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

Cooking activity occurred with a significant temperature spike and no confirmed kitchen occupancy, indicating potential unattended cooking risk.

Explanation: The investigator focused on C07 but missed critical context in C00 (battery alerts) and C05/C12 (additional events), leading to an incomplete safety picture as noted by the supervisor.

Explanation: In C07, the kitchen cook surface was turned ON at 12:02:30 and remained ON until 12:29:00 (approx. 27 minutes).

Explanation: During this period, the kitchen temperature rose significantly from ~25°C to ~29.3°C, confirming active heating.

Explanation: Crucially, there is no explicit 'kitchen_occupancy = occupied' log during the 12:02-12:29 window, while other rooms (living room, bedroom) show occupancy. This absence of direct supervision combined with sustained heat constitutes a potential unattended cooking hazard.

Explanation: While the stove was eventually turned off, the lack of immediate mitigation or confirmation of presence during the peak heat phase supports an anomaly classification for safety monitoring purposes.

Explanation: Sensor 'None' values are treated as telemetry noise per protocol, not device faults, so they do not invalidate the thermal evidence.

C07: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff.OnOff = on (raw=True) at 12:02:30

C07: kitchen_temp_sensor TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue peaked at 29.29 C (raw=2929) at 12:30:00

C07: Absence of kitchen_occupancy logs between 12:00 and 12:30, contrasting with living_room/bedroom occupancy

Verify if occupants were present in the kitchen via secondary means (e.g., audio, camera) to confirm if cooking was supervised.

Check C00 for smoke/CO alarm battery status to ensure alerting capability is functional.

Review C05 and C12 for any additional cooking events or lock state changes to complete the daily safety assessment.

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

Low battery alert on smoke/CO alarm (C00)

Cooking activity with potential unattended stove risk (C05, C12)

Lock state transition indicating entry/exit (C00)

Missing water leak sensor data despite presence in layout

C12: Shows continued cooking activity later in the day. Comparing C05 and C12 helps assess if the cook surface was left on or if there were interruptions, which is a key fire safety risk factor.

Normal cooking activity with temporary smoke nuisance and sensor thermal lag. The cook surface was turned on, causing a localized temperature spike in the kitchen (29°C) and triggering the smoke alarm due to cooking fumes/steam. The alarm cleared quickly, and the cook surface was turned off shortly after. The 'None' reading is a transient telemetry dropout or sensor saturation recovery, not a malfunction.

C07: Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 12:02:30.

C07: Kitchen temperature rises rapidly from ~25°C to ~29°C between 12:00 and 12:30, consistent with active cooking heat.

C07: Smoke alarm triggered (SmokeState=1) at 08:04 (earlier event) and potentially correlated with cooking later, though explicit trigger time for the second event isn't isolated, the alarm state returns to 0 at 08:14, showing it clears normally.

C07: Cook surface turned OFF at 12:29, ending the heat source.

C07: Kitchen temperature begins to drop after 12:30 (29.29°C -> 29.06°C), indicating the heat source was removed.

C07: Occupancy sensors show people present in adjacent rooms (Living Room, Bedroom) during the cooking period, suggesting supervision is likely nearby even if not directly in the kitchen.

Does not fully explain the specific 'None' value at 12:03 and 12:30 without assuming telemetry noise.

Relies on the assumption that occupants in adjacent rooms constitute adequate supervision for fire safety.

Device health is stable; the 'None' values are isolated logging artifacts. The low battery alert mentioned in triage is a false positive or historical context not reflected in current active faults. Lock states are normal transitions.

C01-C08: Temperature sensors generally report continuous data with no stuck values or impossible jumps (except the expected cooking rise).

C07: The 'None' values appear only twice in a long sequence of valid readings, suggesting a transient communication glitch rather than persistent failure.

C07: After the 'None' at 12:03, a valid reading appears at 12:05. After 'None' at 12:30, a valid reading appears at 12:30 (same minute, different timestamp or retry).

No explicit fault codes or repeated non-recovery patterns observed in the provided chunks.

Ignores the potential risk of the smoke alarm being triggered by cooking, which indicates a need for ventilation or attention.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk. The cook surface was left on for approximately 27 minutes (12:02 to 12:29) while the kitchen occupancy sensor did not register presence (or registered intermittent/unreliable data). Although other rooms were occupied, the lack of direct kitchen supervision combined with a significant temperature rise (to 29°C) and a prior smoke alarm event suggests a potential hazard where cooking was not actively monitored.

C07: Kitchen cook surface ON from 12:02:30 to 12:29:00 (duration ~26.5 mins).

C07: Kitchen temperature rose significantly to 29.29°C, indicating sustained high heat.

C07: No explicit 'kitchen_occupancy = occupied' log is seen in C07 for this period (only Living Room and Bedroom are logged as occupied). While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the lack of confirmation of someone *in* the kitchen during active heating is a risk factor.

C07: A 'None' value occurred at 12:03, immediately after turning on the stove, potentially masking initial conditions or sensor response.

C04: Previous smoke alarm activation at 08:04 shows the system is sensitive to kitchen events; the current cooking event generated similar thermal signatures.

Occupants were present in the home (Living Room/Bedroom), so 'unattended' might be too strong if they were nearby.

The smoke alarm did not trigger again during this specific cooking window (based on visible logs), suggesting the smoke level wasn't critical.

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

Sensor Malfunction / Data Integrity Issue. The kitchen temperature sensor exhibits erratic behavior including 'None' values and a rapid spike/drop pattern that may indicate sensor instability or placement issues near the heat source, compromising its reliability for safety monitoring.

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 12:03:00 and 12:30:00.

C07: Rapid temperature change from 25.93°C (12:00) to 26.57°C (12:05) to 29.29°C (12:30), then dropping back down. While plausible for cooking, the 'None' gaps break the continuity required for reliable trend analysis.

C07: The correlation between the 'None' values and the peak heat periods suggests the sensor may be struggling to report under thermal stress or interference.

Single instances of 'None' are often telemetry glitches, not hardware faults.

The sensor recovers quickly, which argues against permanent malfunction.

C07: Timeline of kitchen_cook_surface ON (12:02:30) -> OFF (12:29:00) coinciding with kitchen_temp_sensor spike to 29.29°C.

C07: Absence of explicit 'kitchen_occupancy = occupied' logs during the cooking window, contrasted with 'living_room_occupancy = occupied'.

C07: Transient 'None' values in kitchen_temp_sensor at 12:03 and 12:30.

Direct kitchen occupancy logs for the 12:00-12:30 window to confirm if anyone was actually in the kitchen.

Smoke alarm status specifically during the 12:00-12:30 window to see if it triggered again (C04 showed it clearing at 08:14, but we need to know if it re-triggered).

Water leak detector status to rule out other hazards.

Final lock state of the entrance door to confirm security posture.

C07: Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 12:02:30.

C07: Kitchen temperature rises rapidly from ~25°C to ~29°C between 12:00 and 12:30, consistent with active cooking heat.

C07: Cook surface turned OFF at 12:29, ending the heat source.

C07: Kitchen temperature begins to drop after 12:30 (29.29°C -> 29.06°C), indicating the heat source was removed.

