FG-02-FP: 电暖器/取暖器正常使用

有人在房间且温度上升后趋于稳定（不是持续飙升），无烟雾报警触发

No definitive safety anomaly detected; observed events are consistent with normal evening routine despite minor telemetry gaps.

Explanation: The primary potential risk identified is 'unattended cooking' due to a brief `None` temperature reading in the kitchen at 18:25:00, exactly one minute after the cook surface was turned on.

Explanation: However, this single transient data dropout is insufficient to confirm an unattended cooking hazard. The sensor recovered immediately (reading 23.02 C at the same timestamp block), and other rooms (Living Room, Master Bedroom) remained continuously occupied, suggesting occupants were present in the home and likely nearby.

Explanation: There is no evidence of fire alarms, CO alarms, or extreme temperature spikes that would indicate a hazardous escalation from the cooking event.

Explanation: Regarding security, while metadata suggests 5 lock state flips, only one manual unlock event is visible in the logs (18:13). Without evidence of rapid cycling, forced entry attempts, or persistent insecure states, this cannot be classified as a lock malfunction or intrusion risk based on the provided text.

Explanation: The sequence of events (entry -> cooking -> dishwasher) follows a logical domestic pattern. The absence of explicit kitchen occupancy logs does not prove absence of persons, especially given the continuous occupancy in adjacent areas.

Explanation: Therefore, the evidence supports a normal explanation over an anomalous one.

C22: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 18:24:30.

C22: Transient `kitchen_temp_sensor` value of `None` at 18:25:00, recovering immediately to 23.02 C.

C23: Cook surface turned off at 19:15:00 after ~50 minutes, consistent with meal prep.

C21-C25: Continuous occupancy in Living Room and Master Bedroom during the cooking window, indicating presence of residents.

Monitor kitchen temperature sensor for recurring transient dropouts to rule out hardware instability.

Verify if the smart home system has auto-shutoff features enabled for the cook surface as a precautionary measure.

Door lock state instability (5 flips detected in aggregate)

Kitchen appliance usage during occupied hours (potential fire risk if unattended)

General occupancy patterns indicating presence vs. absence for security assessment

C00: Establishes baseline early morning state (unoccupied, stable temps) to contrast with later activity.

C23: Shows continued evening activity and occupancy transitions, helping to contextualize the door lock activity.

C29: Late night/early morning state showing occupancy persistence or winding down, crucial for final security posture assessment.

Normal evening routine with supervised cooking and standard entry/exit behavior.

C21: Front door unlocked manually at 18:13, followed by occupancy in living room and entrance, consistent with residents returning home or moving between rooms.

C22: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 18:24. Living room and other areas show 'occupied' status throughout the evening (C22-C25), indicating presence of occupants nearby.

C23: Cook surface turned off at 19:15 after ~50 minutes, a typical duration for meal preparation.

C24: Dishwasher started at 19:54, following the cooking event, which is a logical sequence for post-dinner cleanup.

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

Relies on the assumption that 'occupied' sensors in adjacent rooms (living/dining) imply supervision of the kitchen, which is not strictly guaranteed.

Does not account for the transient `None` temperature reading in the kitchen, though this is likely a sensor glitch rather than a safety failure.

Potential unattended cooking risk due to temporary loss of kitchen telemetry and lack of direct kitchen occupancy confirmation during active heating.

C22: Kitchen cook surface activated at 18:24:30.

C22: At 18:25:00, exactly one minute after activation, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`, indicating a brief telemetry dropout or sensor fault in the hazard zone.

C22-C23: While other rooms (Living Room, Master Bedroom) report 'occupied', there are no explicit `kitchen_occupancy` logs confirming someone was physically present in the kitchen during the 18:24-19:15 window.

The gap in kitchen-specific data (temp + occupancy) coincides with the active heating period.

Supervisor feedback explicitly notes that absence of kitchen occupancy logs is insufficient for a high-confidence alert without corroborating evidence of actual absence (e.g., all house unoccupied) or alarm triggers.

Other rooms remained occupied, making it plausible an occupant was simply outside the specific sensor's range or the sensor failed to update, rather than the person leaving the house entirely.

No fire or CO alarms triggered, suggesting no catastrophic escalation occurred.

Door lock instability or potential security gap based on aggregate signal metadata.

Structured Signals indicate `lock_state_flips`: 5.

C21 shows one manual unlock event at 18:13.

The remaining 4 flips are not visible in the provided text chunks (C00, C20-C25), suggesting they may have occurred in missing timeframes or via automated processes not fully logged here.

The primary evidence ('5 flips') is from Structured Signals metadata, not the raw log chunks provided. The investigation cannot validate the nature of these flips (e.g., rapid open/close vs. malfunction) without the specific log entries.

Only one explicit manual unlock is observed in the detailed logs, which appears normal for entry.

C22: `kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = on` at 18:24:30 combined with `kitchen_temp_sensor | ... = None` at 18:25:00.

C23: `kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = off` at 19:15:00.

C21: `front_door_lock | Event: LockOperation(...)` at 18:13:00.

Absence of explicit `kitchen_occupancy` updates during the cooking window in C22/C23.

Explicit `kitchen_occupancy` sensor logs to confirm if anyone was in the kitchen while the stove was on.

Logs for the other 4 'lock state flips' mentioned in Structured Signals to rule out lock malfunction or forced entry attempts.

Smoke/CO alarm status logs specifically around the 18:24-19:15 window to definitively rule out combustion events.

Water leak detector logs to rule out secondary hazards from the dishwasher usage.

Verify if the kitchen cook surface was manually turned off or if an auto-shutoff occurred (check C23 end/C24 start for explicit Off event vs. just absence of On).

Check for smoke/CO alarm triggers in chunks surrounding the cooking event (C22-C25) to rule out fire.

Investigate the '5 lock state flips' metadata by checking logs around the manual unlock at 18:13 and any subsequent entries to determine if they represent rapid cycling (malfunction) or normal entry/exit.

Confirm if the `kitchen_temp_sensor` `None` value at 18:25 was a transient glitch that recovered immediately (seen at 18:25:00 raw=2302) or persisted.

The investigator correctly identified potential risks (unattended cooking, lock instability) but relies heavily on 'absence of evidence' (missing kitchen occupancy logs) and metadata ('5 flips') without sufficient corroborating log data.

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis is weak because other rooms show continuous occupancy, making it plausible the user was nearby but not detected by the specific kitchen sensor, or the sensor failed. The single `None` temperature reading is likely a transient glitch given the immediate recovery in the same timestamp block.

The 'lock malfunction' hypothesis is based entirely on external metadata ('5 flips') which is not visible in the provided text chunks. Without seeing the specific flip events, this cannot be validated as a fault; it could be normal usage.

Crucially, the investigation lacks the post-cooking context (C26+) to confirm the stove was actually turned off and no fire occurred. The current chunks end abruptly during the evening activity.

False alarm risk is high because the primary safety conclusion rests on telemetry gaps and unverified metadata rather than direct hazard indicators (alarms, extreme temps, confirmed open door with no one home).

Normal evening routine with supervised cooking and standard occupancy patterns.

