢复为false，而非持续触发超过10分钟

No security threat or device fault detected; the event sequence is consistent with a normal morning routine despite minor telemetry gaps.

Explanation: The investigator's primary anomaly hypothesis (A1: Intrusion) relies on the assumption that the house was unoccupied prior to 05:34. However, the Supervisor correctly identified that Chunk C01 (pre-05:34 context) is missing. Without C01, we cannot confirm if the 'unoccupied' status at 05:00 in C02 was due to absence or sensor delay/offline state. Therefore, the intrusion hypothesis is speculative and not supported by definitive evidence.

Explanation: The alternative anomaly hypothesis (A2: Unattended Cooking) is weak because the cook surface was explicitly turned off at 06:32, and no fire alarms or smoke detectors were triggered. The transient water leak at 07:10 is likely related to cleaning after cooking or a minor spill, which resolved quickly without escalation.

Explanation: The lock activity at 06:58 (Manual Unlock -> Auto Lock) and 08:21 (Manual Unlock) shows standard smart-lock behavior. The contact sensor confirmed the door closed/locked properly. There is no evidence of forced entry, failed locks, or persistent insecure states.

Explanation: The overall pattern of occupancy transitions (Bedroom -> Bathroom -> Kitchen -> Entrance/Living Room) aligns perfectly with a typical resident waking up, using the bathroom, preparing breakfast, and moving through the house. The 'None' temperature readings are isolated data drops and do not constitute a device fault requiring intervention.

Explanation: Given the lack of direct fault evidence, the absence of explicit intrusion indicators (alarms, forced entry), and the strong plausibility of a normal routine explanation, the safest conclusion is that no threat exists.

Cook surface turned off at 06:32 with no subsequent fire/smoke alerts.

Lock operations at 06:58 and 08:21 show successful manual/auto cycles with corresponding contact sensor updates.

Occupancy flow follows a logical human path (Bedroom->Bathroom->Kitchen) starting at 05:34.

Missing pre-event context (C01) prevents confirming an intrusion baseline, favoring the null hypothesis of normalcy.

Review Chunk C01 to definitively establish the last known resident presence before 05:34 for future reference.

Monitor kitchen temperature sensors for recurring 'None' values to rule out intermittent connectivity issues.

No immediate action required; continue standard monitoring.

lock state flips without clear entry/exit correlation

simultaneous occupancy in multiple rooms suggesting presence

C04 captures the start of the anomalous period at 06:23 with kitchen and bedroom occupancy, preceding any entrance activity.

Normal morning routine with resident waking up, preparing breakfast, and leaving the house. The lock/unlock sequence at 06:58 represents the resident unlocking the door to exit (or check outside) and the auto-lock engaging immediately after, or a brief interaction. The subsequent activity is consistent with a resident being present in the kitchen/entrance area before departing.

C03 shows gradual occupancy transitions starting at 05:34 in the bedroom, followed by bathroom and kitchen usage, typical of a waking routine.

Kitchen cook surface was turned on at 06:03 and off at 06:32, indicating cooking activity.

At 06:58, the lock state changed from locked to unlocked manually, then back to locked automatically within 4 seconds. This could be a 'check' or a quick exit/entry cycle.

From 07:00 onwards, high occupancy counts persist in kitchen and entrance, suggesting the resident is still home or moving between these areas.

At 08:21, the lock is manually unlocked again, followed by entrance occupancy remaining high, which could indicate the resident is still inside or just left.

No explicit 'forced entry', 'tamper', or 'alarm' events are recorded in the logs.

The rapid unlock-then-auto-lock cycle at 06:58 is slightly ambiguous; if the resident was leaving, why did they re-lock so quickly? If they were entering, why was the door locked initially?

The transition from 'unoccupied' to 'occupied' in C03 assumes the resident was already inside sleeping, but doesn't rule out an intruder entering during the unoccupied period prior to 05:34.

Intrusion event where an unauthorized person entered the home while it was unoccupied (prior to 05:34), triggered the lights/cook surface, and is now present in the house. The lock operations at 06:58 and 08:21 may represent the intruder checking locks or attempting to leave/stay.

C02 and early C03 show all rooms as 'unoccupied' until 05:34. There is no record of the resident returning home before this time.

At 05:34, bedroom occupancy spikes, followed immediately by light on and window adjustment, suggesting someone woke up or entered the bedroom.

At 06:03, kitchen light and cook surface turn on, indicating active use of hazardous appliances.

The lock state flips at 06:58 (Manual Unlock -> Auto Lock) and 08:21 (Manual Unlock). If the house was supposed to be empty or secured, these manual interactions are suspicious without clear resident context.

High occupancy counts in kitchen and entrance continue through C04-C07, suggesting persistent presence that hasn't clearly exited via the front door in a normal manner (no final 'exit' event logged for the whole house).

Lack of explicit forced entry indicators (broken glass, alarm triggers).

The behavior (cooking, moving rooms) is consistent with a legitimate resident who simply wasn't detected by sensors until later.

The auto-lock at 06:58 suggests the system functioned correctly, reducing likelihood of a brute-force breach.

Unattended cooking risk. The cook surface was activated at 06:03 and turned off at 06:32. However, if the resident left the kitchen area (indicated by occupancy shifts) and the stove was left on longer than safe, or if the 'off' command was delayed/failing, there is a fire risk. Additionally, the water leak sensor triggered briefly at 07:10, which could be related to cooking cleanup or a separate issue.

Water leak sensor triggered at 07:10:00 and cleared at 07:13:00, possibly due to cleaning up after cooking or a spill.

If the resident was distracted or left the immediate vicinity, the duration of heat application needs scrutiny.

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

The water leak was transient and resolved.

The timestamp of the first 'occupied' signal (05:34 in bedroom) relative to the last known 'unoccupied' state (05:00 in C02). If the resident was not home before 05:34, this is an intrusion.

The specific nature of the lock operation at 06:58: Manual Unlock followed immediately by Auto Lock. Did the door open? Was anyone seen? If the contact sensor didn't trigger an 'open' event distinct from the lock state change, it might be a false positive or a glitch.

The correlation between the water leak sensor (07:10) and the recent cooking activity (ended 06:32). Is this a causal link (cleaning) or independent?

Video footage or motion detection logs specifically at the entrance/front door around 05:30-05:35 to confirm entry method.

Confirmation of resident's location/status prior to 05:34 (e.g., phone GPS, previous day's logs).

Detailed log of the front_door_contact sensor state changes around 06:58 to see if the door physically opened.

Context on whether the 'Auto Lock' at 06:58 was successful or if it failed to engage previously.

Verify resident status prior to 05:34 (last known state in C01 or earlier) to definitively rule out intrusion vs. normal waking.

Analyze the 'None' temperature reading at 06:04 and 06:33 for potential sensor malfunction or data loss that might obscure kitchen activity context.

Correlate the water leak event (07:10) with specific appliance usage or occupancy to determine if it indicates a hazard or just cleaning.

The investigation correctly identifies the ambiguity between 'intrusion' and 'normal routine' but lacks the critical pre-event context (C01) to establish the baseline of 'unoccupied' duration and last known resident presence.

Without C01, we cannot confirm if the house was truly empty before 05:34 or if sensors were simply offline/missed detections, which is essential for distinguishing A1 (Intrusion) from N1 (Normal).

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis (A2) is weak because the cook surface was explicitly turned off; however, the transient 'None' values in kitchen temp logs should be checked for consistency with other kitchen events.

No direct fault evidence (stuck values, repeated failures) was found for device health, so no device-health flag is raised yet, but the data gaps warrant scrutiny.

Normal morning routine with authorized entry and exit. The resident woke up, moved through the house (kitchen/bedroom), unlocked the front door to leave or let someone in, and then the auto-lock engaged. Subsequent occupancy is consistent with a person moving between rooms.

C04: Occupancy in kitchen (06:23) and bedroom (06:24) suggests waking up/morning activity.

C04: At 06:58, `front_door_lock` unlocks manually (`OperationSource=Manual`). This is a standard action for leaving or receiving a visitor.

C04: Immediately after unlock, `front_door_contact` opens (06:58:09) then closes (06:58:10), indicating the door was opened and closed quickly.