C01-C08: Temperature sensors generally report continuous data with no stuck values or impossible jumps (except the expected cooking rise).

C07: The 'None' values appear only twice in a long sequence of valid readings, suggesting a transient communication glitch rather than persistent failure.

No explicit fault codes or repeated non-recovery patterns observed in the provided chunks.

C07: Kitchen cook surface ON from 12:02:30 to 12:29:00 (duration ~26.5 mins).

C07: Kitchen temperature rose significantly to 29.29°C, indicating sustained high heat.

C07: A 'None' value occurred at 12:03, immediately after turning on the stove, potentially masking initial conditions or sensor response.

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 12:03:00 and 12:30:00.

Verify C00 for explicit BatteryAlert or fault codes on smoke/CO alarm as suspected by triage.

Verify C05 and C12 for the second cooking event mentioned in triage to assess if it was unattended or left on longer.

Check entrance door lock state transitions in C00/C05 to confirm security posture (entry/exit) rather than assuming based on missing data.

Confirm water leak detector status in relevant chunks to rule out liquid hazards.

The investigator focused exclusively on C07 (one cooking event) and ignored the specific chunks identified by the triage team (C00, C05, C12) which contain critical context: battery alerts, additional cooking events, and lock states.

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis relies heavily on the absence of kitchen occupancy logs, while other rooms are occupied. This is a weak safety conclusion without corroborating evidence that no one was present or that the stove was left on indefinitely.

The 'sensor malfunction' hypothesis relies on transient 'None' values which recovered immediately. Per protocol, this is likely telemetry noise, not a device fault requiring high-risk labeling.

The investigation missed the 'Low battery alert' and 'Lock state transition' patterns flagged in the triage output, leading to an incomplete safety picture.

Requesting the missing chunks to validate the triage's suspicion of multiple risk factors (battery health, multiple cooking sessions, access control).

The home is in a normal operational state with standard cooking activities and routine occupancy patterns. The smoke alarm battery alert is a maintenance issue but does not indicate an active safety failure or intrusion.

Cooking sessions (C05, C12) show the cook surface turning on and off within reasonable timeframes (~40-30 minutes), consistent with meal preparation.

Occupancy sensors in the bedroom and bathroom show frequent transitions (occupied/unoccupied), indicating residents are present and moving about, rather than being absent during cooking.

Temperature readings across all rooms remain stable and within comfortable ranges (21-25°C), showing no signs of fire-induced heat spikes.

The lock state flip in C00 is isolated and likely represents a single entry/exit event, not a forced entry or malfunction.

No water leak detector alarms or smoke/CO alarms were triggered.

Relies on the assumption that occupants were supervising the cooking despite not being logged in the kitchen at the exact moment of ignition, which is common but unverified by logs.

Does not address the potential risk of the low-battery smoke alarm failing to detect a future incident.

Unattended Cooking Risk: The cook surface was activated while the primary occupants appeared to be occupied in other rooms (bedroom/bathroom) with no immediate return to the kitchen, creating a window for unattended cooking. This is compounded by a known device fault (low battery) in the primary fire detection system.

In C05, the kitchen cook surface turns ON at 09:12:39. At this time, occupancy is detected in the bedroom (09:08) and bathroom (09:08). The bathroom occupant leaves shortly after (09:13:02), but the bedroom remains occupied until at least 09:53.

There is no 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor data provided in the chunks to confirm someone entered the kitchen immediately after the stove turned on. The absence of kitchen occupancy logs during the initial heating phase suggests the user may have left the room or is not being tracked there.

In C12, the cook surface turns ON at 18:06:30. Occupancy is confirmed in the living room (18:02) and bedroom (17:58). Again, no direct evidence of a person entering the kitchen zone before the appliance activation.

C00 explicitly logs `SmokeCoAlarm.BatteryAlert = 1` at 07:54:00, meaning the primary fire detection device has reduced reliability or is non-functional.

Kitchen temperature sensors occasionally report `None` (e.g., 09:13:09, 18:07:00) right around cooking activity, which could indicate sensor obstruction or temporary failure, removing a layer of thermal monitoring.

Lacks explicit confirmation that the user *left* the kitchen; they might have been standing just outside the sensor's range or the sensor coverage is incomplete.

The cooking durations (approx. 40 mins) are not inherently dangerous if supervised, so the 'unattended' claim relies on the gap between appliance activation and verified kitchen presence.

The low battery alert is a maintenance status, not an active failure, though it increases the consequence severity of any potential fire.

Safety Device Degradation: The kitchen smoke/CO alarm is operating with a low battery, significantly reducing its ability to provide early warning in case of a fire or gas leak, especially given the unattended cooking risks identified in A1.

C00 contains the log `[2026-06-20T07:54:00] kitchen_smoke_alarm | SmokeCoAlarm.BatteryAlert = 1`.

This alert persists through the end of the observed period without a corresponding 'BatteryOK' or replacement event.

Combined with the cooking activities in C05 and C12, the lack of a fully functional smoke alarm creates a critical vulnerability.

A low battery is a known, manageable condition and not an immediate emergency unless a fire occurs.

Other safety devices (water leak, door lock) appear functional.

C00: Explicit BatteryAlert=1 on kitchen smoke alarm.

C05/C12: Cook surface ON events occurring when only Bedroom/Bathroom/Living Room occupancy is confirmed, with no Kitchen occupancy log verifying supervision.

C05/C12: Intermittent 'None' values from kitchen_temp_sensor coinciding with cooking start times.

Direct occupancy data for the kitchen itself to confirm if a person was present during cooking.

Status of the smoke alarm battery replacement (was it changed?).

Water leak detector status/logs (mentioned in focus devices but no specific alerts or data seen in chunks).

Door lock history beyond the single flip in C00 to rule out unauthorized access.

C07: Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 12:02:30.

C07: Kitchen temperature rises rapidly from ~25°C to ~29°C between 12:00 and 12:30, consistent with active cooking heat.

C07: Cook surface turned OFF at 12:29, ending the heat source.

C07: Kitchen temperature begins to drop after 12:30 (29.29°C -> 29.06°C), indicating the heat source was removed.

C01-C08: Temperature sensors generally report continuous data with no stuck values or impossible jumps (except the expected cooking rise).

C07: The 'None' values appear only twice in a long sequence of valid readings, suggesting a transient communication glitch rather than persistent failure.

No explicit fault codes or repeated non-recovery patterns observed in the provided chunks.

C07: Kitchen cook surface ON from 12:02:30 to 12:29:00 (duration ~26.5 mins).

C07: Kitchen temperature rose significantly to 29.29°C, indicating sustained high heat.

C07: A 'None' value occurred at 12:03, immediately after turning on the stove, potentially masking initial conditions or sensor response.

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 12:03:00 and 12:30:00.

C07: Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 12:02:30.

C07: Kitchen temperature rises rapidly from ~25°C to ~29°C between 12:00 and 12:30, consistent with active cooking heat.

C07: Cook surface turned OFF at 12:29, ending the heat source.

C07: Kitchen temperature begins to drop after 12:30 (29.29°C -> 29.06°C), indicating the heat source was removed.

C01-C08: Temperature sensors generally report continuous data with no stuck values or impossible jumps (except the expected cooking rise).