C22 shows kitchen cook surface turning on at 18:24:30, coinciding with high occupancy in the kitchen/dining area (entrance, living room, dining room all occupied).

Cook surface turns off at 19:15:00 (C23), indicating a finite duration of use (~50 minutes), consistent with meal preparation.

Occupancy sensors remain active in multiple rooms throughout the evening (C22, C23, C29), suggesting residents are present and monitoring the environment.

Temperature readings are stable and within normal residential ranges (22-23°C), showing no signs of thermal runaway or fire-related heat spikes.

Does not fully account for the 'lock_state_flips' signal mentioned in Structured Signals, as no specific lock events are visible in the provided chunks.

Relies on the assumption that 'occupied' status implies constant visual supervision of the stove, which is an inference rather than direct evidence.

Potential unattended cooking risk due to temporary absence from the kitchen while the cook surface was active.

In C22, the kitchen cook surface is turned ON at 18:24:30.

At 18:25:00, the `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`, indicating a potential telemetry dropout or sensor issue in the immediate hazard zone.

While other rooms (living, master bedroom) show 'occupied', there is no explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' log entry confirming someone remained in the kitchen during the entire cooking window (18:24 - 19:15).

The gap between the cook surface activation and the next temperature reading (which returns to normal) leaves a brief period where the state of the kitchen occupant is inferred rather than directly logged, creating a small window for unsupervised operation if the person left the room.

The cook surface was turned OFF at 19:15:00 (C23), ending the hazard. There is no evidence of fire, smoke, or alarm activation.

Other occupancy sensors in adjacent areas (dining, living) were active, making it likely someone was nearby, reducing the severity of 'unattended' risk.

The `None` value for temperature could be a transient network glitch rather than a safety-critical failure, especially since it recovered immediately.

Door lock instability or security vulnerability indicated by aggregate lock state flips.

Structured Signals indicate 'lock_state_flips': 5.

This suggests the door lock changed states 5 times, which is higher than typical single-entry/exit behavior for a short observation window.

No corresponding 'contact_sensor' or 'door_open' logs are explicitly detailed in the focused chunks for these flips, creating a lack of corroboration for the lock actions.

The specific timestamps and nature of the lock flips (locked/unlocked vs. jammed) are not visible in the provided text chunks (C00, C22, C23, C29 focus on temp/occupancy/lights).

Without seeing the actual lock commands or contact sensor states, this remains a statistical anomaly without a confirmed physical cause (e.g., auto-lock feature vs. forced entry attempt).

The sequence in C22: Cook surface ON (18:24:30) followed immediately by a `None` temperature reading (18:25:00) creates a blind spot in the hazard zone exactly when the risk source is active.

The definitive turn-OFF of the cook surface at 19:15:00 (C23) confirms the event ended, ruling out catastrophic fire but leaving the 'supervision' aspect ambiguous.

The discrepancy between the '5 lock state flips' in signals and the lack of detailed lock/contact logs in the chunks makes A2 a low-confidence but structurally suspicious hypothesis.

Detailed logs for the `door_lock` device to explain the 5 state flips.

Kitchen-specific occupancy sensor data to confirm if anyone remained in the kitchen while the stove was on.

Smoke/CO alarm status logs to rule out undetected combustion products.

Water leak detector status to rule out secondary hazards (e.g., extinguishing a fire with water causing leaks).

C23: Cook surface turned off at 19:15 after ~50 minutes, a typical duration for meal preparation.

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

C22: Kitchen cook surface activated at 18:24:30.

The gap in kitchen-specific data (temp + occupancy) coincides with the active heating period.

Structured Signals indicate `lock_state_flips`: 5.

C21 shows one manual unlock event at 18:13.

door_lock state logs (to verify the 5 flips mentioned in Structured Signals)

smoke_co_alarm status/logs (to rule out undetected combustion)

water_leak_detector status/logs (to rule out secondary hazards)

kitchen_occupancy sensor data (to confirm supervision during cooking)

The investigator correctly identified the cooking event and the 'None' telemetry gap, but over-interpreted the gap as a safety risk without corroborating evidence of unattended operation or alarm activation.

The hypothesis A1 (unattended cooking) relies heavily on the absence of explicit kitchen occupancy logs and a single transient `None` value. Per protocol, this is insufficient for a high-confidence safety alert without checking smoke/CO alarms or confirming actual absence via other sensors.

Hypothesis A2 (lock malfunction) is based entirely on 'Structured Signals' metadata ('lock_state_flips': 5) which is not present in the provided text chunks (C00, C22, C23, C29). The investigation cannot validate this claim without the relevant log chunks (likely C21 or C24 covering evening entry/exit times).

The current chunks miss the critical context for the lock events and do not show smoke/CO/water leak device states, which are required for a comprehensive safety assessment.

Requesting adjacent chunks to capture the door lock activity and checking for any alarm triggers that would have been logged alongside the cooking event.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 402,
    "master_bedroom": 520,
    "kids_room": 518,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 223,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 222,
    "entrance": 228,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 1258,
    "MeasuredValue": 1159,
    "OnOff": 26,

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "entrance",
      "living_room",
      "master_bedroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "door_lock",
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "cook_surface",
      "contact_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "door_lock",
    "smoke_co_alarm",
    "water_leak_detector",
    "cook_surface",
    "contact_sensor",
    "occupancy_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C22",
    "C23",
    "C29"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Door lock state instability (5 flips detected in aggregate)",
    "Kitchen appliance usage during occupied hours (potential fire risk if unattended)",
    "General occupancy patterns indicating presence vs. absence for security assessment",
    "Temperature trends for environmental comfort/safety"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Establishes baseline early morning state (unoccupied, stable temps) to contrast with later activity.",
    "C22: Captures kitchen cook surface activation and high occupancy in evening, relevant for fire/safety risk assessment.",
    "C23: Shows continued evening activity and occupancy transitions, helping to contextualize the door lock activity.",
    "C29: Late night/early morning state showing occupancy persistence or winding down, crucial for f


BA-02-FP: 住户周末改变习惯早起做饭

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

No definitive safety anomaly detected; observed events are consistent with normal morning routines and minor telemetry glitches.

Explanation: The primary potential risk identified was 'unattended cooking' (A1) based on the kitchen cook surface being active while no direct occupancy was logged in the kitchen. However, the duration was very short (~2 minutes), and the user's presence in adjacent areas (master bathroom then dining room) suggests a plausible normal routine rather than negligence. Crucially, no smoke/CO alarms were triggered, and temperatures remained stable, indicating no hazardous combustion or fire occurred.

Explanation: The 'sensor malfunction' hypothesis (A2) regarding intermittent 'None' values in the kitchen temperature sensor is weak. The sensor recovered immediately to valid readings without escalation or stuck states. According to Matter notes and supervisor guidance, transient dropouts without explicit fault codes or repeated non-recovery do not constitute a device health anomaly requiring an alert.

Explanation: Security checks show the entrance door lock functioned correctly, transitioning to 'locked' via auto-lock after manual exit, with no evidence of forced entry or lock failure.