C04: At 06:58:11, `front_door_lock` locks automatically (`OperationSource=Auto`). This is a standard security feature engaging after a door cycle.

C04-C06: Continuous occupancy in entrance, kitchen, and bedroom from 07:00 onwards indicates the resident remained inside the home.

Does not fully explain why the lock was unlocked at 08:21 if the resident was already inside and had just locked it at 06:58, unless they were preparing to leave again or checking the door.

Resident left the house briefly around 06:58 and returned, or the 'auto-lock' logic triggered incorrectly but harmlessly. The second unlock at 08:21 corresponds to the resident actually leaving for the day.

C04: The sequence of Unlock -> Contact Open -> Contact Close -> Auto-Lock is a complete, valid transaction.

C06: At 08:21, the door is unlocked manually again. If the resident was still inside (indicated by continuous occupancy), this might be an error or a check. However, if the resident *had* left during the 06:58 window (despite occupancy logs showing otherwise, which could be lag or multi-person household), this would be the departure.

Occupancy sensors are often slow to update or may detect residual heat/motion, so 'occupied' status doesn't strictly guarantee presence in every millisecond.

Contradicts the strong signal of continuous occupancy in multiple rooms (entrance, kitchen, bedroom) throughout the entire period, making it unlikely the house was empty.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating event. An intruder may have entered via the front door while the resident was distracted or asleep, or the resident's credentials were compromised. The rapid unlock/close/lock cycle at 06:58 could represent an intruder entering and immediately locking the door behind them, or a resident being forced out.

C04: The manual unlock at 06:58 happens early in the morning (06:58 AM). While possible for a resident, it coincides with the start of high activity.

C04: The contact sensor opens and closes very rapidly (within 1-2 seconds), which is faster than a typical conscious entry/exit, potentially suggesting a mechanical issue or a hurried action.

C04: Despite the door locking at 06:58, occupancy remains high in the entrance and kitchen. If an intruder entered, they would remain inside.

C06: A second manual unlock occurs at 08:21. If the first event was an intrusion, this second unlock might be the intruder attempting to leave or the resident realizing something is wrong and trying to secure/unsecure the door.

No explicit 'forced entry' alarm or fault code from the lock.

The auto-lock function worked correctly, securing the perimeter after the initial event.

Continuous occupancy makes it hard to distinguish between a resident and an intruder without more context on who lives there.

Lock malfunction or false sense of security. The lock state transitions suggest a potential issue where the lock appears to operate normally but might be unreliable, or the 'Auto' lock source is triggering unexpectedly.

C04: The transition from Manual Unlock to Auto Lock happens within 4 seconds. While fast, it is technically possible. However, repeated such events (if seen in other chunks) could indicate a glitch.

C06: Another manual unlock at 08:21. If the resident didn't intend to leave, this is an anomalous command.

Structured Signals show `lock_state_flips: 4`. In a short timeframe, frequent state changes can indicate instability.

The lock successfully changed states each time (Unlocked -> Locked). There is no evidence of it getting stuck open or failing to engage.

Matter notes specify that device faults require direct evidence like stuck values or non-recovery, which is absent here.

C04: `front_door_lock` Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=1, OperationSource=Manual) at 06:58:07 followed by Auto Lock at 06:58:11.

C04: `front_door_contact` StateValue transitions from False to True to False between 06:58:09 and 06:58:10.

C06: `front_door_lock` Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=1, OperationSource=Manual) at 08:21:00.

Continuous `OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied` in Entrance, Kitchen, and Bedroom from 06:23 to 09:15.

Identity of the occupants (is this a single-person household?).

Historical baseline for lock usage (does the resident usually leave at 07:00?).

Audio/video footage from the entrance camera to verify human presence vs. automated trigger.

Confirmation of whether the resident was aware of the 06:58 unlock event.

Kitchen cook surface was turned on at 06:03 and off at 06:32, indicating cooking activity.

No explicit 'forced entry', 'tamper', or 'alarm' events are recorded in the logs.

At 06:03, kitchen light and cook surface turn on, indicating active use of hazardous appliances.

Water leak sensor triggered at 07:10:00 and cleared at 07:13:00, possibly due to cleaning up after cooking or a spill.

If the resident was distracted or left the immediate vicinity, the duration of heat application needs scrutiny.

Verify pre-event state (C03) to establish baseline occupancy and lock status before the 06:23 activity.

Check for explicit 'forced entry' or 'tamper' alarm events in the door lock logs which are currently absent but critical for ruling out intrusion.

Correlate the 08:21 manual unlock with final exit/entry patterns to confirm if the resident actually left or remained inside.

Assess if the rapid contact sensor toggle (06:58:09-10) indicates a mechanical fault or genuine human action by checking surrounding motion/occupancy transitions.

The investigator correctly identifies the core sequence of events (lock/unlock cycles and occupancy).

However, the analysis relies heavily on interpreting 'continuous occupancy' as proof of presence without verifying the start state. If the house was empty before C04, the initial occupancy spikes might be residual or sensor lag, changing the narrative from 'resident present' to 'intruder entered while home was empty'.

Chunk C03 is missing. It likely contains the crucial context of whether the home was unoccupied prior to 06:23. Without it, we cannot distinguish between a normal morning routine (resident waking up) and an intrusion (intruder entering an empty home).

The 'lock malfunction' hypothesis is weak because there is no evidence of failure (it locked successfully), but the 'intrusion' hypothesis remains plausible due to the lack of pre-event context.

Do not conclude 'normal' yet; the possibility of an unauthorized entry during the gap before 06:23 needs to be ruled out by C03.

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## 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: 独居老人 (Elderly Living Alone)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>, 床头灯<onoff_light>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- living_room: 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 497,
    "bedroom": 528,
    "kitchen": 533,
    "bathroom": 63,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 941,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 21,
    "StateValue": 6,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 941,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-02T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-02T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "entrance": 4

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## 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": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "door_lock",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "kitchen_occupancy",
    "bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C05",
    "C06"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "abnormal early morning activity (06:23)",
    "lock state flips without clear entry/exit correlation",
    "simultaneous occupancy in multiple rooms suggesting presence"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 captures the start of the anomalous period at 06:23 with kitchen and bedroom occupancy, preceding any entrance activity.",
    "C05 shows continued high activity and lock state flips around 07:20-08:00, crucial for determining if the lock events were authorized or forced.",
    "C06 provides context on the transition to full daytime occupancy (08:21) to distinguish between a security breach and normal waking routine."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal morning routine with resident waking up, preparing breakfast, and leaving the house. The lock/unlock sequence at 06:58 represents the resident unlocking the door to exit (or check outside) and the auto-lock engaging immediately after, or a brief interactio


FG-04-FP: 低电量报警但传感器仍正常工作

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

A smoke alarm triggered 10 minutes after the cook surface was turned on, indicating a potential unattended cooking incident or fire risk that was subsequently mitigated.

Explanation: The logs show the kitchen cook surface was turned ON at 08:59 and the kitchen smoke alarm triggered at 09:09, exactly 10 minutes later. This temporal proximity strongly suggests a causal link between the cooking activity and the alarm.

Explanation: Although the cook surface was turned OFF at 09:14 (5 minutes after the alarm), the initial delay in detection/response constitutes a safety hazard consistent with 'unattended cooking' or temporary loss of supervision.

Explanation: The supervisor noted missing evidence regarding the door's final state (C09), but this is irrelevant to the kitchen safety event which is self-contained within C06/C07. The door status does not negate the cooking/fire risk.

Explanation: Alternative hypothesis of 'steam/false positive' is plausible given stable temperatures, but the explicit SmokeCoAlarm trigger combined with active heating elements warrants classifying it as an anomaly (unattended_cooking) rather than normal operation, as it represents a hazardous sequence even if resolved quickly.

Explanation: Intrusion hypotheses are weak because occupancy sensors were continuously active in the entrance/living room before and after the door unlock, suggesting authorized presence rather than an unknown intruder.

[2026-06-20T08:59:00] kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = on

[2026-06-20T09:09:00] kitchen_smoke_alarm | SmokeCoAlarm.SmokeState = 1

[2026-06-20T09:14:00] kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = off

Review kitchen camera footage (if available) around 08:59-09:14 to confirm user presence and activity level.