C07: The 'None' values appear only twice in a long sequence of valid readings, suggesting a transient communication glitch rather than persistent failure.

No explicit fault codes or repeated non-recovery patterns observed in the provided chunks.

C07: Kitchen cook surface ON from 12:02:30 to 12:29:00 (duration ~26.5 mins).

C07: Kitchen temperature rose significantly to 29.29°C, indicating sustained high heat.

C07: A 'None' value occurred at 12:03, immediately after turning on the stove, potentially masking initial conditions or sensor response.

C07: `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 12:03:00 and 12:30:00.

Verify if the 'None' values in kitchen_temp_sensor are due to sensor malfunction or simply missing logs (check adjacent timestamps for continuity).

Check for explicit smoke/CO alarm activation events during cooking periods to rule out actual fire.

Confirm door lock state transitions and final locked status to assess security risk fully.

Check water leak detector logs for any alerts or status changes.

Analyze the full timeline of occupancy to determine if 'unattended' is a valid inference or just a gap in specific room sensors.

The investigator correctly identified potential risks (low battery, unattended cooking pattern) but relies heavily on 'absence of evidence' (no kitchen occupancy log) and transient telemetry gaps ('None' values) to construct the anomaly story.

Per protocol, 'device-fault' requires direct fault evidence; the 'None' values alone are insufficient to declare a sensor malfunction without checking adjacent data for continuity or error codes.

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis is speculative because it assumes that lack of kitchen occupancy logs equals absence of people, ignoring that occupants might be present but not tracked by that specific sensor, or that the sensor coverage is limited.

Crucially, there is no evidence of an actual emergency (smoke alarm trigger, high temperature spike, fire event). The current conclusion is based on latent risk factors rather than active hazards.

To avoid a false alarm, we must verify if the 'None' readings are genuine faults or logging artifacts, and confirm the final state of all safety devices. The current chunks (C00, C05, C12) are isolated snapshots; surrounding context is needed to establish normalcy vs. anomaly.

The investigation has drifted slightly into debating telemetry quality ('None' values) which is relevant for device health but secondary to the immediate safety question unless correlated with other failures.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "kitchen": 313,
    "living_room": 482,
    "bedroom": 493,
    "bathroom": 55,
    "entrance": 3
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "Occupancy": 442,
    "OnOff": 20,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 3,
    "SmokeState": 2,
    "BatteryAlert": 1,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "LockState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 1,
  "occupancy_events": 442,
  "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": "2026-06-20T07:54:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-21T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "kitchen": 23,
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 26,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_d

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "living_room",
      "bedroom",
      "bathroom",
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "cook_surface",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "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"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_alarm",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "kitchen_water_leak_detector",
    "entrance_door_lock",
    "entrance_contact_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C12"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Low battery alert on smoke/CO alarm (C00)",
    "Cooking activity with potential unattended stove risk (C05, C12)",
    "Lock state transition indicating entry/exit (C00)",
    "Missing water leak sensor data despite presence in layout"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Contains the explicit BatteryAlert for the kitchen smoke/CO alarm, a critical safety device. Also shows early lock state flip, relevant for access security context.",
    "C05: Shows the start of cooking activity (cook_surface ON) while occupants are present in bedroom/bathroom, establishing a baseline for fire/cooking safety analysis.",
    "C12: Shows continued cooking activity later in the day. Comparing C05 and C12 helps assess if the cook surface was left on or if there were interruptions, which is a key fire


FG-03-FP: 烟雾报警器自检触发CO检测

The cook surface was left on for approximately 33 minutes with no detected kitchen occupancy or interaction, creating a potential fire hazard despite the absence of active alarms.

Explanation: Evidence from C10 shows the kitchen cook surface turned ON at 19:01:30 and remained ON until 19:34:00 (duration ~32.5 minutes).

Explanation: During this entire window, there were no interactions with other kitchen devices (lights, appliances) and no kitchen occupancy events recorded, while living room occupancy confirmed presence elsewhere in the home.

Explanation: Kitchen temperature rose steadily from ~23°C to ~27°C, consistent with heat dissipation from an active stove but lacking the exponential spike typical of a fire, suggesting the event did not escalate to immediate danger.

Explanation: Smoke/CO alarms self-tested successfully earlier (C09) and showed no alarm states during the cooking window, ruling out active combustion or gas leaks at the time of logging.

Explanation: While the outcome was safe (stove turned off, dishwasher started later), the sequence represents a significant 'unattended cooking' safety risk due to the lack of supervision over an open heat source.

C10: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff=True at 19:01:30 and Off=False at 19:34:00.

C10: No kitchen device activity or occupancy events between 19:01 and 19:34.

C10: Kitchen temp rise from 23.66C to 26.90C correlates with stove usage without triggering alarms.

C09/C10: SmokeCoAlarm states normal (no alarm) throughout the period.

Review smart home automation settings to enable automatic shut-off timers for the cook surface after a period of inactivity.

Consider installing a dedicated kitchen occupancy sensor or using microwave motion detection to better monitor kitchen presence.

Verify that the user is aware of the unattended duration and reinforce kitchen safety protocols.

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.

entrance kitchen living_room bedroom bathroom

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

Entrance security state transitions (lock/unlock events)

Occupancy patterns indicating presence/absence during lock changes

Temperature anomalies in kitchen vs other rooms

C10 shows a second lock operation event later in the day, allowing comparison of access patterns and timing relative to occupancy.

Normal evening routine with unattended cooking risk. The occupant returned home, turned on the cook surface, and likely left the kitchen for an extended period (approx. 30 minutes) while the stove remained on. The temperature rise in the kitchen is consistent with normal cooking heat dissipation, not a fire. No alarms triggered, indicating no immediate hazard escalation.

C10: Occupant returns at 18:30, turns on living room AC and lights. Kitchen light turns on at 19:01, cook surface at 19:01:30.

C10: Cook surface remains ON from 19:01:30 to 19:34 (33 minutes).

C10: Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout this period, but there are no kitchen-specific occupancy events or further kitchen device interactions after the initial turn-on.

C10/C11: Kitchen temperature rises from ~23°C to ~27°C, which is a moderate increase typical of cooking, not a rapid spike indicative of fire.

C09/C12: Smoke/CO alarm self-test completed successfully at 16:25 (C09), confirming device functionality. No COState=1 or alarm events recorded during the cooking window.

C11: Dishwasher starts at 20:09, suggesting the occupant was present and active in the house later, potentially returning to the kitchen after turning off the stove.

The hypothesis relies on the assumption that the occupant was simply cooking and left the room, rather than being incapacitated or unaware. The lack of kitchen occupancy data makes it impossible to confirm supervision status definitively.

The 33-minute duration without interaction is long for active cooking, raising the 'unattended' flag, but doesn't prove negligence or accident.

Unattended Cooking Hazard. The cook surface was activated and left on for over 30 minutes with no subsequent kitchen activity or supervision detected. While no fire occurred, this represents a significant safety risk due to the potential for boil-overs, grease fires, or forgetting the stove entirely. The absence of kitchen occupancy sensors prevents verification of supervision.

C10: No kitchen device interactions (lights, appliances, occupancy) occur between 19:01 and 19:34.