Explanation: Given the lack of corroborating evidence for fire, intrusion, or device failure, and the high probability of normal behavior explaining the data gaps, the case is classified as normal with low confidence due to the inherent ambiguity of missing direct occupancy logs during cooking.

C05: Kitchen cook surface ON from 06:48:40 to 06:51:00 with no direct kitchen occupancy log, but user present in adjacent master bathroom/dining room.

C05/C06: No smoke/CO alarm events triggered during or after cooking period.

C05: Kitchen temp sensor reported 'None' at 06:49:10 but recovered to 25.09 C at 06:50:00, indicating transient glitch rather than permanent fault.

C06: Entrance door lock state transitioned to 'locked' (raw=1) automatically at 07:15:26, confirming secure state.

Monitor kitchen temperature sensor for recurrence of 'None' values to determine if hardware maintenance is needed.

Consider enabling direct occupancy detection in the kitchen or using voice/motion triggers to better correlate cooking events with user presence for future safety analysis.

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

enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code

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

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

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

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

Occupancy transitions indicating presence/absence patterns for security assessment

Lock state changes at entrance for access control verification

Temperature trends in kitchen/living areas for environmental safety

Potential missing alarm events or sensor faults (secondary check)

C00: Baseline early morning state (unoccupied, stable temps) to establish normalcy.

C05: Morning occupancy onset (kids/master bedroom occupied), checking for routine behavior vs anomalies.

C10: Mid-day activity peak, verifying consistent occupancy and lock states during active hours.

C22: Evening/Night transition, checking for secure lock states and any late-night anomalies or device errors (e.g., None values).

Normal morning routine with transient sensor dropout. The kitchen cook surface was used briefly (approx. 30 seconds) while the user was present in the adjacent master bathroom/dining area. The 'None' temperature reading at 06:49 was a transient communication glitch or sensor initialization delay, as valid readings resumed immediately at 06:50 and 06:55 without escalation.

C05: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 06:48:40 and off at 06:51:00 (duration ~2 min).

C05: Master bathroom occupancy active until 06:48:47; Dining room occupancy active from 06:51:02 onwards, suggesting user proximity.

C05: Kitchen temp sensor returns to normal (25.09 C) at 06:50:00 after a single 'None' value.

C06: No smoke/CO alarms triggered; temperatures remain stable (~25 C).

The brief gap in kitchen occupancy logs during cooking relies on inference from adjacent rooms rather than direct confirmation of presence in the kitchen.

Secure evening state with normal appliance usage. The entrance door is locked via auto-lock mechanism after manual exit. The dishwasher is running normally. The 'None' temperature reading at 19:11 is an isolated telemetry error with no safety implications.

C22/C23: Entrance lock state transitions to 'locked' (raw=1) automatically at 19:15:26 following manual unlock/open event.

C22: Kitchen window contact is closed (false/raw=False implies closed for this logic context or consistent with safe state).

C22: Dishwasher operational state is 1 (running) at 19:53, consistent with evening routine.

C23: All temperatures are stable and within normal comfort ranges (22-23 C).

Relies on the assumption that the auto-lock functioned correctly without explicit 'lock success' confirmation beyond the state change.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk due to Supervision Gap. Although the cook surface was turned off quickly, there is a critical lack of direct occupancy evidence in the kitchen during the heating phase. The user appears to have been in the master bathroom (occupancy ends 06:48:47) while the stove was on, creating a potential unattended cooking scenario if they did not return to the kitchen immediately.

C05: Kitchen cook surface ON from 06:48:40 to 06:51:00.

C05: Kitchen occupancy sensor shows NO events during 06:48-06:51. The last known kitchen status is unoccupied from earlier chunks.

C05: Master bathroom occupancy goes UNOCCUPIED at 06:48:47, just 7 seconds after stove ignition.

C05: Next confirmed occupancy near kitchen is Dining Room at 06:51:02.

C05: Kitchen temp sensor reports 'None' at 06:49:10, potentially indicating sensor failure or environmental interference during heat generation.

The cook duration was very short (< 3 minutes), reducing fire risk probability.

User likely moved to dining room immediately after, mitigating long-term risk.

Sensor Malfunction / Data Integrity Issue. The kitchen temperature sensor exhibits intermittent 'None' values (06:49, 06:52, 19:11) which may indicate a faulty connection or intermittent power issue, distinct from simple drift. While it recovered, the pattern suggests instability.

C05: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 06:49:10 and 06:52:00.

C22: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 19:11:00.

C05/C22: Other sensors in the same environment report stable, correlated values, isolating the fault to the kitchen sensor.

The sensor consistently recovers to valid values immediately after the dropout.

No explicit fault codes or repeated stuck states are observed.

C05: Absence of kitchen_occupancy events between 06:48:40 (stove on) and 06:51:00 (stove off), contrasted with master_bathroom_occupancy going unoccupied at 06:48:47.

C05: Transient 'None' value in kitchen_temp_sensor at 06:49:10 coinciding with active cooking.

C22/C23: Entrance door lock state transition to 'locked' (raw=1) at 19:15:26 confirming security protocol execution.

Direct confirmation of user location in the kitchen during the 06:48-06:51 window (e.g., voice assistant interaction or mobile device presence log).

Smoke/CO alarm status logs specifically for the 06:48-06:55 window to definitively rule out hazardous byproduct generation.

History of previous 'None' readings for the kitchen sensor to determine if this is a recurring hardware fault.

Verify if the 'None' temperature readings in C05 (06:49, 06:52) and C22 (19:11) are isolated incidents or part of a recurring pattern by checking adjacent chunks (e.g., C04, C07, C21).

Confirm the exact state of the kitchen window contact sensor at 06:51-06:52 to rule out open-window ventilation during cooking.

Check for any smoke/CO alarm events in C05/C06 that might have been suppressed or missed in the initial summary.

Validate the 'auto-lock' success in C06 by checking if the lock remained locked through subsequent occupancy changes.

The investigator correctly identified potential risks (unattended cooking, sensor glitches) but relies heavily on inference from missing data (absence of kitchen occupancy logs) rather than direct evidence of hazard.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is weak because the sensor recovers immediately; labeling it as a malfunction based on transient 'None' values without historical context is a high false-alarm risk.

The 'unattended_cooking' risk is speculative. While the stove was on while the user was in the bathroom, the short duration (<3 mins) and lack of alarm triggers suggest low actual danger. The conclusion should not be definitive safety failure based solely on this gap.

Chunk C06 is critical to verify the post-cooking state and the door lock sequence mentioned in the evening hypothesis. It was listed in focus_chunks but not fully analyzed in the output text provided.

Refine investigation to gather more context on the sensor stability and confirm no alarms were triggered.

Normal morning routine with transient sensor telemetry dropout. The kitchen cook surface was used briefly (approx. 2 minutes) while occupants were present in adjacent rooms (kids/dining), and the subsequent temperature drop/None value represents a standard sensor communication glitch or temporary obstruction, not a safety hazard.

C05: Occupancy sensors for kids_room and dining_room show 'occupied' during the cooking window (06:51+), indicating presence nearby.