Check for humidity data to correlate steam vs. smoke, though the alarm event itself remains a safety concern.

Ensure auto-lock settings on the front door are verified in future chunks to rule out security gaps, though this is secondary to the immediate fire risk assessment.

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

enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code

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

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

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

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

判断入户门锁的操作及状态变化是否构成安全威胁（如非法入侵或设备故障）

DoorLock state transition (locked/unlocked)

Contact sensor state change coincident with lock operation

Occupancy presence verification during access event

判断入户门锁的操作及状态变化是否构成安全威胁（如非法入侵或设备故障）

The door unlock at 08:29 was an authorized entry by a resident returning home, followed by normal morning activities. The smoke alarm trigger at 09:09 was caused by transient steam or cooking fumes from the cook surface turned on at 08:59, which was quickly resolved.

At 08:29, the front door lock changed to 'unlocked' via 'Manual' operation, and the contact sensor opened (door open). This is consistent with someone entering.

Immediately after the door opened (08:29), occupancy sensors in the entrance (08:34) and living room (08:29/08:34) became active, indicating presence inside the house.

The kitchen cook surface was turned on at 08:59, shortly after the entry. Cooking often produces steam/fumes that can trigger sensitive smoke alarms temporarily.

The smoke alarm cleared at 09:19, just 10 minutes after activation, and the cook surface was turned off at 09:14. This rapid resolution suggests a transient cause rather than a fire.

Temperatures remained stable (~25°C) throughout, showing no thermal escalation indicative of a real fire.

Does not explain why the door was unlocked manually at 08:29 if the resident was already inside (though C05 shows entrance_occupancy=occupied continuously, it's possible the sensor missed the initial entry or the resident re-entered for another reason).

Assumes the smoke alarm was false positive without definitive proof (e.g., humidity data).

The system is functioning normally; the 'Manual' lock operation at 08:29 was performed by a resident who had briefly left or was checking the door, and the smoke alarm was a benign false alarm due to kitchen activity.

Lock state transitions are valid (Locked -> Unlocked -> Locked previously at 06:56).

Occupancy patterns show continuous presence in key areas (Kitchen, Bedroom, Entrance) during the event window, suggesting the house was occupied.

No evidence of forced entry (no broken contacts, no multiple failed lock attempts).

Relies on the assumption that 'Manual' implies a known resident, which cannot be strictly verified from logs alone.

Unauthorized Intrusion / Tailgating: An intruder entered the home at 08:29 using a manual method (possibly bypassing auto-lock or picking the lock), and the subsequent smoke alarm was either ignored or triggered by the intruder's actions (e.g., starting a fire or cooking to create cover/distraction).

At 08:29, the front door was unlocked manually. While 'Manual' can mean a key or app, the lack of prior 'Auto' unlock or remote command log makes the source ambiguous.

The door remained open/unlocked for a significant period (until at least 09:15 based on contact sensor staying false/open in C07/C08 context, though specific contact close time isn't explicitly logged as 'true' again until potentially later, the sequence shows prolonged open state).

Occupancy appeared in the entrance/living room immediately after the door opened.

The smoke alarm triggered 40 minutes later (09:09) while the door was still effectively unsecured (contact sensor not shown closing in C07/C08 snippets provided, implying potential continued access risk).

If the occupant was unaware of the intrusion (e.g., sleeping in bedroom), this represents a high-risk security breach.

Entrance occupancy was already 'occupied' from 07:21 onwards (C05), suggesting someone was already inside or the sensor was stuck/false. If someone was already inside, 'intrusion' is less likely unless it's a second person.

No explicit 'forced entry' flag or broken contact sensor value.

Smoke alarm cleared quickly, making a deliberate arson attempt unlikely.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk: The cook surface was turned on at 08:59, but the user may have left the kitchen area (or was distracted), leading to the smoke alarm trigger at 09:09. The quick response (turning off at 09:14) mitigated the risk, but the event itself indicates a safety hazard.

Smoke alarm triggered at 09:09 (10 minutes later).

Cook surface turned OFF at 09:14 (5 minutes after alarm).

This 10-minute window between ignition and alarm suggests a potential lapse in supervision or delayed reaction.

Kitchen occupancy was recorded as 'occupied' at 09:01 and 09:06, but we don't know if the person was *at* the stove or just in the room.

Kitchen occupancy was present, reducing the likelihood of 'unattended' in the sense of leaving the house entirely.

Temperature did not rise significantly, suggesting the 'smoke' was likely steam or light fumes, not intense combustion.

The event was self-resolved within minutes.

The state of the front_door_contact sensor after 08:29: Did it close? If it stayed open for a long time, it supports intrusion or a malfunction. If it closed quickly, it supports normal entry.

The exact location of the person when the smoke alarm triggered: Was the kitchen_occupancy sensor detecting the person *at the stove* or just passing through?

The definition of 'Manual' LockOperation: Does it include app-based unlocking? If so, remote access logs would confirm authorized entry.

Post-08:29 status of the front_door_contact sensor (did it return to 'closed'?).

Detailed motion/activity logs in the kitchen at 08:59-09:09 to confirm if the user was actively cooking or absent.

Remote access logs for the smart lock to verify if 'Manual' meant physical key or digital command.

Humidity levels in the kitchen to correlate with the smoke alarm trigger (steam vs. smoke).

At 08:29, the front door lock changed to 'unlocked' via 'Manual' operation, and the contact sensor opened (door open). This is consistent with someone entering.

Temperatures remained stable (~25°C) throughout, showing no thermal escalation indicative of a real fire.

Lock state transitions are valid (Locked -> Unlocked -> Locked previously at 06:56).

Occupancy patterns show continuous presence in key areas (Kitchen, Bedroom, Entrance) during the event window, suggesting the house was occupied.

No evidence of forced entry (no broken contacts, no multiple failed lock attempts).

Occupancy appeared in the entrance/living room immediately after the door opened.

If the occupant was unaware of the intrusion (e.g., sleeping in bedroom), this represents a high-risk security breach.

Smoke alarm triggered at 09:09 (10 minutes later).

Cook surface turned OFF at 09:14 (5 minutes after alarm).

This 10-minute window between ignition and alarm suggests a potential lapse in supervision or delayed reaction.

Kitchen occupancy was recorded as 'occupied' at 09:01 and 09:06, but we don't know if the person was *at* the stove or just in the room.

Verify the state of front_door_contact after 08:29 to confirm if the door was closed and locked again (auto-lock behavior). The current logs show the door opened but do not explicitly show it closing/locking in C06/C07, which is critical for distinguishing between a quick entry and a prolonged security breach.

Check for any 'forced entry' or 'tamper' events on the lock or contact sensor, which are absent but necessary to rule out intrusion definitively.

Confirm if the smoke alarm trigger correlates with specific humidity spikes or just temperature/cooking activity to distinguish steam from actual fire risk.

The investigator correctly identified the key events (door unlock, cooking, smoke alarm) and provided plausible hypotheses.

However, the evidence regarding the door's final state is incomplete. C06 shows the door opening at 08:29, but there is no log entry showing the contact sensor returning to 'closed' or the lock re-engaging within the provided chunks. This gap prevents confirming whether the auto-lock function worked as expected or if the door remained unsecured.

Without confirming the door was secured again, the 'intrusion' hypothesis cannot be fully dismissed, nor can the 'normal operation' hypothesis be confirmed.

The smoke alarm analysis is reasonable but relies on inference (steam vs. smoke) without explicit humidity data. The lack of hazardous escalation (temp stable) supports a low-risk conclusion, but the missing door status is the primary blocker for a definitive safety verdict.

Requesting C09 to see the post-09:15 state of the door and lock.

Authorized resident entry and morning routine. The front door was manually unlocked (likely by the resident entering or checking), followed by normal occupancy patterns in the entrance, living room, and kitchen. The smoke alarm triggered briefly (possibly due to cooking steam or dust) and cleared quickly, indicating no actual fire.

LockOperation source is 'Manual' at 08:29, consistent with human interaction.

Door contact sensor opened (StateValue=false) immediately after unlock, consistent with door opening.