C10: Living room occupancy shows the person is in the house, but not necessarily in the kitchen. The temporal gap suggests they may have moved to another room (living room) and stayed there.

C10: Kitchen temperature steadily increases from 23.66°C (19:00) to 26.90°C (19:30) while the stove is on, correlating with the heat source.

C10: Cook surface turns OFF at 19:34, ending the hazardous window.

Supervisor Feedback: Highlights the high risk of false alarm if interpreted as fire, but confirms the 'unattended' pattern based on telemetry gaps.

No explicit evidence of danger (smoke, extreme heat, alarm) exists. The outcome was safe.

We cannot rule out that the occupant was in the kitchen but the sensor failed to detect them (though C10 shows other devices working).

Sensor Telemetry Dropout / Monitoring Gap. The kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' at 19:02 and 19:35, coinciding with the start and end of the cooking event. This creates a blind spot in monitoring the exact thermal profile during the critical phase.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:02:00 (1 minute after stove on).

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:35:00 (1 minute after stove off).

C10: Values resume immediately after (24.19°C at 19:05, 26.80°C at 19:35).

The dropouts are isolated and do not persist, making a permanent malfunction unlikely, but they obscure the peak temperature or rate of change.

Isolated 'None' values are common in IoT logs due to transmission errors or scheduling and do not constitute a persistent fault.

The surrounding data points show a coherent trend, so the dropout didn't prevent identifying the general heating pattern.

C10: Cook surface OnOff transition from False to True at 19:01:30 and back to False at 19:34:00, with zero intervening kitchen activity.

C10: Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' (raw=1) continuously from 18:30 through 19:35, confirming presence in the home but not the kitchen.

C09: SmokeCoAlarm.TestInProgress=False and SelfTestComplete() at 16:25, verifying the alarm system was functional prior to the cooking event.

C10: Kitchen temperature rise from ~23°C to ~27°C is gradual and consistent with cooking, lacking the exponential spike characteristic of a fire.

Kitchen occupancy sensor data: Direct confirmation of whether anyone was physically present in the kitchen during the 19:01-19:34 window.

Cook surface power level: Determining if the surface was on high heat (higher risk) or low simmer would better assess the severity of the unattended state.

Water leak detector status: To ensure no secondary hazards (e.g., boiling over onto electronics) were missed.

Detailed audio/video logs: To verify occupant behavior and awareness during the unattended period.

Verify water leak detector status during the cooking window (19:01-19:34) to rule out boil-over hazards.

Check for any explicit 'fire' or 'smoke' alarm events in C10/C11 that might contradict the 'normal cooking' hypothesis.

Confirm if the cook surface has a power-level attribute available in logs to assess heat intensity.

Review C05-C07 to ensure no other security breaches or anomalies occurred earlier in the day that might indicate a pattern of negligence.

The investigator correctly identified the unattended cooking pattern but relies heavily on the *absence* of kitchen occupancy data and the *presence* of living room occupancy to infer risk. This is a plausible inference but not definitive proof of hazard.

The 'sensor dropout' hypothesis (A2) is weak; isolated None values are common noise and do not constitute a device fault requiring immediate safety intervention unless they mask a critical event. The investigator correctly downplays this, but it adds unnecessary complexity.

Crucially, the investigation lacks direct evidence regarding the *outcome* of the cooking event beyond temperature rise. We need to confirm no fire/smoke alarms triggered (though C09 shows self-test, we need real-time alarm states).

Most importantly, the focused chunks provided (C04, C08-C13) skip the mid-day period (C05-C07). While the evening event is the primary focus, a comprehensive safety report should briefly verify no other incidents occurred. However, the main gap is the lack of corroborating evidence for the 'unattended' nature (e.g., did the user leave the house entirely? No, living room occupied).

The current conclusion is 'safe but risky'. To be sufficient, we need to explicitly state that no hazardous escalation (fire/gas leak) was detected via sensors. The temperature rise (23->27C) is consistent with cooking, not fire. The lack of smoke/CO alarms is key.

Refinement needed: Explicitly check C10/C11 for any `SmokeCoAlarm.AlarmState` changes. If none, the 'unattended' risk is theoretical, not actualized. Also, check if `water_leak_detector` reported anything during the dishwasher start (20:09) as a secondary check.

Normal evening routine with cooking and dishwasher usage. The kitchen temperature rise is consistent with heat generation from the cook surface, and the subsequent drop indicates normal cooling after the appliance was turned off.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 19:01:30 while living room occupancy is 'occupied' (presence detected).

C10: Kitchen temperature rises from ~23°C to a peak of 26.90°C by 19:30, correlating with active cooking.

C10: Cook surface turned off at 19:34:00.

C11: Kitchen temperature steadily declines from 26.80°C to 22.50°C between 19:40 and 21:05, indicating dissipation of heat.

C11: Dishwasher activated at 20:09, consistent with post-dinner cleanup.

Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout the evening sequence, suggesting an adult is present in the home.

The occupant is logged in the living room, not the kitchen, during the entire cooking session. While common in open-plan homes, it technically represents a lack of direct visual supervision over the heat source.

There is a telemetry gap ('None') for the kitchen temp sensor at 19:02 and 19:35, which prevents precise tracking of the initial spike and immediate post-cook state.

Morning departure and evening return pattern. The morning lock/unlock sequence reflects a resident leaving the house, followed by a secure state until the evening return.

C04: Front door unlocked manually at 07:16:17, contact opened then closed, then locked automatically at 07:16:26. This is a standard 'leave and auto-lock' behavior.

C04: All rooms show 'unoccupied' status after 07:30, consistent with an empty house during the day.

C10: Front door unlocked manually at 18:30:00, contact opened, lights turned on, and living room occupancy changed to 'occupied' at 18:30:19. This confirms a resident returning home.

Does not account for the specific risk profile of unattended cooking if the living room occupant is distracted or unaware of the kitchen activity.

Potential Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk. A heat source (cook surface) was activated in the kitchen while the only detected human presence was in the living room, with no evidence of the occupant entering the kitchen or mitigating the hazard during the high-heat period.

C10: At 19:01:30, kitchen_cook_surface turns ON.

C10: Simultaneously, living_room_occupancy is 'occupied' (raw=1), but bedroom/bathroom are 'unoccupied'. No kitchen occupancy sensor data is provided to confirm presence in the kitchen.

C10: The cook surface remains ON from 19:01:30 until 19:34:00 (approx. 33 minutes).

C10: During this entire 33-minute window, the living room occupancy remains 'occupied', but there are no events showing movement into the kitchen (e.g., kitchen light changes, kitchen occupancy changes) that would suggest active supervision.

C10: Kitchen temperature peaks at 26.90°C at 19:30, just before the cook surface is turned off, indicating sustained heat generation.

C10: A telemetry dropout occurs at 19:02:00 (immediately after turning on) and 19:35:00 (immediately after turning off), obscuring the exact start/end dynamics and potential alarm triggers.

The living room occupant may be visually supervising the kitchen if the layout is open, which is a common household configuration.

The temperature rise (to ~27°C) is moderate and does not indicate a fire or extreme overheating event; it is consistent with normal cooking.

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

C10: Temporal mismatch between cook surface activation (19:01:30) and confirmed kitchen occupancy (absent/unknown) vs. living room occupancy (present).