C05: Kitchen temp sensor shows 'None' at 06:49:10 and 06:52:00 but recovers to 25.09 C and 24.99 C respectively, showing no permanent failure.

C05: No smoke alarm or fire events triggered.

The brief duration of cooking makes 'unattended' less likely, but the gap in occupancy data for the *kitchen* itself during the active cooking phase is notable.

The 'None' values coincide exactly with the start/end of cooking, which could imply the sensor was physically obscured by steam/heat or failed due to environmental stress, rather than just random noise.

Evening household activity with normal appliance usage. The dishwasher running late at night is consistent with post-dinner cleanup, and all other systems (locks, temps, occupancy) behave within expected parameters for an occupied home.

C22: Multiple rooms (living, master, dining, kids) show 'occupied' status between 19:14 and 19:53.

C22: Entrance occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout the evening block, suggesting residents are home.

C22: Kitchen dishwasher turns on at 19:53:00 with OperationalState=1, a common evening chore.

C22: Temperatures are stable (~22-23 C), no thermal anomalies detected.

Does not address the specific risk of unattended appliances if the house empties out later (not shown in logs).

Potential Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk Event. A hazardous sequence occurred in the morning where the cook surface was activated, but the kitchen occupancy sensor did not register presence, and the temperature sensor failed ('None') immediately after activation. This suggests the user may have left the kitchen area without turning off the stove, or the sensor environment became compromised (steam/fire) causing data loss.

C05: Kitchen cook surface turns ON at 06:48:40.

C05: At 06:49:10 (30 seconds after ignition), kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None'.

C05: Kitchen_occupancy is NOT explicitly logged as 'occupied' during the 06:48-06:51 window in the provided snippets (only kids/dining/master bath are logged as occupied in that minute). The entrance/living/kitchen occupancy states are missing or implied unoccupied from previous chunks.

C05: Kitchen cook surface turns OFF at 06:51:00. While it turned off, the lack of direct kitchen occupancy confirmation during the active phase creates a supervision gap.

C05: Temperature sensor recovery is erratic (None -> 25.09 -> None -> 24.99), potentially indicating physical interference (steam) or sensor damage from heat.

The cook surface was only on for ~2 minutes, which is short for a typical fire-starting event unless something else happened.

Other family members were in adjacent rooms (kids/dining), so total isolation is not confirmed.

No explicit smoke alarm trigger is recorded.

Sensor Malfunction / Data Integrity Issue. The repeated 'None' values for the kitchen temperature sensor, specifically correlated with appliance usage (cooking/dishwasher), suggest a systematic fault in the kitchen sensor's ability to report during high-load or high-humidity conditions, creating a blind spot for safety monitoring.

C05: kitchen_temp_sensor = None at 06:49:10 and 06:52:00.

C22: kitchen_temp_sensor = None at 19:11:00 (before dishwasher starts at 19:53).

C22: Dishwasher operational state changes at 19:53, but temp sensor remains silent/unreported in the immediate vicinity compared to other rooms.

The pattern of 'None' appearing during active kitchen events suggests the sensor is failing under specific environmental loads.

The sensor does recover values eventually, so it is not permanently stuck.

Isolated incidents might be due to network packet loss rather than hardware failure.

C05: Kitchen cook surface ON (06:48:40) followed immediately by kitchen_temp_sensor = None (06:49:10) and lack of explicit kitchen_occupancy=1 in the same timestamp cluster.

C05: Kitchen cook surface OFF (06:51:00) occurs shortly after the sensor dropout, raising questions about who turned it off and if the kitchen was truly monitored.

C22: kitchen_temp_sensor = None at 19:11:00, preceding evening activities, indicating a persistent reporting issue in the kitchen zone.

Direct log entries for kitchen_occupancy during the 06:48-06:51 window to confirm if anyone was actually in the kitchen.

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

Detailed lock state history for the entrance during the morning to rule out unauthorized entry coinciding with the cooking event.

Post-06:51 behavior of the cook surface (did it stay off? any re-activation?).

C05: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 06:48:40 and off at 06:51:00 (duration ~2 min).

C05: No smoke alarm or fire events triggered.

C22: Multiple rooms (living, master, dining, kids) show 'occupied' status between 19:14 and 19:53.

C22: Entrance occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout the evening block, suggesting residents are home.

C22: Kitchen dishwasher turns on at 19:53:00 with OperationalState=1, a common evening chore.

C22: Temperatures are stable (~22-23 C), no thermal anomalies detected.

C05: Kitchen cook surface turns ON at 06:48:40.

C05: At 06:49:10 (30 seconds after ignition), kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None'.

C05: kitchen_temp_sensor = None at 06:49:10 and 06:52:00.

C22: kitchen_temp_sensor = None at 19:11:00 (before dishwasher starts at 19:53).

C05: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 06:48:40 and off at 06:51:00 (duration ~2 min).

C05: Kitchen temp sensor returns to normal (25.09 C) at 06:50:00 after a single 'None' value.

C06: No smoke/CO alarms triggered; temperatures remain stable (~25 C).

C22/C23: Entrance lock state transitions to 'locked' (raw=1) automatically at 19:15:26 following manual unlock/open event.

C22: Kitchen window contact is closed (false/raw=False implies closed for this logic context or consistent with safe state).

C22: Dishwasher operational state is 1 (running) at 19:53, consistent with evening routine.

C23: All temperatures are stable and within normal comfort ranges (22-23 C).

C05: Kitchen cook surface ON from 06:48:40 to 06:51:00.

C05: Master bathroom occupancy goes UNOCCUPIED at 06:48:47, just 7 seconds after stove ignition.

C05: Next confirmed occupancy near kitchen is Dining Room at 06:51:02.

C05: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 06:49:10 and 06:52:00.

C22: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 19:11:00.

C05/C22: Other sensors in the same environment report stable, correlated values, isolating the fault to the kitchen sensor.

Verify kitchen_occupancy status during the cooking window (06:48-06:51) to confirm if the user was present.

Check for smoke/CO alarm triggers in C05/C06 following the cook surface activation.

Confirm the final state of the entrance door lock in C22/C23 to rule out security breaches.

Investigate the cause of the 'None' temperature readings (sensor fault vs. environmental interference).

The investigator correctly identified potential risks but relies heavily on 'missing' data (absence of kitchen occupancy logs) and transient telemetry gaps ('None' values) to construct a fire risk hypothesis.

Per protocol, a single transient 'None' value or missing log entry without corroborating hazardous escalation (smoke alarms, high temps, stuck-on appliances) is insufficient for a definitive safety violation conclusion. This creates a high false-alarm risk.

The investigation needs adjacent chunks (C06 for post-cooking recovery/alarm status, C23 for evening lock status) to verify if the 'anomalies' were resolved or if there are actual faults.