Occupancy sensors show continuous presence in Entrance, Living Room, and Kitchen from 08:26 onwards, suggesting a resident is home.

Kitchen cook surface turned on at 08:59 and off at 09:14, a short duration typical for preparing a quick meal or boiling water.

Smoke alarm state returned to 0 (clear) at 09:19, shortly after cooking activity ceased, suggesting a transient false positive rather than a sustained hazard.

Does not fully explain why the lock was operated manually if the resident was already inside (unless they were leaving/returning).

Relies on the assumption that the manual lock operation was authorized; does not rule out an intruder who manually unlocked it.

Potential unauthorized entry (intrusion) or tailgating. An unknown actor manually unlocked the front door while the house appeared occupied (bedroom/living room active earlier). The subsequent behavior (cooking, brief smoke alarm) could be an attempt to blend in or a result of the intrusion.

LockOperationType=1 (Unlock) with OperationSource=Manual at 08:29:00. If the resident was already in the bedroom/living room (occupied since 08:26), an external manual unlock suggests someone outside gained access.

No prior 'LockOperation' event showing the door being locked from the inside before this window, making the context of 'who unlocked it' ambiguous without pre-08:26 logs.

The sequence of events (unlock -> door open -> lights on -> cooking) mimics a resident's routine but occurs during a time when the specific occupant's location relative to the door is unclear (bedroom occupied, but did they go to the door?).

Smoke alarm trigger at 09:09 could indicate accidental ignition or tampering, though it cleared quickly.

Occupancy in the bedroom and living room started at 08:26, just seconds before the door event. It is highly plausible the resident woke up, went to the door, and unlocked it.

The smoke alarm cleared rapidly, reducing the likelihood of a serious safety incident like a fire caused by an intruder.

Cooking duration (35 mins) is not excessively long, reducing the 'unattended cooking' risk profile.

Unattended cooking leading to minor smoke generation. The cook surface was left on for ~15 minutes (08:59-09:14) which triggered a smoke alarm. While it cleared, the proximity of heat source to smoke detector indicates a safety risk.

kitchen_cook_surface OnOff=true at 08:59:00.

kitchen_smoke_alarm SmokeCoAlarm.SmokeState=1 at 09:09:00, exactly 10 minutes after cooking started.

kitchen_cook_surface OnOff=false at 09:14:00, 5 minutes after the alarm.

Temperature in the kitchen remained stable (~25.3-25.5 C), suggesting the smoke was likely from burning food residue or steam rather than a large fire, but the alarm activation confirms particulate matter was present.

The smoke alarm cleared quickly (09:19), and no further alarms occurred.

The cook surface was turned off relatively soon after the alarm, suggesting supervision or automatic shutoff.

Temperatures did not rise significantly, contradicting a major fire event.

LockOperation Source=Manual at 08:29:00 combined with OccupancySensing.Occupancy=1 in Bedroom/Living Room starting at 08:26:00. This temporal proximity makes it difficult to distinguish between a resident waking up and going to the door vs. an intruder entering.

SmokeCoAlarm.SmokeState=1 at 09:09:00 coinciding with active kitchen_cook_surface (OnOff=true since 08:59:00). This links the smoke event directly to the cooking activity.

Absence of any 'LockOperation' event prior to 08:29:00 in the provided chunks, leaving the initial state of the lock (locked/unlocked) before the event ambiguous.

Logs prior to 08:26:00 to determine if the door was locked and if the resident was asleep or awake.

Identity verification of the person performing the Manual LockOperation (e.g., via camera footage or user ID associated with the app command if available).

Detailed history of the smoke alarm (e.g., was it a test? Was there visible smoke?).

Confirmation of whether the kitchen cook surface has an auto-shutoff feature that might have triggered.

At 08:29, the front door lock changed to 'unlocked' via 'Manual' operation, and the contact sensor opened (door open). This is consistent with someone entering.

Temperatures remained stable (~25°C) throughout, showing no thermal escalation indicative of a real fire.

Assumes the smoke alarm was false positive without definitive proof (e.g., humidity data).

Lock state transitions are valid (Locked -> Unlocked -> Locked previously at 06:56).

Occupancy patterns show continuous presence in key areas (Kitchen, Bedroom, Entrance) during the event window, suggesting the house was occupied.

No evidence of forced entry (no broken contacts, no multiple failed lock attempts).

Relies on the assumption that 'Manual' implies a known resident, which cannot be strictly verified from logs alone.

Occupancy appeared in the entrance/living room immediately after the door opened.

If the occupant was unaware of the intrusion (e.g., sleeping in bedroom), this represents a high-risk security breach.

No explicit 'forced entry' flag or broken contact sensor value.

Smoke alarm cleared quickly, making a deliberate arson attempt unlikely.

Smoke alarm triggered at 09:09 (10 minutes later).

Cook surface turned OFF at 09:14 (5 minutes after alarm).

This 10-minute window between ignition and alarm suggests a potential lapse in supervision or delayed reaction.

Kitchen occupancy was recorded as 'occupied' at 09:01 and 09:06, but we don't know if the person was *at* the stove or just in the room.

Kitchen occupancy was present, reducing the likelihood of 'unattended' in the sense of leaving the house entirely.

Temperature did not rise significantly, suggesting the 'smoke' was likely steam or light fumes, not intense combustion.

The event was self-resolved within minutes.

At 08:29, the front door lock changed to 'unlocked' via 'Manual' operation, and the contact sensor opened (door open). This is consistent with someone entering.

Temperatures remained stable (~25°C) throughout, showing no thermal escalation indicative of a real fire.

Lock state transitions are valid (Locked -> Unlocked -> Locked previously at 06:56).

Occupancy patterns show continuous presence in key areas (Kitchen, Bedroom, Entrance) during the event window, suggesting the house was occupied.

No evidence of forced entry (no broken contacts, no multiple failed lock attempts).

Occupancy appeared in the entrance/living room immediately after the door opened.

If the occupant was unaware of the intrusion (e.g., sleeping in bedroom), this represents a high-risk security breach.

Smoke alarm triggered at 09:09 (10 minutes later).

Cook surface turned OFF at 09:14 (5 minutes after alarm).

This 10-minute window between ignition and alarm suggests a potential lapse in supervision or delayed reaction.

Kitchen occupancy was recorded as 'occupied' at 09:01 and 09:06, but we don't know if the person was *at* the stove or just in the room.

Pre-08:26 lock state and occupancy history to confirm if the resident was asleep or awake before the door event.

Verification of whether 'Manual' LockOperation implies a physical key/turn or an app command (which would imply remote access or local presence).

Correlation of smoke alarm trigger with specific kitchen activity logs beyond just 'OnOff' state (e.g., temperature spikes, humidity changes) to rule out sensor malfunction vs. actual cooking hazard.

The investigator correctly identified the key events but failed to secure the necessary context (pre-event logs) to distinguish between authorized entry and intrusion. The ambiguity of 'who unlocked the door' cannot be resolved without knowing the state of the house prior to 08:26.

The fire risk assessment is plausible but relies on the assumption that the smoke alarm was triggered by the cook surface rather than a transient sensor glitch or steam from other sources. While temperatures are stable, the lack of pre-cooking context makes it hard to rule out unattended cooking risks definitively.

Evidence is insufficient for a final verdict because the primary security question (intrusion vs. authorized entry) hinges on missing data in C05 (or earlier).

No protocol-format misunderstandings detected regarding temperature scaling or boolean states.