C10: Duration of cook surface activity (33 mins) without intervening kitchen-specific events (lights, motion) suggesting active monitoring.

C10: Kitchen temperature trajectory rising to 26.90°C during the unsupervised period.

Kitchen Occupancy Sensor Data: To definitively rule out unattended cooking, we need to know if anyone was physically present in the kitchen during the cooking window.

Smoke/CO Alarm Status: Logs mention 'smoke_co_alarm' as a target device, but C10/C11 do not show any COState or alarm events. We need to confirm if alarms were silent or non-existent.

Home Layout/Visibility: Whether the living room provides a line of sight to the kitchen stove.

Cook Surface Power Draw: Current or power level data to distinguish between low simmering and high-heat boiling/frying.

C10: Occupant returns at 18:30, turns on living room AC and lights. Kitchen light turns on at 19:01, cook surface at 19:01:30.

C10: Cook surface remains ON from 19:01:30 to 19:34 (33 minutes).

C10: No kitchen device interactions (lights, appliances, occupancy) occur between 19:01 and 19:34.

C10: Cook surface turns OFF at 19:34, ending the hazardous window.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:02:00 (1 minute after stove on).

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:35:00 (1 minute after stove off).

C10: Values resume immediately after (24.19°C at 19:05, 26.80°C at 19:35).

Smoke/CO Alarm Status: Verify if any alarms were triggered during the cooking event or if self-tests failed.

Water Leak Detector Status: Check for any water leaks in the kitchen area.

Cook Surface Power Level: Determine if the cook surface was on high heat (higher risk) vs. low simmer.

Kitchen Occupancy Verification: Confirm if there is a kitchen occupancy sensor or other proxy data (e.g., kitchen light usage patterns) to better assess supervision.

The investigator correctly identified the potential unattended cooking scenario based on the temporal mismatch between cook surface activation and living room occupancy.

However, the 'unattended cooking' hypothesis relies heavily on the absence of kitchen-specific events (like kitchen occupancy changes) and a single telemetry gap ('None') at 19:02 and 19:35. This creates a high risk of false alarm because the temperature rise (to ~27°C) is moderate and consistent with normal cooking, not a fire.

Crucially, the investigation lacks evidence regarding the Smoke/CO alarm status. If an alarm had triggered, it would be a critical piece of evidence either confirming a hazard or showing mitigation. The current logs do not show any alarm events, but we need to explicitly check C09 (pre-cooking) and C12 (post-cooking) to ensure no alarms were missed or that the device is functioning.

The conclusion that the home is 'unsafe' due to unattended cooking is speculative without corroborating evidence of hazardous escalation (smoke, high temp, alarm). The current evidence supports a 'potential risk' but not a confirmed safety breach.

Requesting C09 and C12 to cover the full context of the evening routine and verify alarm/device health.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 397,
    "bedroom": 366,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 55,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 223,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "TestInProgress": 2,
    "COState": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 223,
  "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": "2026-06-11T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-11T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroo

## 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": [
      "entrance",
      "kitchen",
      "living_room",
      "bedroom",
      "bathroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact",
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "cook_surface"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety condition and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "kitchen",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "smoke_co_alarm",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C10",
    "C11"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Entrance security state transitions (lock/unlock events)",
    "Occupancy patterns indicating presence/absence during lock changes",
    "Smoke/CO alarm self-test status",
    "Temperature anomalies in kitchen vs other rooms"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the first significant security event: front door unlock/lock sequence with contact sensor state changes, crucial for assessing entry/exit security.",
    "C10 shows a second lock operation event later in the day, allowing comparison of access patterns and timing relative to occupancy.",
    "C11 provides context on occupancy levels and temperature readings (including a higher kitchen temp) which may relate to cooking or HVAC status, relevant for general safety assessment."
  ],
  "latent_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "query_intent_pro


BA-05-FP: 邻居/亲友代为浇花/喂宠物

通过门锁合法进入（有效的临时 UserIndex），进出有完整的开锁+锁门记录

No safety anomaly detected; observed events are consistent with normal evening household activities.

Explanation: The primary hypothesis of 'unattended cooking' (A1) relies on the absence of kitchen occupancy logs during the cooking window. However, continuous living room occupancy and the lack of any smoke/CO alarms or dangerous temperature escalation (>30°C ambient) strongly suggest a resident was present nearby, making this a normal routine rather than an unattended hazard.

Explanation: The transient `None` values in the kitchen temperature sensor occurred briefly and recovered immediately, which is characteristic of standard IoT telemetry noise rather than a device fault or safety-critical failure.

Explanation: Dishwasher operation proceeded without triggering water leak detectors, indicating no leakage event occurred.

Explanation: Lock operations were deterministic (manual unlock upon entry, auto-lock upon departure/sleep), showing no signs of malfunction or intrusion.

Explanation: Given the supervisor's note that evidence for specific anomalies is weak and relies on absence-based assumptions, and the strong support for the 'Normal Evening Routine' hypothesis, the safest and most accurate conclusion is that no anomaly exists.

Kitchen cook surface active 18:51-19:30 with no alarm triggers and temperatures remaining within safe limits (max ~27°C).

Continuous living room occupancy throughout the evening suggests supervision presence despite missing kitchen occupancy logs.

Transient sensor dropout at 18:52 recovered instantly, ruling out persistent malfunction.

No water leak detector alerts during dishwasher cycle.

Continue monitoring; no immediate intervention required.

Consider verifying kitchen occupancy sensor placement if blind spots are a concern for future audits.

kitchen living_room bedroom bathroom entrance

High alarmish event count in evening chunks (C10-C13) indicating active monitoring or alerts.

Occupancy patterns showing presence in living room during evening hours.

Lock state flips observed in deterministic signals, requiring verification of access security.

Temperature trends in kitchen vs other rooms to rule out appliance overheating/fire risk.

These chunks contain the bulk of occupancy transitions and likely correlate with the lock activity and any smoke/leak alarms.

C10 shows the start of evening occupancy and high kitchen temperatures; C11-C13 show sustained occupancy and continued alerting.

Checking these chunks allows correlation between human presence, device states (locks/lights), and alarm triggers to distinguish false positives from real threats.

Normal Evening Routine with Standard Appliance Usage. The household engaged in typical evening activities: cooking dinner, running the dishwasher, and relaxing in the living room. Temperature spikes in the kitchen are consistent with cooking heat, and the subsequent drop indicates normal ventilation or cooling. Lock operations correspond to resident entry/exit and auto-lock triggers.

Kitchen temperature rose from ~24°C to ~27°C during C10 (18:15-19:40), coinciding with `kitchen_cook_surface` turning on at 18:51 and off at 19:30. This is a standard cooking profile.

Kitchen temperature returned to baseline (~22-23°C) by C11 (19:40+), indicating no sustained fire hazard.

Dishwasher activated at 19:52 (C11) with no water leak detector alarms reported.

Front door lock state transitions (unlocked at 18:01, locked at 21:56) align with occupancy changes in the entrance/living room, suggesting resident movement.

Living room occupancy remained high throughout the evening (C10-C14), indicating supervision was present in the home, even if not immediately adjacent to the kitchen.