Do not conclude 'unsafe' based solely on unlogged occupancy; require positive evidence of hazard or confirmed device failure.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 405,
    "master_bedroom": 518,
    "kids_room": 519,
    "kitchen": 305,
    "dining_room": 223,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 55,
    "entrance": 231,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1099,
    "OnOff": 28,

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "entrance",
      "living_room",
      "master_bedroom",
      "kids_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety condition and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "master_bedroom",
    "kids_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "kitchen_water_leak_detector",
    "entrance_door_lock",
    "entrance_contact_sensor",
    "all_occupancy_sensors"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C10",
    "C22"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Occupancy transitions indicating presence/absence patterns for security assessment",
    "Lock state changes at entrance for access control verification",
    "Temperature trends in kitchen/living areas for environmental safety",
    "Potential missing alarm events or sensor faults (secondary check)"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline early morning state (unoccupied, stable temps) to establish normalcy.",
    "C05: Morning occupancy onset (kids/master bedroom occupied), checking for routine behavior vs anomalies.",
    "C10: Mid-day activity peak, verifying consistent occupancy and lock states during active hours.",
    "C22: Evening/Night transition, checking for secure lock states and any late-night anomalies o


CH-01-FP: 孩子生病请假在家（家长陪护）

家长也在家（多个房间有活动），不只是儿童房，说明有成人陪护

No confirmed safety anomaly detected; the potential unattended cooking risk remains unresolved due to missing critical log data (Chunk C05) and lack of corroborating evidence such as temperature spikes or alarm triggers.

Explanation: The investigator hypothesized an 'unattended cooking' risk based on a stove activation in Chunk C05 followed by an occupant exit in Chunk C06, noting the absence of a logged 'stove off' event.

Explanation: However, the Supervisor explicitly flagged that Chunk C05 is missing from the provided context, making it impossible to verify if the stove was turned off manually or via auto-shutoff before the resident left.

Explanation: Crucially, there is no positive evidence of hazard: kitchen temperatures remained stable (~25°C) throughout the morning, and no smoke/CO alarms were triggered in any chunk.

Explanation: Per protocol, inferring a safety anomaly primarily from the *absence* of a log entry ('missing OFF log') without corroborating physical evidence (heat, smoke, alarm) creates a high risk of false alarm. The stove may have been off, or the sensor simply didn't log it.

Explanation: Since the primary hypothesis relies on incomplete telemetry and lacks confirming hazardous signals, and no other anomalies (intrusion, device fault) are evident, the safest conclusion is that no confirmed anomaly exists, though uncertainty remains high.

Missing Chunk C05 prevents verification of cook surface state transition.

Stable kitchen temperatures (~25°C) and no smoke/CO alarms contradict active fire or severe overheating.

Normal occupancy patterns and secure door lock operations observed in available chunks.

Review Chunk C05 logs to confirm the final state of the kitchen cook surface.

Verify if the cook surface has an automatic shut-off feature enabled.

Monitor kitchen temperature trends for any delayed spikes indicating residual heat.

Absence of explicit alarm events despite presence of safety devices (smoke/leak detectors)

Normal temperature fluctuations without fault indicators

Lock state transitions requiring verification for security context

Occupancy patterns indicating normal daily routine vs. intrusion

C00: Baseline early morning state, checking if safety devices are reporting or silent when house is likely empty.

C05: Morning transition period where occupancy begins; check for any triggered alarms during activity onset.

C10: Mid-day peak activity; verify no false positives from cooking or movement near sensors.

C20: Evening routine; check lock states and occupancy to assess final security posture before night.

Normal morning routine with standard security posture. The household woke up, occupants moved through the house (dining, master bedroom, kids room), and a resident left via the front door using an auto-lock feature immediately after exiting.

C04-C08 show typical occupancy transitions: lights turning on in bedrooms/kids room around 06:12-06:18, followed by movement to dining/living areas.

C06 shows a clear exit sequence at 07:42: Front door unlocked manually, contact sensor opened (door open), then locked automatically shortly after. This indicates a controlled departure.

Temperature sensors across all rooms show stable, gradual increases consistent with normal heating or solar gain during the morning hours (23°C to ~25°C range). No sudden spikes indicative of fire.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered in any chunk.

Kitchen temperature remained stable (~25°C) throughout the morning activity, showing no signs of unattended cooking heat buildup.

Does not account for the gap between C05 (cook surface turned on at 07:03) and C06 (exit at 07:42). We do not know if the cook surface was turned off before the resident left.

Relies on the assumption that the auto-lock implies the resident was present to trigger it, but doesn't confirm they checked the stove.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk. A cook surface was activated in the kitchen (C05) but there is no evidence of supervision or deactivation before the primary occupant exited the home (C06). The absence of kitchen occupancy logs during this window suggests the person may have left without checking the stove.

C05 (referenced from previous context/supervisor notes): Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 07:03.

C06 (07:42): Resident exits front door. The lock operation is manual unlock -> auto lock. There is no log entry for 'kitchen_cook_surface' turning OFF between 07:03 and 07:42.

C06 (07:42): Entrance occupancy becomes occupied briefly as the resident leaves, then likely unoccupied. No subsequent kitchen occupancy is logged in C06 or C07 to suggest a return check.

C06-C08: Kitchen temperature remains stable (~25°C). While this argues against immediate fire, it does not rule out the risk of an unattended burner being left on for an extended period, which is a safety hazard even if no fire has started yet.

Supervisor feedback explicitly highlights the missing state of the cook surface between C05 and C20 as a critical ambiguity.

Lack of explicit 'cook surface ON' log in the provided chunks C01-C08 (it was in C05 which is not fully detailed here, but referenced by supervisor). If the device auto-shutoffs, this hypothesis fails.

Stable kitchen temperature might indicate the stove was never actually on, or it's an induction stove with low ambient heat, or the sensor is far from the source.

The resident might have turned it off just before leaving, but the log wasn't captured in the sparse sampling.

Sensor Malfunction / Data Gap. The `kitchen_temp_sensor` and `kitchen_occupancy` data are sparse or missing during critical transition periods, making it impossible to verify safety status. Specifically, the lack of kitchen occupancy logs during the morning routine raises questions about sensor coverage or failure.

In C01-C04, kitchen temperature is reported, but kitchen occupancy is rarely/if ever explicitly logged as 'occupied' or 'unoccupied' in the same frequency as other rooms.

C06 shows dining room occupancy frequently, but kitchen occupancy is absent despite the proximity and likelihood of activity.

If the kitchen occupancy sensor is faulty, we cannot rely on it to detect unattended presence or absence.

Single missing data points or sparse logging are not sufficient to declare a malfunction per the rules ('Do not infer sensor_malfunction... from isolated transient errors').

Other kitchen devices (temp sensor) are working, suggesting network connectivity is fine.

The state of the `kitchen_cook_surface` between 07:03 (C05) and 07:42 (C06 exit). Was it turned off?

Presence of `kitchen_occupancy` logs during the 07:00-08:00 window. Did anyone stay in the kitchen after the cook surface was turned on?

Any `smoke_co_alarm` events in C06-C08 following the potential unattended cooking period.

Full log details for C05, specifically the `kitchen_cook_surface` OnOff state changes after 07:03.

Continuous `kitchen_occupancy` logs for the entire morning to confirm if anyone remained in the kitchen.

Smoke/CO alarm status logs for the kitchen area during the morning.

Verification of kitchen_cook_surface state (On/Off) in C05 and subsequent chunks.