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## 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: 独居老人 (Elderly Living Alone)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>, 床头灯<onoff_light>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- living_room: 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "kitchen": 539,
    "living_room": 497,
    "bedroom": 529,
    "bathroom": 60,
    "entrance": 231
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 943,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 23,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "SmokeState": 2,
    "BatteryAlert": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 943,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-19T08:59:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-20T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "kitchen": 24,
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## 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": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断入户门锁的操作及状态变化是否构成安全威胁（如非法入侵或设备故障）"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "kitchen"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "LockOperation with Manual source",
    "DoorLock state transition (locked/unlocked)",
    "Contact sensor state change coincident with lock operation",
    "Occupancy presence verification during access event"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06 contains the critical sequence: LockOperation event, LockState change to unlocked, and Contact sensor state change at 08:29, which is the primary candidate for a security threat or device fault.",
    "C07 provides immediate context showing subsequent occupancy in the entrance and living room, helping to distinguish between an authorized entry (resident waking up/leaving) and an unexplained intrusion."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The door unlock at 08:29 was an authorized entry by a resident returning home, followed by normal morning activities. The smoke alarm trigger at 09:09 was caused by transient steam or cooking fumes from the cook surface turned on a


WD-03-FP: 住户外出但开了自动浇花系统

漏水传感器触发后在短时间内（3分钟）恢复为false，而非持续触发超过10分钟

The front door was manually unlocked and remained unsecured for over 45 minutes without subsequent locking evidence, creating a potential security breach window.

Explanation: At 08:28:00, the front door lock was manually unlocked, and the contact sensor indicated the door opened. Unlike the previous event at 06:50 (C04) where an auto-lock triggered immediately after closure, no such event occurred here.

Explanation: From 08:28 to 10:10 (end of available logs), there is no record of the door being re-locked, nor any 'LockState = locked' transition. The entrance occupancy remained 'occupied', suggesting the resident was present but failed to secure the entry point.

Explanation: While it is possible the door was held open or the auto-lock feature was disabled, the absence of any locking action during a prolonged period (>45 mins) while the home is occupied constitutes a significant security vulnerability (potential intrusion vector).

Explanation: The supervisor noted that chunks C08-C10 are missing, which could reveal if the door was later secured. However, based on the provided evidence, the state of the door remains insecure for the duration of the log window, warranting an anomaly classification.

Manual unlock at 08:28:00 with no corresponding lock event in C06/C07.

Contrast with C04 (06:50) where auto-lock functioned correctly, establishing a baseline expectation.

Persistent 'entrance_occupancy = occupied' status without a closing/locking cycle.

Review logs from C08 onwards to determine if the door was eventually locked.

Verify if the auto-lock configuration was changed or disabled prior to this event.

Alert the user to manually check the door security status immediately.

Manual lock operation with door open (potential security breach or error)

Normal morning routine with a brief, intentional manual unlock at the entrance. The resident unlocked the door (likely to let someone in or check outside), remained inside (indicated by persistent occupancy sensors and lights turning on in other rooms), and the door was never re-locked within the provided log window.

C06 shows a manual unlock at 08:28:00 followed immediately by door contact opening (08:28:02) and entrance occupancy remaining 'occupied' (08:28:03).

Subsequent logs show living room light turning on (08:28:16) and continuous occupancy in living room, kitchen, and bedroom through 09:14, suggesting the resident is present and active inside.

The pattern of 'unlocked + occupied' is consistent with a resident holding the door open or having left it ajar while moving between rooms.

Fails to explain why the auto-lock did not trigger after the door closed (if it did close) or why the user didn't manually re-lock it after >45 minutes if they were still home.

Does not account for the lack of any 'lock' event in C06, leaving the final security state ambiguous.

Security Breach / Unsecured Entry: The front door was manually unlocked and potentially left unsecured for an extended period (>45 minutes) without subsequent locking evidence. This represents a significant security vulnerability where the entry point may have been accessible to unauthorized persons.

C06: Manual unlock at 08:28:00. Door contact opens at 08:28:02.

No 'LockState = locked' or LockOperation(Lock) event appears in C06 (08:28–09:14) or C07 (09:15–10:10).

Entrance occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout this period, but there is no corresponding exit/entry cycle that would necessitate keeping the door unlocked for so long.

Contrast with C04 (06:50): A similar sequence resulted in an immediate auto-lock (1 second later). The absence of auto-lock here suggests either the door was never fully closed (held open) or the auto-lock feature failed/was disabled, leaving the door insecure.

Cannot confirm if the door was physically held open vs. just unlocked. If held open, it's less likely to be a breach than if it was left ajar/unlocked while empty.

Lack of explicit 'intruder' detection; relies on the assumption that an unlocked door for 45+ minutes is anomalous behavior for a resident who is otherwise present.

Device Malfunction (Auto-Lock Failure): The smart lock failed to execute its automatic locking protocol after the door was closed, despite previous successful auto-locking events (seen in C04).

In C04 (06:50), the lock successfully auto-locked 1 second after closure.

In C06 (08:28), the lock was manually unlocked, door opened, but no auto-lock event occurred in the subsequent 45+ minutes, even though the door contact sensor reported 'true' (closed) at 08:33:03, 08:38:03, etc., implying the door was closed multiple times.

The repeated 'door closed' signals without a corresponding 'lock' action suggest a failure in the lock's logic or actuator.

Could also be explained by the door being held open continuously, preventing the 'close' condition from triggering the timer.

Requires assuming the door was actually closed based on contact sensor readings, which might be intermittent or stuck.

Absence of any 'LockState = locked' or LockOperation(Lock) event in C06 and C07 following the manual unlock at 08:28:00.

Presence of repeated 'front_door_contact | true' events in C06 (e.g., 08:33, 08:38, 08:43) indicating the door was closed multiple times without triggering a lock.

Comparison with C04 where auto-lock worked immediately, establishing a baseline for expected device behavior.

Log data from C06/C07 showing if the door was ever manually re-locked after 09:14.

Confirmation of whether the door was physically held open or fully closed during the 08:28-09:14 window.

Status of the auto-lock configuration setting (enabled/disabled/delayed).

Verify if the door was manually re-locked after 09:14 (post-C07).

Check for explicit 'LockState = locked' or LockOperation(Lock) events in C06/C07 to confirm auto-lock failure vs. door held open.

Corroborate 'door closed' sensor readings with physical state if possible, or check for other entry/exit patterns.

The investigator correctly identified the critical security gap (unlocked door >45 mins) but failed to distinguish between a device fault and a user behavior (holding door open).

The hypothesis of 'lock malfunction' is weak because there is no evidence of a failed lock attempt; the logs simply show the door remained unlocked. Without evidence that the door was actually closed during this period (which contradicts the lack of an auto-lock trigger in some configurations, or confirms it in others), the conclusion is speculative.

Crucially, the investigation stops at 10:10 (end of C07). We do not know if the resident eventually locked the door. If they did later, the 'security breach' narrative collapses into a temporary lapse or configuration issue.

The 'cooking appliance' risk mentioned in Triage is low/negligible as the cook surface was turned off in C04 and C16, and occupancy was present. This part of the triage output was a distraction.

Need chunks C08-C10 to see if the door was secured later in the morning.

Normal morning routine with standard door usage. The resident manually unlocked the front door (likely to let someone in or check outside), the door was briefly open, and the auto-lock feature engaged shortly after. Subsequent occupancy at the entrance confirms presence.

C06: Manual unlock event followed by door contact opening (false) and then closing (true).

C06: Auto-lock event occurred 8 seconds after manual unlock, returning lock state to locked.

C06: Entrance occupancy remained 'occupied' throughout the sequence, suggesting a person was present near the door during/after the operation.

C04/C16: Kitchen activity shows normal cooking patterns (on/off cycles) with no evidence of unattended fire risk.

The gap between the morning routine (C04) and the specific door event (C06) is large (~1.5 hours), making it hard to confirm if the same person performed the action without assuming continuity.

Does not explain why the door was left open for ~8 seconds before auto-locking, though this is within typical sensor latency or human movement time.

Potential security breach or tailgating incident. The door was manually unlocked and left open for approximately 8 seconds while the residence was occupied. This window could allow an unauthorized person to enter (tailgating) or indicate a failure of the auto-lock mechanism to engage immediately upon closure, leaving the home vulnerable.

C06: LockState changed to 'unlocked' via Manual source at 08:28:00.

C06: Door contact opened (false) at 08:28:02, indicating the door was physically ajar.

C06: Door contact closed (true) at 08:28:17, but LockState did not change back to 'locked' until 08:28:18 (Auto source).

C06: There is an 18-second interval where the door was closed but the lock was still 'unlocked' (raw=2) before the auto-lock triggered.

C06: Entrance occupancy was 'occupied' during this entire window, meaning someone was inside or right at the door, potentially allowing entry without proper locking.

The auto-lock eventually engaged, so the door was secured.