Does not fully account for the 'monitoring gap' created by the lack of direct kitchen occupancy logs during cooking, relying on inference that residents were nearby.

Assumes the absence of smoke/CO alarm logs implies silence rather than potential device failure, though this is statistically likely.

Minor Sensor Telemetry Noise. The transient `None` values in the kitchen temperature sensor are isolated data drops common in wireless IoT devices, not indicative of malfunction or safety risk.

Kitchen temp sensor reported `None` at 18:52 and 19:31, but immediately resumed reporting valid temperatures (25.75°C and 22.85°C respectively) in subsequent timestamps.

No other sensors showed similar erratic behavior or stuck values.

The gaps were brief (<1 minute) and did not coincide with any hazardous escalation.

If the sensor failed precisely when needed (e.g., during a fire), the recovery might be too late to matter, but the data shows it recovered quickly.

Unattended Cooking Risk. The cook surface was active for approximately 39 minutes (18:51-19:30) while the kitchen occupancy sensor provided no confirmation of presence. Although living room occupancy was high, the specific lack of kitchen presence logs creates a monitoring blind spot where an unattended fire could develop without immediate detection.

`kitchen_cook_surface` turned ON at 18:51:30 and OFF at 19:30:00.

During this entire window (18:51-19:30), there are NO `kitchen_occupancy` events recorded in the logs (only bedroom, bathroom, and living room occupancy are logged).

Kitchen temperature spiked to 27.14°C at 18:30 (before cooking?) and stayed elevated, but the specific cooking event lacks direct human presence verification in the kitchen zone.

The kitchen temperature sensor went `None` at 18:52, right after cooking started, potentially obscuring early signs of overheating if the sensor was damaged by heat/smoke (though it recovered).

Living room occupancy was continuous, making it highly probable a resident was nearby and aware of the cooking.

No smoke or CO alarms triggered, and temperatures did not reach dangerous levels (>30-40°C typically associated with fire/smoke generation in ambient sensors).

The 'unattended' claim relies on the absence of a log, which may simply mean the sensor wasn't triggered or the person moved just outside its range, rather than being absent.

Potential Water Leak Hazard Mitigated. The dishwasher ran for over an hour (19:52 onwards) in the kitchen. While no leak alarm is explicitly shown in the focused chunks, the duration and location pose a risk if a leak occurred silently.

`kitchen_dishwasher` OperationalState=1 starting at 19:52:05.

Dishwasher remained active through C11 and into C12 (until at least 21:07 based on last check, likely longer).

No explicit `water_leak_detector` events are visible in the provided chunks, but their absence doesn't confirm safety if the query requires checking them.

No evidence of actual leakage (no wetness sensors triggering, no abnormal humidity/temp shifts in other rooms).

Standard appliance operation usually includes self-monitoring; lack of external alarm suggests normal function.

Absence of `kitchen_occupancy` logs during the 18:51-19:30 cooking window, contrasting with continuous `living_room_occupancy`.

Kitchen temperature spike to 27.14°C at 18:30 and sustained elevation during cooking, followed by rapid cooldown.

Transient `None` value in kitchen temp sensor at 18:52, immediately following cook surface activation.

Lock state flip at 21:56 (Auto Lock) coinciding with bedroom occupancy change, confirming security system functionality.

Explicit status logs for `smoke_co_alarm` and `water_leak_detector` devices to definitively rule out silent alarms.

Detailed `kitchen_occupancy` raw data to confirm if the sensor was simply inactive or if the area was truly unoccupied.

Post-cooking ventilation status (e.g., range hood activity) to explain the temperature drop.

Explicit smoke/CO alarm status logs for the entire evening period to rule out silent failures or unreported alarms.

Water leak detector logs during and after dishwasher operation (C11-C12) to confirm no leakage occurred.

Kitchen occupancy sensor raw data or presence confirmation during the cooking window (18:51-19:30) to verify if 'unattended' is a true absence or a sensor blind spot.

Range hood or ventilation device status to explain the temperature drop post-cooking.

The investigator correctly identified the key events (cooking, lock operations) but relies heavily on the *absence* of kitchen occupancy logs to construct an 'unattended cooking' risk hypothesis. This is a weak evidence base given that living room occupancy was continuous, suggesting presence nearby.

The 'sensor malfunction' hypothesis regarding transient `None` values is dismissed too quickly as 'noise' without checking if these gaps correlate with specific fault codes or repeated patterns in other chunks. However, since they recovered immediately, it's likely not a critical fault.

Crucially, the investigation lacks explicit logs for safety-critical devices: smoke/CO alarms and water leak detectors. The query asks for a comprehensive safety assessment; concluding safety based on inference rather than direct device status for these high-risk items is insufficient.

The focused chunks (C10-C13) cover the evening, but the pre-evening context (C05-C07) is missing, which might show baseline states or earlier anomalies. More importantly, the lack of explicit alarm logs means we cannot definitively rule out a fire or leak event that didn't trigger visible alerts in the provided snippets (or where the alert logs are simply not shown).

False alarm risk is high because the primary 'risk' (unattended cooking) is inferred from missing data rather than positive hazard indicators (smoke, high temp escalation, alarm triggers).

Normal evening household routine with standard appliance usage and occupancy patterns.

Living room occupancy is consistently 'occupied' (raw=1) throughout the evening chunks (C10-C13), indicating presence.

Kitchen cook surface turns on at 18:51:30 and off at 19:30:00, a duration of ~39 minutes, which is typical for cooking dinner.

Kitchen temperature rises from ~25.77 C to a peak of 27.14 C during cooking, then drops back to baseline (~22-23 C) after the cook surface is turned off, showing no sustained overheating.

Dishwasher starts at 19:52:05, consistent with post-dinner cleanup.

Front door locks automatically at 21:56:32 via `LockOperationType=Auto`, suggesting a configured security routine or user action that triggered auto-lock.

Bedroom occupancy transitions are normal (unoccupied/occupied) corresponding to likely movement between rooms or sleep preparation.

Does not fully account for the brief telemetry dropout of the kitchen temp sensor at 18:52:00, though this could be transient network noise.

Relies on the assumption that the 39-minute cooking window was supervised, which is plausible but not explicitly confirmed by continuous kitchen occupancy logs (kitchen occupancy sensors are not present in the focused list, only inferred from activity).

Automated home security system functioning correctly with scheduled locking.

The front door lock state transition to 'locked' at 21:56:32 is accompanied by an explicit event `LockOperation(LockOperationType=Auto, OperationSource=Auto)`.

This indicates a deterministic, programmed behavior rather than a manual struggle or malfunction.

No contradictory contact sensor states (e.g., door open while locked) are observed immediately before or after the lock event.

If the auto-lock was intended to happen later or under different conditions, this might represent a configuration error, but it is not inherently unsafe.

Potential unattended cooking risk due to lack of direct kitchen occupancy verification during heat generation.

Kitchen cook surface is active from 18:51:30 to 19:30:00.

There are NO `kitchen_occupancy` sensor logs in the provided chunks; occupancy is only tracked in living_room, bedroom, bathroom, and entrance.

While living room occupancy is high, implying someone is in the house, there is no direct evidence that a person remained in the kitchen during the entire 39-minute heating period.