Confirmation of smoke/CO alarm status during the unattended cooking window.

Analysis of kitchen temperature trend specifically for rapid spikes indicative of fire vs. normal ambient changes.

The investigator correctly identifies a potential 'unattended cooking' risk based on the gap between stove activation (referenced from C05) and occupant exit (C06). However, the critical evidence chunk C05 is missing from the provided context, making it impossible to verify if the stove was turned off or if an alarm triggered.

The current hypothesis relies heavily on the absence of logs ('missing OFF log') rather than positive evidence of hazard. Per protocol, this creates a high false-alarm risk because the stove may have auto-shutoff or been manually turned off without logging in the sparse sampling.

Temperature data in C06-C08 shows stable values (~25°C), which argues against an active fire but does not rule out the initial hazard event. We need C05 to close the loop on the trigger event.

Do not conclude safety or danger until C05 is reviewed to confirm the cook surface state transition.

The home is in a normal operational state with no active safety threats. The observed activity patterns (morning routine, daytime occupancy, evening cooking) are consistent with typical household behavior. Temperature fluctuations are within expected ranges for HVAC operation and solar gain.

C00: Early morning temperatures are stable (~22-23°C) with all rooms unoccupied, indicating a secure night state.

C05: Morning transition shows logical sequence: windows open (kids room), lights turn on, occupants wake up (master/kids rooms occupied). Kitchen cook surface turns on briefly then off, likely breakfast prep.

C10: Daytime occupancy is high in living/dining/entrance areas, consistent with family presence or guests. Temperatures rise slightly to ~25°C, typical for mid-day.

C20: Evening routine shows continued occupancy. Kitchen cook surface turns on at 18:25, coinciding with dinner preparation. No alarms or fault codes are present.

Does not fully account for the specific risk of unattended cooking if supervision lapses during the C20 window, though this is speculative without further evidence of absence.

Potential unattended cooking hazard in the kitchen during the evening (C20). The kitchen cook surface was turned on at 18:25, but there is no corroborating 'kitchen_occupancy' signal confirming someone remained in the kitchen after activation. While other rooms were occupied, the specific lack of kitchen occupancy data creates a gap where an occupant could have left the stove on while moving to another part of the house.

C20: At 18:25:00, `kitchen_light` turns on and `kitchen_cook_surface` turns on.

C20: There is no log entry for `kitchen_occupancy` turning 'occupied' or remaining 'occupied' immediately following the cook surface activation. Other rooms (living, dining, entrance) show occupancy, but the kitchen itself lacks a direct occupancy confirmation in the provided chunks.

C20: The cook surface remains 'on' through the end of the chunk (18:30:07), a duration of ~5 minutes. While short, the absence of explicit kitchen occupancy monitoring makes it impossible to verify supervision from these logs alone.

Structured Signals: `attribute_frequency` shows very low frequency for `OnOff` (27) and `StateValue` (7) compared to Occupancy (1096), suggesting sparse logging for appliance states vs motion, potentially missing critical context.

The duration of 5 minutes is relatively short and may not constitute a significant fire risk if the user returned quickly.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; the user might be in the kitchen but the sensor didn't trigger or log.

No smoke alarm or temperature spike was recorded to confirm a hazardous escalation.

Sensor telemetry dropout in the kitchen during active use. The `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 06:52 and 18:26, both times shortly after kitchen activity (cooking/lighting) begins. This intermittent failure could indicate a sensor issue or connectivity problem that might mask environmental hazards like heat or smoke.

C05: At 06:52:00, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`. This occurs just after `kitchen_cook_surface` was turned off at 06:51 and `dining_room_light` turned on.

C20: At 18:26:00, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`. This occurs just after `kitchen_cook_surface` was turned on at 18:25.

The pattern of `None` values appearing specifically during kitchen activity suggests a potential correlation between appliance usage and sensor communication failure.

Isolated `None` values can be due to transient network issues or scheduled maintenance cycles.

The sensor resumes reporting values in subsequent timestamps (e.g., 18:30:00 in C20), indicating recovery rather than permanent failure.

Does not directly prove a safety threat, only a monitoring blind spot.

C20: `kitchen_cook_surface` OnOff = on (raw=True) at 18:25:30 with no corresponding `kitchen_occupancy` log entry to confirm supervision.

C05 & C20: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 06:52:00 and 18:26:00, coinciding with kitchen appliance activity.

Absence of any `smoke_co_alarm` or `water_leak_detector` events across all chunks, despite the presence of these device types in the target list.

Direct `kitchen_occupancy` logs for the entire duration of C20 to confirm if anyone was present in the kitchen while the stove was on.

Smoke or CO alarm status/logs to rule out detection of combustion byproducts.

Water leak detector status/logs to rule out plumbing issues.

Detailed timeline of user movement between kitchen and other rooms to assess supervision continuity.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered in any chunk.

C05 (referenced from previous context/supervisor notes): Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 07:03.

Supervisor feedback explicitly highlights the missing state of the cook surface between C05 and C20 as a critical ambiguity.

If the kitchen occupancy sensor is faulty, we cannot rely on it to detect unattended presence or absence.

Verify if `kitchen_cook_surface` was turned off in the missing chunks between C05 and C20 (specifically checking for any activation/deactivation cycles not captured in the sparse logs).

Check for explicit smoke/CO alarm events or temperature spikes in the kitchen during the evening period to rule out actual fire/smoke generation.

Confirm if the `None` values for `kitchen_temp_sensor` are isolated transient errors or part of a pattern indicating sensor failure, by checking adjacent timestamps in full-resolution logs if available.

Assess the security posture by checking `entrance_door_lock` states in the missing evening chunks to ensure no unauthorized entry occurred while cooking.

The investigator's primary safety concern ('unattended cooking') relies heavily on the absence of `kitchen_occupancy` logs and a single transient `None` value from the temperature sensor. This is a weak basis for a high-severity safety conclusion without corroborating evidence of hazard (smoke, heat spike) or confirmed lack of supervision over a longer duration.

The 'sensor_malfunction' hypothesis is also weak; a single `None` reading that recovers immediately is typical network jitter, not necessarily a device fault requiring intervention.

Crucially, the provided chunks (C00, C05, C10, C20) have large gaps. The state of the cook surface at the end of C05 (turned on at 07:03) is unknown until C20 (turned on again at 18:25). It is possible it was turned off and back on, or left on. Without intermediate chunks, we cannot determine if there was an unattended period.

The investigation drifts into debating telemetry quality rather than establishing a coherent safety narrative based on available evidence. A final verdict should not be made on such ambiguous data.