No explicit alarm or forced entry indicators are present.

Could be a false positive due to slow sensor reporting or a user holding the door open intentionally.

Device malfunction or configuration error regarding auto-lock timing. The delay between door closure and re-locking (18 seconds) is unusually long for modern smart locks, which typically lock within 1-5 seconds. This suggests a potential software glitch or misconfiguration that leaves the door insecure longer than intended.

C06: Time delta between `BooleanState.StateValue = true` (door closed) and `LockOperation... OperationSource=Auto` (lock engaged) is 18 seconds (08:28:17 to 08:28:18 is actually 1 second? Wait, let's re-read carefully).

Correction on C06 timestamps: Contact closes at 08:28:17. Lock auto-engages at 08:28:18. The delta is 1 second. However, the lock was 'unlocked' from 08:28:00 to 08:28:18. The door was open from 08:28:02 to 08:28:17 (15 seconds).

If the auto-lock is supposed to trigger *immediately* upon closure, a 1-second delay is normal. But if the system failed to lock *while* the door was open (which it didn't, it locked after), it might just be a standard behavior. Let's look closer. The lock was unlocked for 18 seconds total. The door was open for 15 seconds. This is a significant period of vulnerability.

Lack of explicit fault codes makes this a behavioral anomaly rather than a hard device fault.

1-second delay between closure and locking is technically normal for many systems.

No repeated failures observed in other chunks.

C06: The 15-second duration the front door was physically open (08:28:02 to 08:28:17) while the lock was in the 'unlocked' state.

C06: The 18-second total duration the lock remained 'unlocked' (08:28:00 to 08:28:18) despite the door being closed for the last second.

C06: Presence of 'entrance_occupancy' = occupied during the entire vulnerable window, increasing the likelihood of human interaction (entry/exit) rather than just a mechanical error.

Video footage or audio logs to confirm if a person entered/exited during the 15-second open window.

Configuration settings for the auto-lock timer (is 18 seconds the expected default?).

History of previous lock operations to determine if this is a recurring pattern or an isolated incident.

C06: Manual unlock at 08:28:00. Door contact opens at 08:28:02.

No 'LockState = locked' or LockOperation(Lock) event appears in C06 (08:28–09:14) or C07 (09:15–10:10).

In C04 (06:50), the lock successfully auto-locked 1 second after closure.

Verify if the 'unlocked' state in C06 (08:28) was followed by a re-lock event. The current C06 chunk ends at 09:14 but does not show the lock returning to 'locked' after the manual unlock at 08:28:00. This is critical to determine if the door remained insecure for over an hour.

Check C05 (07:20-08:24) to establish the state of the front door lock prior to the 08:28 event and confirm if the residence was occupied/unoccupied during that gap.

Clarify the 'auto-lock' behavior: Did the auto-lock trigger immediately upon closure in C04 (06:50), and does it behave differently in C06? The investigator notes a discrepancy in timing interpretation.

The investigator correctly identified the security-relevant sequence in C06 but failed to verify the *outcome* of that sequence within the provided chunks. C06 shows the door being unlocked manually at 08:28:00, but there is no log entry showing it locking again until potentially later or not at all in this snippet. An 18-second vulnerability window (as hypothesized) is different from a >45 minute vulnerability window.

The hypothesis A2 ('lock_malfunction') relies on a specific timing interpretation that contradicts the raw timestamps in C06 (where auto-lock happened 1 second after closure). However, the more pressing issue is the missing confirmation of the lock state post-event.

Without knowing if the door locked itself eventually, we cannot assess the actual risk level. If it stayed unlocked, it's a high-risk security breach or severe malfunction. If it locked automatically later, it might be a configuration issue or normal delay.

Chunk C05 is needed to bridge the gap between the morning routine (C04) and the potential incident (C06) to ensure continuity of occupancy and device state.

Do not conclude 'Normal' or 'Malfunction' yet; the evidence is incomplete regarding the final state of the lock.

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## 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: 独居老人 (Elderly Living Alone)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>, 床头灯<onoff_light>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- living_room: 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 497,
    "bedroom": 529,
    "kitchen": 532,
    "bathroom": 95,
    "entrance": 232
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 975,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 21,
    "StateValue": 6,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 975,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-03T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-03T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "entrance": 4

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## 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": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact",
      "entrance_occupancy"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "kitchen"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "kitchen_cook_surface"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C04",
    "C16"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Manual lock operation with door open (potential security breach or error)",
    "Cooking appliance left on (fire hazard)"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06 contains the critical sequence of manual lock unlock, door contact opening, and occupancy detection at the entrance, which is the primary candidate for a security threat.",
    "C04 shows the context of the resident waking up and starting kitchen activity, providing background for the morning routine.",
    "C16 provides evidence of the cooking appliance being turned off later, helping to assess if the 'cook surface' state in C04/C16 was part of a normal routine or a hazard."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal morning routine with a brief, intentional manual unlock at the entrance. The resident unlocked the door (likely to let someone in or check outside), remained inside (indicated by persistent occupancy sensors and lights turn


有人在卫生间正常使用中触发，且短时间内恢复为 false

The event sequence represents a routine morning activity by a resident, not a security threat.

Explanation: The primary trigger is a manual unlock operation at the front door (08:30), which is consistent with a resident opening the door for entry/exit or letting someone in.

Explanation: Immediately following the unlock, the door contact sensor reports 'open' (false), confirming physical access occurred as expected.

Explanation: Crucially, occupancy sensors across multiple rooms (entrance, kitchen, living room, bedroom) show sustained 'occupied' states from 08:26 through 10:11. This broad, continuous human presence pattern is characteristic of normal daily routines (waking up, moving between rooms) and contradicts the stealthy behavior or isolated presence expected of an intruder.

Explanation: Temperature readings are stable and within normal residential ranges, ruling out environmental hazards like fire.

Explanation: There is no evidence of forced entry, device malfunction, or contradictory states that would suggest a security breach or fault.

C06: LockOperation(LockOperationType=1, OperationSource=Manual) at 08:30:00

C06: front_door_contact BooleanState.StateValue = false (door open) at 08:30:02

C06-C07: Sustained OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied across entrance, kitchen, living_room, and bedroom from 08:26 to 10:11

No action required; log as normal activity.

Routine morning activity by a resident. The resident manually unlocked the front door (likely to let someone in, take out trash, or check outside), which triggered the lock state change and contact sensor update. Subsequent occupancy detections in the entrance, kitchen, and living room confirm human presence consistent with waking up and starting daily activities.

C06: `front_door_lock` shows `LockOperationType=1` with `OperationSource=Manual`, indicating intentional user interaction rather than a system error or forced entry.

C06: Immediately after the lock event (08:30:02), `front_door_contact` reports `false` (door open), which is physically consistent with a manual unlock followed by opening the door.

C06: Occupancy sensors in `entrance` (08:26, 08:30) and `kitchen` (08:26) show transitions to `occupied` shortly before/during the lock event, suggesting a person was already present or entering.

C06-C07: Sustained `occupied` states across multiple rooms (living_room, bedroom, kitchen, entrance) from 08:26 through 10:11 indicate continuous human presence, ruling out an intruder who might leave quickly or remain hidden in a single spot without interacting with other areas.

Temperature readings are stable and within normal residential ranges (24-25°C), showing no signs of fire or equipment malfunction.

Does not account for *who* performed the manual operation if it wasn't the primary resident (e.g., a guest or delivery person), though this doesn't necessarily constitute a security threat unless combined with other indicators.

Potential unauthorized entry or tailgating. An individual manually unlocked the door (possibly using a stolen key, code, or by picking the lock) and entered. The subsequent occupancy patterns could represent the intruder moving through the house or hiding, although the broad occupancy makes 'hiding' less likely than active movement.

C06: The `LockOperation` was `Manual`. If the resident was asleep or unaware, this represents a breach of perimeter security.

C06: The sequence of events is tight: Lock Unlocked -> Contact Open -> Entrance Occupied -> Living Room Occupied. This rapid progression suggests immediate entry and movement into the home.

The query specifically targets the `entrance` and `front_door_lock`, highlighting the sensitivity of this access point.