Kitchen temperature sensor reports `None` at 18:52:00 (immediately after cook surface turns on), which could indicate sensor failure or obstruction, removing a key safety monitoring layer during the hazard window.

Temperature peaks at 27.14 C (18:25) *before* the cook surface turns on (18:51), suggesting the rise during cooking (to ~25.75 C at 18:55) is modest, but the absence of real-time monitoring during the active phase leaves a gap in safety verification.

The temperature drop after cooking suggests no fire occurred, but does not prove supervision.

Living room proximity makes it highly probable the occupant was nearby, reducing the likelihood of true 'unattended' risk compared to a detached garage scenario.

The `None` reading is isolated and recovers, making it less likely to be a permanent blind spot.

Possible intrusion or unauthorized access attempt masked as auto-lock.

At 21:56:31, `front_door_contact` becomes `true` (door opened/unlatched).

Immediately at 21:56:32, `front_door_lock` executes an Auto Lock operation and sets state to `locked`.

If the door was opened by an intruder who left quickly, the auto-lock would secure the entry point, potentially hiding the breach.

However, `living_room_occupancy` remains `occupied` (raw=1) continuously, making a successful stealthy entry and exit without triggering other motion/occupancy anomalies less likely unless the intruder stayed hidden in the living room (which contradicts the 'exit' narrative) or entered through another means.

The most likely explanation is a resident entering or exiting, or the door being ajar triggering the contact sensor and subsequent auto-lock.

No other signs of struggle, forced entry, or persistent unlocked states are present.

Occupancy in the living room suggests the home was not empty, reducing the value of a silent break-in.

Absence of kitchen_occupancy sensor data during the active cooking window (18:51-19:30) prevents confirming supervision.

Transient `None` value for kitchen_temp_sensor at 18:52:00 coincides exactly with the start of cook surface activation, creating a monitoring gap.

Automatic lock event at 21:56:32 following a contact sensor trigger requires interpretation of intent (resident vs. intruder vs. draft).

Direct kitchen occupancy sensor logs to verify if a person was present in the kitchen during cooking.

Smoke or CO alarm status/logs to rule out combustion events during the cooking period.

History of front door contact sensor triggers prior to 21:56 to determine if the door was frequently left ajar or if this was an isolated event.

Confirmation of whether the 'Auto' lock source was triggered by a timer, a geofence, or a specific app command.

Living room occupancy is consistently 'occupied' (raw=1) throughout the evening chunks (C10-C13), indicating presence.

Kitchen cook surface turns on at 18:51:30 and off at 19:30:00, a duration of ~39 minutes, which is typical for cooking dinner.

Dishwasher starts at 19:52:05, consistent with post-dinner cleanup.

Bedroom occupancy transitions are normal (unoccupied/occupied) corresponding to likely movement between rooms or sleep preparation.

This indicates a deterministic, programmed behavior rather than a manual struggle or malfunction.

No contradictory contact sensor states (e.g., door open while locked) are observed immediately before or after the lock event.

Kitchen cook surface is active from 18:51:30 to 19:30:00.

There are NO `kitchen_occupancy` sensor logs in the provided chunks; occupancy is only tracked in living_room, bedroom, bathroom, and entrance.

At 21:56:31, `front_door_contact` becomes `true` (door opened/unlatched).

Immediately at 21:56:32, `front_door_lock` executes an Auto Lock operation and sets state to `locked`.

If the door was opened by an intruder who left quickly, the auto-lock would secure the entry point, potentially hiding the breach.

Kitchen temperature returned to baseline (~22-23°C) by C11 (19:40+), indicating no sustained fire hazard.

Dishwasher activated at 19:52 (C11) with no water leak detector alarms reported.

Assumes the absence of smoke/CO alarm logs implies silence rather than potential device failure, though this is statistically likely.

No other sensors showed similar erratic behavior or stuck values.

The gaps were brief (<1 minute) and did not coincide with any hazardous escalation.

`kitchen_cook_surface` turned ON at 18:51:30 and OFF at 19:30:00.

Living room occupancy was continuous, making it highly probable a resident was nearby and aware of the cooking.

`kitchen_dishwasher` OperationalState=1 starting at 19:52:05.

Dishwasher remained active through C11 and into C12 (until at least 21:07 based on last check, likely longer).

No evidence of actual leakage (no wetness sensors triggering, no abnormal humidity/temp shifts in other rooms).

Standard appliance operation usually includes self-monitoring; lack of external alarm suggests normal function.

Verify smoke/CO alarm status during and after the cooking window (C10) to rule out fire/smoke events.

Check for water leak detector activity in the kitchen during the dishwasher operation (C11).

Analyze C09 to establish pre-cooking baseline and check for any prior door lock anomalies or intrusion attempts.

Analyze C14 to confirm post-evening security state and ensure no delayed alarms or device faults occurred after the focus period.

Correlate front door contact sensor history with auto-lock triggers to distinguish between resident entry/exit and potential forced entry.

The investigator correctly identified the key safety-relevant chunks (C10-C13) but failed to include adjacent context chunks (C09, C14) which are critical for establishing baselines and confirming post-event resolution.

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis relies heavily on the absence of a kitchen occupancy sensor log. While this is a valid gap, the conclusion that it constitutes a specific risk without corroborating evidence (like smoke alarms triggering or temperature spikes exceeding safe thresholds) is speculative. The temperature data shows a normal rise and fall, not a fire hazard.

The 'intrusion' hypothesis regarding the auto-lock is weak; the sequence (contact open -> auto lock) is consistent with a resident entering/exiting or a draft closing the door, especially given continuous living room occupancy. Treating this as a primary security threat without further evidence is a high false-alarm risk.

Crucially, the investigation ignores other target devices listed in the query anchor: smoke_co_alarm and water_leak_detector. A comprehensive safety report must address these explicitly, even if only to state they were silent/inactive.

The transient `None` value in the kitchen temp sensor is noted but dismissed too quickly; while likely noise, it contributes to the monitoring gap argument. However, without subsequent hazardous escalation, it does not constitute a fault or emergency.

Recommendation: Request C09 and C14 to close the temporal loop. Explicitly check smoke/leak logs. Downgrade the severity of the unattended cooking and intrusion hypotheses unless new evidence emerges.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 403,
    "bedroom": 354,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 53,
    "entrance": 17
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 220,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 6,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 220,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-03T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-03T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [
      "li

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "living_room",
      "bedroom",
      "bathroom",
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor",
      "temperature_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "living_room",
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "front_door_lock",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C10",
    "C11",
    "C12",
    "C13"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "High alarmish event count in evening chunks (C10-C13) indicating active monitoring or alerts.",
    "Occupancy patterns showing presence in living room during evening hours.",
    "Lock state flips observed in deterministic signals, requiring verification of access security.",
    "Temperature trends in kitchen vs other rooms to rule out appliance overheating/fire risk."
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C10-C13 cover the evening period (18:15-23:55) where 'alarmish_count' is highest (23-27), suggesting this is the critical window for safety events.",
    "These chunks contain the bulk of occupancy transitions and likely correlate with the lock activity and any smoke/leak alarms.",
    "C10 shows the start of evening occupancy and high kitchen temperatures; C11-C13 show sustained


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

The cooktop was left active for approximately 34 minutes while the only detected occupant remained in the living room, creating a potential unattended cooking fire risk.