False alarm risk is high because the 'danger' is inferred from missing data points rather than positive indicators of harm.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 404,
    "master_bedroom": 519,
    "kids_room": 522,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 224,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 53,
    "entrance": 227,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1096,
    "OnOff": 27,

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "all"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor",
      "temperature_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety condition and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "kitchen_water_leak_detector",
    "entrance_door_lock",
    "entrance_contact_sensor",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C10",
    "C20"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Absence of explicit alarm events despite presence of safety devices (smoke/leak detectors)",
    "Normal temperature fluctuations without fault indicators",
    "Lock state transitions requiring verification for security context",
    "Occupancy patterns indicating normal daily routine vs. intrusion"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline early morning state, checking if safety devices are reporting or silent when house is likely empty.",
    "C05: Morning transition period where occupancy begins; check for any triggered alarms during activity onset.",
    "C10: Mid-day peak activity; verify no false positives from cooking or movement near sensors.",
    "C20: Evening routine; check lock states and occupancy to assess final security posture before night."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "composite-sa


路径是 儿童房→卫生间→儿童房，直来直去没有去其他地方，持续时间短

No concrete safety anomaly detected; the observed temperature trends are consistent with normal environmental fluctuations in an unoccupied home, and critical safety device logs are missing.

Explanation: The provided logs (C01-C08) exclusively contain temperature and occupancy data for sensors; critical safety devices (smoke_co_alarm, water_leak_detector, door_lock, contact_sensor) are entirely absent from the evidence.

Explanation: Hypothesis A1 (unattended cooking/fire risk) relies on a gradual temperature rise in the kitchen while unoccupied. However, this trend is within normal bounds for passive heating of an empty house (rising from ~23°C to ~25.5°C over several hours) and lacks corroborating evidence such as smoke alarms, CO detectors, or rapid thermal spikes.

Explanation: According to Matter Notes and Supervisor guidance, scaled temperature values alone are insufficient to conclude a device fault or fire risk without explicit alarm events or impossible state transitions.

Explanation: The absence of occupancy across all rooms confirms the house is unoccupied, but without the missing safety device logs, we cannot rule out silent hazards nor confirm active ones. The 'Safety Device Monitoring Gap' (A2) prevents a definitive 'safe' verdict, but also prevents confirming an anomaly.

Explanation: Given the high risk of false alarm if we infer fire from ambient temp alone, and the lack of direct evidence for any threat, the most precise decision is that no anomaly is confirmed based on the available data.

Complete absence of smoke_co_alarm and water_leak_detector logs despite them being target devices.

Kitchen temperature rose gradually from 23.0°C to 25.6°C over 10+ hours, consistent with passive heating rather than acute fire.

All occupancy sensors consistently report 'unoccupied', indicating no human presence to mitigate or trigger immediate responses.

Retrieve missing logs for smoke_co_alarm, water_leak_detector, door_lock, and contact_sensor to complete the safety assessment.

Verify HVAC settings and external weather conditions to contextualize the temperature rise.

Monitor for any future activation of safety alarms or unusual occupancy patterns.

Absence of explicit alarm events despite presence of safety devices

Consistent unoccupied states indicating no immediate intrusion or fire risk

C00 provides baseline early-morning state with all sensors reporting normal values and no alarms.

C05 covers mid-morning when temperatures peak; checking for any smoke/leak triggers during this period.

The home is in a standard 'unoccupied' state with normal environmental conditions. The temperature sensors report stable, gradual fluctuations consistent with passive heating/cooling of an empty house. No safety alarms or security breaches have occurred.

All occupancy sensors (living_room, master_bedroom, kids_room, dining_room, second_bedroom, master_bathroom, entrance) consistently report `OccupancySensing.Occupancy = unoccupied (raw=0)` across all provided chunks (C01-C08).

Temperature readings are within a comfortable and safe range (approx. 23°C to 25.5°C) with no sudden spikes indicative of fire or equipment failure.

No explicit alarm events (smoke, water leak, intrusion) are present in the logs.

Lock state flips are 0, indicating no unauthorized entry attempts or door operations during the monitored period.

This hypothesis relies on the assumption that the absence of evidence (no alarms, no occupancy) equates to safety. It does not account for potential blind spots where hazards could occur without triggering the specific sensors monitored (e.g., a slow leak or smoke before alarm threshold).

It assumes the temperature sensors are accurately reflecting ambient conditions and not masking a localized heat source.

Potential Unattended Cooking or Fire Risk: While no active cooking is explicitly logged, the kitchen temperature shows a steady, monotonic increase from ~23.0°C to ~25.6°C over several hours while the kitchen remains unoccupied. In a composite safety context, a sustained temperature rise in an unoccupied kitchen can indicate a left-on appliance (oven, stove, heater) or early-stage thermal event, even if it hasn't yet triggered a high-temperature alarm or smoke detector.

The kitchen temperature consistently reads higher than other rooms (e.g., at 10:00, Kitchen=25.42°C vs Living Room=25.53°C, but earlier gaps were larger; specifically, the rate of rise is persistent).

Kitchen Occupancy is strictly `unoccupied` throughout the entire period (C01-C08), meaning no human supervision is present to mitigate a potential hazard.

The lack of a sharp spike suggests a low-level, continuous heat source rather than a catastrophic failure, which aligns with 'unattended cooking' or a forgotten appliance.

The temperature rise is gradual and within normal bounds for a house warming up during the day (sunlight, HVAC cycles). It does not exceed typical comfort thresholds significantly.

No smoke, CO, or water leak alarms were triggered, which would typically accompany a serious fire risk.

The query asks for a comprehensive status, and we lack data on whether any appliances were actually turned on/off, making this speculative based solely on ambient temp.

Safety Device Monitoring Gap: The investigation focuses heavily on temperature and occupancy, but the primary safety devices (smoke_co_alarm, water_leak_detector) are listed as target devices in the query anchor and focus list, yet their logs are entirely absent from the provided chunks. This creates a critical blind spot in the safety assessment.

Supervisor Feedback explicitly notes: 'Logs for smoke_co_alarm and water_leak_detector... are missing.'

Focused Chunks (C01-C08) contain only `temp_sensor` and `occupancy` data.

Without these logs, we cannot confirm if smoke/leak detectors are operational, have battery power, or if they failed to trigger during a potential event.

Absence of logs is not proof of device failure; it may simply be that the data was not included in the current batch. However, for a 'comprehensive safety' query, this gap prevents a definitive 'safe' verdict.

Consistent `unoccupied` state in the kitchen across all time periods (C01-C08).

Steady, monotonic increase in kitchen temperature from 23.0°C to 25.6°C over 10+ hours without corresponding occupancy or manual intervention logs.

Complete absence of smoke_co_alarm and water_leak_detector logs despite them being identified as critical safety targets.

Logs for `smoke_co_alarm` and `water_leak_detector` to verify health status and check for silent alarms.

Logs for `door_lock` and `contact_sensor` to verify physical security integrity.

Contextual data on HVAC settings or external weather conditions to explain the temperature rise.

Any user-initiated commands (e.g., turning on oven/stove) to correlate with the temperature trend.

Logs for smoke_co_alarm and water_leak_detector to verify operational status and check for silent alarms.

Logs for door_lock and contact_sensor to verify physical security integrity.

Contextual data on HVAC settings or external weather conditions to explain the temperature rise.

The investigator correctly identifies a potential fire risk (A1) based on kitchen temperature trends but relies heavily on speculation due to missing critical safety device logs (smoke/leak detectors).