Lack of corroborating evidence for malicious intent: There are no alarms, forced entry indicators (like high-force torque data if available), or contradictory lock/contact states (e.g., locked but contact open).

Occupancy is widespread and sustained across all major rooms, which is more characteristic of residents going about their day than an intruder trying to avoid detection.

No evidence of the door being re-locked or any attempt to secure the perimeter after entry, but also no evidence of valuables being accessed or windows being opened.

The `Manual` operation source could equally belong to a legitimate resident.

Device fault or false positive on the lock mechanism. The lock reported a manual operation and state change that did not correspond to actual physical door movement, or the contact sensor failed to report correctly.

C06: The lock state changed to `unlocked` at 08:30:00, and the contact sensor went to `false` (open) at 08:30:02. While consistent, if the door never actually opened, this would be a sensor/actuator fault.

However, there is no explicit fault code or repeated non-recovery pattern visible in the short window.

The contact sensor (`BooleanState`) changing to `false` (open) immediately after the lock unlocks strongly supports that the door physically opened, making a pure device fault unlikely unless both devices failed simultaneously in a correlated way.

No evidence of stuck values or impossible transitions.

C06: `front_door_lock` Event: `LockOperation(LockOperationType=1, OperationSource=Manual)` at 08:30:00.

C06: `front_door_contact` `BooleanState.StateValue = false` (raw=False) at 08:30:02, confirming physical door opening.

C06-C07: Continuous `OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied` across multiple rooms (entrance, kitchen, living_room, bedroom) from 08:26 to 10:11, indicating sustained human presence.

Identity verification: Who performed the manual lock operation? (Biometric, app log, or voice confirmation).

The investigator correctly interpreted Matter-scaled temperature values (raw/100) and did not treat them as literal impossible temperatures.

The analysis correctly identified the sequence: Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Occupancy in multiple rooms. This pattern strongly supports 'Routine morning activity' over 'Intrusion' or 'Device Fault'.

The distinction between safety threats (intrusion) and device health (malfunction) was handled well; no false alarm risk is present because the evidence (sustained occupancy across rooms) contradicts the anomaly hypotheses (intruder hiding, sensor failure).

The conclusion that this is likely a normal event is supported by the broad occupancy footprint which is inconsistent with stealthy intrusion or isolated sensor errors.

No further chunks are needed to resolve the specific query about whether this constitutes a security threat.

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## 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: 独居老人 (Elderly Living Alone)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>, 床头灯<onoff_light>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- living_room: 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 498,
    "bedroom": 529,
    "kitchen": 534,
    "bathroom": 64,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 944,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 22,
    "StateValue": 6,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 944,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-21T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-21T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "entrance": 4

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## 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": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "entrance_occupancy"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "kitchen",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "kitchen_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Manual lock operation at entrance",
    "Occupancy transition from unoccupied to occupied in kitchen/entrance",
    "Potential unauthorized entry or routine morning activity"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06 contains the specific event of manual lock operation and state change at the entrance (08:30), which is the primary trigger for a security assessment.",
    "C07 follows immediately after, showing occupancy transitions in the kitchen and entrance, providing context on whether the lock event was followed by human presence (routine) or absence (potential breach).",
    "These chunks allow distinguishing between a normal resident waking up/cooking and an intruder."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Routine morning activity by a resident. The resident manually unlocked the front door (likely to let someone in, take out trash, or check outside), which triggered the lock state change and contact sensor update. Subsequent occupancy detections in the entranc


有人在卫生间正常使用中触发，且短时间内恢复为 false

No security threat or device fault confirmed; the event is likely a routine manual unlock with auto-lock disabled or user error.

Explanation: The logs show a manual unlock at 08:31 followed by the door closing, but no subsequent auto-lock occurred, unlike the previous event at 06:57 where an auto-lock triggered.

Explanation: The supervisor correctly identified that this discrepancy requires further investigation (checking C09) to determine if the lock was eventually secured manually or if the feature is simply disabled.

Explanation: Without evidence of forced entry, failed lock commands, contradictory states, or explicit faults, the absence of an auto-lock is insufficient to classify as a security threat (intrusion) or device malfunction (lock_malfunction).

Explanation: The most plausible explanation is benign: either the user intentionally left it unlocked, forgot to lock it, or the auto-lock configuration changed/was not triggered due to continued occupancy.

Explanation: Per guidelines, we cannot conclude 'lock_malfunction' from delayed/missing auto-lock alone without evidence of actuator failure or repeated retries. We cannot conclude 'intrusion' without access-path evidence or conflicting occupancy patterns.

Manual Unlock at 08:31:00 with no Auto-Lock follow-up.

Door contact sensor shows door closed (true) after 08:31:11.

Occupancy sensors remain 'occupied' throughout the period, consistent with someone staying inside rather than leaving/unlocking for departure.

Review chunk C09 to see if the door was manually locked later or if an auto-lock eventually triggered.

Verify the current configuration status of the auto-lock feature on the front door lock.

Monitor for recurrence of missed auto-locks to distinguish between one-off user behavior and systemic configuration issues.

Occupancy transition in bedroom/kitchen around same time

Potential unauthorized access or routine departure/arrival

Routine manual unlock followed by a failure to auto-lock (or disabled auto-lock), resulting in an extended unlocked state while occupants remain inside. The door contact sensor correctly reports the door as closed, but the lock remains in the 'unlocked' state because the user did not manually re-lock it or the auto-lock feature is not configured/triggered.

At 08:31:00, `front_door_lock` performs a Manual Unlock (`LockOperationType=1`).

Immediately after, at 08:31:02, `front_door_contact` reports `false` (door open) then `true` (door closed) at 08:31:11, indicating the door was physically closed.

Unlike the event at 06:57:14 where an Auto-Lock occurred seconds later, no such event appears after 08:31.

Occupancy sensors for `entrance`, `living_room`, `bedroom`, and `kitchen` remain `occupied` throughout the subsequent chunks (C06-C08), suggesting the occupant who unlocked the door remained inside.

The lack of an auto-lock event suggests either the feature is disabled or the system requires a specific trigger (like motion leaving the zone) that didn't occur because the person stayed inside.

Relies on the assumption that the user intended to leave the door unlocked or forgot to lock it, rather than a malfunction.

Does not explain why the auto-lock worked previously (06:57) but not now, unless configuration changed or context (presence inside) differs.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating where an intruder entered, the door was closed behind them, but the lock failed to engage automatically or was manually left unlocked. The continued occupancy signals might be from the resident unaware of the breach, or the intruder remaining inside undetected.

Manual unlock at 08:31:00 with no immediate auto-lock follow-up, unlike the previous routine at 06:57.

Door contact sensor shows the door was closed (StateValue=true) shortly after opening, but the lock state remained `unlocked` (raw=2) for over an hour (through C06, C07, C08).

No subsequent `LockOperation` events (Lock) are recorded in the provided chunks, meaning the door remained insecurely locked/unlocked for a significant duration.

If the auto-lock feature is expected to function (as seen at 06:57), its absence here represents a security gap.

Occupancy sensors show activity in the living room and entrance, which could mask the presence of an unauthorized individual if they blended in or moved to other rooms.

Lacks direct evidence of an intruder (e.g., unknown device pairing, forced entry signs, or conflicting occupancy patterns like 'all unoccupied' while door is open).

The most likely explanation is user error or configuration (forgetting to lock), making intrusion speculative without further corroboration.

The door contact sensor confirms the door was closed, reducing the risk of an open-door exposure, but does not confirm the lock engaged.

Lock mechanism malfunction or communication failure where the lock state update is incorrect or the auto-lock command failed silently.

Inconsistent behavior between 06:57 (manual unlock -> auto-lock) and 08:31 (manual unlock -> no auto-lock).

If the system is designed to auto-lock upon door closure, the failure to do so at 08:31 indicates a potential fault in the logic or actuator.

The lock state remains `unlocked` despite the door being closed for >1 hour, which is abnormal for a secure entry point if auto-lock is enabled.

No explicit fault codes or alarm events are logged.

Could simply be a change in user behavior or settings rather than a hardware/software fault.

Requires ruling out normal human behavior (forgetting to lock) before concluding a device fault.

Comparison of LockOperation events: 06:57:14 shows Auto-Lock after manual unlock, while 08:31:00 shows NO Auto-Lock after manual unlock.

Front door contact sensor state: Remains `true` (closed) from 08:31:11 onwards, while LockState remains `unlocked` (raw=2).

Absence of any `LockOperation(Lock)` events in C06, C07, and C08 following the 08:31 unlock.

Configuration status of the auto-lock feature (is it enabled? what is the timeout?).

Whether the user manually locked the door via app or key after 08:31 (logs might not capture non-Matter manual actions if not logged).

Video surveillance or additional motion data to confirm if anyone actually exited or entered during the window.

History of similar 'missed auto-locks' to determine if this is a recurring pattern or a one-off incident.

Check C09 (11:06 onwards) for any subsequent LockOperation events to see if the door was eventually locked manually or via auto-lock.

Verify if 'LockState = unlocked' persisted until the end of the log or changed state.

Confirm if there were any other entry/exit events in C09 that might explain the prolonged unlocked state.

The investigator correctly identified the core anomaly: a manual unlock at 08:31 without a corresponding auto-lock, unlike the previous event at 06:57.

However, the conclusion relies heavily on the assumption that this constitutes a security threat or malfunction based solely on the absence of an auto-lock event. The logs provided end at 11:06 (C08), leaving a significant gap where the door remained unlocked for over 2 hours.

Crucially, we do not know if the user manually locked it later, or if the auto-lock feature is simply disabled/configured differently now. Without checking C09 for any resolution (manual lock or eventual auto-lock), we cannot distinguish between 'user forgot to lock', 'auto-lock disabled', and 'malfunction'.

The risk of false alarm is high because the 'anomaly' (lack of auto-lock) could be a benign configuration change or user behavior, not a safety threat or device fault. We need to see if the state resolved.

The investigation should refine by checking the final state of the lock in the subsequent chunk (C09) to determine if the situation was mitigated.

Routine morning departure or arrival involving manual lock operation. The user manually unlocked the door (LockOperationType=1, Manual) and opened it (contact=false), likely to leave or enter. Subsequent occupancy in the entrance, living room, bedroom, and kitchen indicates normal human presence and movement within the home after the event.

[08:31:00] front_door_lock | Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=1, OperationSource=Manual)

[08:31:00] front_door_lock | DoorLock.LockState = unlocked (raw=2)

[08:31:02] front_door_contact | BooleanState.StateValue = false (raw=False)

[08:31:03] entrance_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied (raw=1)

[08:31:11] living_room_light | OnOff.OnOff = on (raw=True)

Continuous 'occupied' status across all monitored rooms (entrance, living_room, bedroom, kitchen) from 08:31 through 10:12.

Does not explain why the lock was left in an 'unlocked' state for over an hour if the person had already left (though logs show they stayed).

Relies on the assumption that 'Manual' unlock implies authorized access, which is plausible but not proven by logs alone.

Potential unauthorized access or tailgating. A manual unlock occurred at 08:31, followed immediately by the door opening. While occupancy sensors show presence inside, there is no corresponding 'lock' event or 'door closed' confirmation that would definitively prove the door was secured again. If the occupant did not re-lock the door, the home remained insecure during this period. Alternatively, if someone else entered while the owner was present, the lack of a specific 'intrusion' alarm (if any exist) or conflicting occupancy patterns might be missed, though current logs show consistent occupancy.

No subsequent 'LockOperation' with type 'Lock' or state change to 'locked' is recorded in C06 or C07 for the front door lock.

The door contact sensor returns to 'true' (closed) implicitly as occupancy remains stable, but the explicit 'closed' state log is missing or inferred, leaving the security state ambiguous regarding whether the door was physically secured after entry.

Occupancy sensors remain 'occupied' throughout, suggesting no one left the house immediately after unlocking, which contradicts a typical 'break-in and flee' scenario.

The 'Manual' operation source suggests a key/fob/card use, which could be legitimate.

Without a 'locked' state transition logged, we cannot confirm the door was re-secured, but we also cannot confirm it wasn't.

Device fault or configuration issue with the smart lock. The lock was manually operated and set to 'unlocked', but no automatic re-locking occurred, nor was a manual re-lock recorded. This could indicate a misconfigured auto-lock timer or a failure in the lock's feedback mechanism to report state changes accurately if the physical state differed from the reported state.

Absence of any 'locked' state update for the front_door_lock between 08:31 and 10:12.

Structured signals indicate 'lock_state_flips': 4, but these may refer to other locks or transient states not detailed in the focused chunks, or potentially noise.

Manual operations often do not trigger auto-locks depending on configuration; thus, the lack of a 'locked' log might be expected behavior rather than a fault.

No error codes or fault events are present in the logs.

The sequence at 08:31:00-08:31:02 showing Manual Unlock -> Unlocked State -> Contact Open.

The complete absence of any 'Locked' state or Lock Operation event for the front door lock after 08:31:00 in the provided timeframe.

Consistent 'occupied' status in all rooms, indicating the house was not vacated immediately after the door was opened.

Logs for the front_door_lock after 08:31:00 to see if it was eventually locked.

Context on whether the 'Manual' unlock was performed by the resident or an unknown party (e.g., via app vs physical key).

History of lock operations prior to 08:31 to establish a baseline routine.

Confirmation of the door contact sensor's return to 'true' (closed) state explicitly.

At 08:31:00, `front_door_lock` performs a Manual Unlock (`LockOperationType=1`).

Unlike the event at 06:57:14 where an Auto-Lock occurred seconds later, no such event appears after 08:31.

Manual unlock at 08:31:00 with no immediate auto-lock follow-up, unlike the previous routine at 06:57.

If the auto-lock feature is expected to function (as seen at 06:57), its absence here represents a security gap.

Inconsistent behavior between 06:57 (manual unlock -> auto-lock) and 08:31 (manual unlock -> no auto-lock).

Verify if the door contact sensor returned to 'true' (closed) state after opening.

Check for any subsequent LockOperation events (Lock/Unlock) in chunks prior to C06 to establish baseline routine.

Confirm if the 'Manual' unlock was followed by a re-lock event in the immediate vicinity or if the lock remained unlocked indefinitely.

The investigator correctly identified the key event (manual unlock at 08:31) and focused on relevant chunks (C06, C07).

However, the conclusion of 'potential unauthorized access' or 'lock malfunction' relies heavily on the *absence* of evidence (no re-lock logged) rather than positive evidence of a threat or fault. This is a high false-alarm risk scenario because manual unlocks often do not auto-lock, and the lack of a log entry does not prove the door was left open or that the device failed.

The investigation lacks context from pre-event chunks (e.g., C05) to determine if this is a routine departure/arrival pattern. Without knowing the state before 08:31 or if the door was closed later, we cannot distinguish between a user forgetting to lock, a configured non-auto-lock behavior, and an actual security breach.

The current evidence is insufficient to rule out normal human behavior (e.g., user entered, stayed inside, never locked the door again during the observation window). Further refinement with adjacent context is needed to assess routine vs. anomaly.

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## 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: 独居老人 (Elderly Living Alone)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>, 床头灯<onoff_light>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- living_room: 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 498,
    "bedroom": 528,
    "kitchen": 532,
    "bathroom": 68,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 945,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 22,
    "StateValue": 6,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 945,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-06T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-06T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "entrance": 4

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## 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": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "bedroom",
    "kitchen"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C07"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Manual lock operation at 08:31",
    "Occupancy transition in bedroom/kitchen around same time",
    "Potential unauthorized access or routine departure/arrival"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06 contains the specific event of manual lock operation and state change at 08:31, which is the primary trigger for security assessment.",
    "C07 provides immediate context on occupancy states following the lock event to determine if the action was accompanied by expected human presence (routine) or absence (potential threat).",
    "These chunks cover the trigger and the immediate behavioral context required to distinguish between a safety incident and normal activity."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "single-event-safety | device-health",
  "query_intent_profile": "single-event-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Routine manual unlock followed by a failure to auto-lock (or disabled auto-lock), resulting in an extended unlocked state while occupants remain inside. The door contact sensor correctly reports the door as closed, but the lock remains in the