The 'Safety Device Monitoring Gap' (A2) is a valid concern, but the current evidence base is insufficient to confirm any hazard. The temperature rise is gradual and within normal bounds for an unoccupied house warming up, lacking the sharp spike or alarm triggers required for a definitive 'fire_risk' verdict.

The investigation has drifted slightly into debating telemetry quality rather than confirming the specific safety state requested. Without the missing chunks (C05, C12) containing the other target devices, we cannot rule out that the house is simply safe with no incidents occurring.

Marking false-alarm risk as high because the primary anomaly (unattended cooking) is inferred from ambient temp alone without corroborating sensor faults or explicit alarms, which is a weak signal in composite safety contexts.

Requesting C05 and C12 to cover the mid-morning peak and afternoon periods where other device types might be present, ensuring a comprehensive view of all target devices.

The home is in a normal, unoccupied state with no active safety hazards. All temperature sensors report values within a comfortable and safe range (22-25°C), showing typical diurnal fluctuations without sudden spikes indicative of fire or equipment failure. Occupancy sensors consistently report 'unoccupied' across all rooms, indicating no unauthorized entry or immediate human presence that would require emergency intervention.

C00, C05, and C12 logs show consistent 'unoccupied' (raw=0) status for all occupancy sensors.

Temperature readings are stable and within normal residential ranges (e.g., Kitchen: 22.61°C to 25.23°C).

No explicit alarm events (smoke, water leak, intrusion) are present in the focused chunks.

Lock state flips are 0, indicating no recent access attempts or changes.

Relies on the assumption that 'unoccupied' correctly reflects reality; if occupants are hiding or sensors are faulty, this could mask an intrusion.

Does not account for potential sensor blind spots or delayed reporting if the hazard occurred outside the sampled time windows.

Potential undetected intrusion or security breach due to persistent 'unoccupied' states despite high activity frequency signals, suggesting possible sensor tampering, bypass, or false negatives. The structured signal indicates high attribute frequency for Occupancy (336) and MeasuredValue (1152), yet all logged occupancy events are 'unoccupied'. If these frequencies represent polling or data transmission volume rather than state changes, it implies the system is actively monitoring but finding nothing. However, if 'activity' counts imply motion or interaction that isn't reflected in occupancy transitions, there is a discrepancy between expected behavior (presence) and reported state (absence).

Structured Signal shows 'occupancy_events': 336, matching the count of unoccupied reports, but 'room_activity' counts are high (e.g., living_room: 337, master_bedroom: 336).

If 'room_activity' correlates with motion or usage, the lack of corresponding 'occupied' (raw=1) transitions is anomalous.

No lock state changes or contact sensor triggers were recorded, which might be expected if someone entered through a non-monitored path or disabled sensors.

The 'room_activity' metric definition is unclear; it may simply reflect the number of log entries generated by periodic polling, not actual human movement.

All occupancy logs explicitly state 'unoccupied', so there is no direct contradiction in the text logs themselves.

Without evidence of forced entry, failed locks, or conflicting sensor data (e.g., motion detected but occupancy says empty), this remains speculative.

Latent environmental risk due to lack of real-time monitoring coverage. While temperatures are normal in the sampled chunks, the absence of smoke, CO, or water leak alarms in the provided logs does not guarantee their functionality or current state. The query asks for a comprehensive safety assessment, but the logs only provide snapshots. A device fault in a safety sensor (e.g., dead battery in smoke detector) would not be evident from temperature/occupancy logs alone.

Focused devices include 'kitchen_smoke_co_alarm' and 'kitchen_water_leak_detector', but no specific log lines for these devices appear in the focused chunks C00, C05, C12.

The triage output notes 'Absence of explicit alarm events despite presence of safety devices' as a suspected pattern.

No health/fault indicators are visible for the safety devices in the provided text.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; the devices may be functioning normally and simply not triggering because there is no hazard.

The logs provided are limited to temperature and occupancy; assuming safety device failure based on missing logs is a leap without explicit fault codes.

Consistent 'unoccupied' (raw=0) status across all rooms in C00, C05, and C12.

Stable temperature readings between 22°C and 25°C with no rapid spikes.

Zero lock state flips and no contact sensor triggers.

High 'room_activity' counts in structured signals contrasted with zero occupancy transitions.

Logs for smoke, CO, and water leak sensors to confirm their operational status.

Definition of 'room_activity' metric to determine if it represents motion/events distinct from occupancy state.

Door lock and contact sensor logs to verify physical security status.

Context on whether the home is supposed to be occupied at these times (e.g., night vs. day patterns).

No explicit alarm events (smoke, water leak, intrusion) are present in the logs.

Lock state flips are 0, indicating no unauthorized entry attempts or door operations during the monitored period.

Supervisor Feedback explicitly notes: 'Logs for smoke_co_alarm and water_leak_detector... are missing.'

Focused Chunks (C01-C08) contain only `temp_sensor` and `occupancy` data.

Logs for smoke_co_alarm and water_leak_detector to confirm operational status (battery/health) and absence of alarms.

Logs for door_lock and contact_sensor to verify physical security state.

Occupancy logs for all time periods between C00 (01:10) and C05 (06:25), and between C05 (07:35) and C12 (15:25), to detect any transient occupancy or intrusion events.

Temperature logs for the full day to identify any spikes indicative of fire or equipment failure outside the sampled windows.

The investigator correctly identifies that the provided chunks (C00, C05, C12) show normal temperature and unoccupied states.

However, the investigation is critically incomplete. The query asks for a 'comprehensive' safety assessment, but the evidence covers only ~2 hours out of a 24-hour period with large gaps.

The 'anomaly_hypotheses' in the Investigator Output are speculative and rely on undefined metrics ('room_activity') or assumptions about missing data ('absence of evidence'). This is not sufficient for a safety verdict.

Crucially, the focused devices list includes 'smoke_co_alarm', 'water_leak_detector', 'door_lock', and 'contact_sensor', but NONE of these devices appear in the provided Focused Chunks. The investigator cannot assess their status or potential faults without their logs.

The risk of false alarm is medium because concluding 'no risk' based on sparse sampling ignores potential hazards occurring during the unobserved 20+ hours.

Action: Request adjacent chunks to fill the temporal gaps and specifically request logs for the missing device types (security/safety sensors) to perform a complete audit.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 337,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "kids_room": 338,
    "kitchen": 288,
    "dining_room": 48,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 48,
    "entrance": 48
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1152,
    "Occupancy": 336
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 0,
  "occupancy_event

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "all"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor",
      "temperature_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety condition and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "kitchen_water_leak_detector",
    "entrance_door_lock",
    "entrance_contact_sensor",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_temp_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C12"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Absence of explicit alarm events despite presence of safety devices",
    "Normal temperature fluctuations without fault indicators",
    "Consistent unoccupied states indicating no immediate intrusion or fire risk"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00 provides baseline early-morning state with all sensors reporting normal values and no alarms.",
    "C05 covers mid-morning when temperatures peak; checking for any smoke/leak triggers during this period.",
    "C12 covers afternoon with consistent unoccupied states, helping confirm no security breaches or active hazards occurred during the day."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "query_intent_profile": "composite-safety"
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The home is in a standard 'unoccupied