Explanation: 1. **Event Identification**: Logs in C10 show the kitchen cook surface turned ON at 19:00:30 and OFF at 19:34:00. During this interval, the kitchen temperature rose significantly from ~23°C to ~27°C, confirming active heating.

Explanation: 2. **Occupancy Analysis**: The living room occupancy sensor reports 'occupied' continuously from 18:25 onwards (C10-C13). However, there is no evidence of any motion or occupancy events in the kitchen during the 19:00-19:34 window. The bathroom and bedroom sensors report 'unoccupied'.

Explanation: 3. **Risk Assessment**: While the house was not empty (reducing the severity compared to an unattended appliance in an empty home), the lack of presence in the immediate hazard zone (kitchen) combined with the duration of the heat source constitutes a potential 'unattended cooking' scenario. The user may have been distracted or unaware of the stove's status.

Explanation: 4. **Supervisor Constraints & Refutation**: The supervisor noted missing water leak/smoke alarm data and suggested the investigation was incomplete. However, per the rules for composite-safety, we must assess the concrete hazardous sequence present. The absence of smoke/CO alarms suggests no fire occurred, but it does not negate the unsafe behavior of leaving a heat source on without direct supervision. The 'sensor malfunction' hypothesis (A2) is weak because the sensor recovered and provided valid readings before and after, consistent with environmental saturation rather than hardware failure.

Explanation: 5. **Conclusion**: The sequence represents a plausible safety anomaly (unattended cooking) based on the divergence between the active appliance and the location of the human occupant.

C10: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff = on at 19:00:30; Off at 19:34:00.

C10/C11: Kitchen temperature spike to 26.91 C concurrent with cook surface activity.

C10-C13: Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout, with no corresponding kitchen occupancy/motion events during the cooking window.

Verify if the user was aware the cooktop was on.

Check for any missed motion events in the kitchen due to sensor blind spots.

Ensure smoke/CO detectors are functional given the high heat event.

Unlocked door with entry activity (potential security risk)

Kitchen temperature anomaly vs other rooms (potential appliance hazard or sensor error)

Occupancy patterns indicating presence during evening hours

C04 provides context for earlier morning activity and bathroom occupancy, helping to establish baseline behavior and rule out false alarms or missed events in the early part of the day.

Normal evening routine with transient sensor saturation during cooking. The kitchen temperature spike and subsequent `None` reading are caused by the cooktop heating the local environment beyond the sensor's immediate response range or causing temporary network congestion, followed by normal cooling after the appliance was turned off.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 19:00:30. Temperature rose from 23.60 C to 26.91 C by 19:30.

C10: A single `None` reading occurred at 19:01:00 (immediately after turning on) and recovered to 24.22 C at 19:05:00.

C10: Cook surface turned off at 19:34:00.

C11: Post-cooking temperatures show a steady decline from 26.74 C (19:40) to 22.53 C (21:05), indicating no sustained heat source.

C10/C11: Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' throughout the event, suggesting human presence in the home, even if not strictly in the kitchen.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered (inferred from absence of such events in logs).

Does not fully explain why the sensor dropped to `None` twice (once briefly, once longer) without explicit fault codes.

Relies on the assumption that 'living room occupied' equates to adequate supervision of the kitchen hazard.

Secure home with standard lock behavior. The front door was unlocked manually for entry/exit and auto-locked subsequently, consistent with normal user habits.

C04: Door unlocked manually at 07:25:19, then auto-locked at 07:25:28 (3 seconds later).

C10: Door unlocked manually at 18:25:00, entrance light turned on, living room occupancy became occupied.

C12: Door auto-locked at 21:49:37 after lights were turned off, consistent with end-of-day routine.

Lock state transitions are logical (Unlocked -> Locked) with no contradictory contact states.

The gap between manual unlock (18:25) and auto-lock (21:49) is long (~3.5 hours), but this is explained by continuous living room occupancy.

Unattended Cooking Risk / Potential Fire Hazard. The cooktop was left active for ~34 minutes while the only detected occupant was in the living room, potentially far from the kitchen. The temperature spike to nearly 27°C in the kitchen (vs ~22°C elsewhere) combined with telemetry dropouts suggests a hazardous thermal event that was mitigated only by the user eventually turning it off, rather than automatic safety systems.

C10: Cook surface ON at 19:00:30. Kitchen temp rises sharply to 26.91 C by 19:30.

C10: Kitchen temp sensor reports `None` at 19:35:00, shortly after the peak, indicating potential sensor overload or data loss during high-heat stress.

C10: Cook surface turns OFF at 19:34:00, ending the heating phase.

C10/C11: Living room occupancy is 'occupied' continuously, but there is no evidence of movement *into* the kitchen or specific kitchen interaction during the 19:00-19:34 window other than the initial turn-on.

C10: No smoke/CO alarm events recorded, implying no fire was detected or alarms are missing/not logged.

Living room occupancy confirms someone was home, reducing the 'unattended' severity compared to an empty house.

The event resolved itself when the user turned off the stove; no actual fire or damage occurred.

Temperature rise, while notable, is within plausible bounds for active cooking in a small space.

Sensor Malfunction / Data Integrity Issue. The kitchen temperature sensor exhibited erratic behavior (`None` values) during the cooking event, which may indicate hardware failure or environmental interference, compromising the reliability of safety monitoring in that zone.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:01:00.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:35:00.

C10: Rapid temperature fluctuation from 23.60 C to 26.91 C in 30 minutes, followed by a dropout.

Recovery occurs, but the intermittent `None` values suggest instability.

The sensor recovered and provided valid readings before and after the event.

The `None` values correlate perfectly with high heat/activity, suggesting environmental cause (saturation) rather than pure device fault.

C10: Cook surface ON (19:00:30) vs OFF (19:34:00) timeline.

C10: Kitchen temperature spike (23.60 C -> 26.91 C) concurrent with cook surface activity.

C10: Kitchen sensor `None` readings at 19:01:00 and 19:35:00.

C10/C11: Continuous 'occupied' status in Living Room but lack of specific Kitchen occupancy/motion events during the cooking window.

Kitchen motion sensor or specific kitchen occupancy data to confirm if anyone entered the kitchen during the cooking period.

Smoke/CO alarm logs to definitively rule out fire/gas detection.

Water leak detector status to rule out concurrent plumbing issues (as requested by supervisor).

Detailed camera footage or audio logs to verify if the person in the living room was aware of the kitchen activity.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 19:00:30. Temperature rose from 23.60 C to 26.91 C by 19:30.

C10: A single `None` reading occurred at 19:01:00 (immediately after turning on) and recovered to 24.22 C at 19:05:00.

C10: Cook surface turned off at 19:34:00.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered (inferred from absence of such events in logs).

C04: Door unlocked manually at 07:25:19, then auto-locked at 07:25:28 (3 seconds later).

C10: Door unlocked manually at 18:25:00, entrance light turned on, living room occupancy became occupied.

C12: Door auto-locked at 21:49:37 after lights were turned off, consistent with end-of-day routine.

Lock state transitions are logical (Unlocked -> Locked) with no contradictory contact states.

C10: Cook surface ON at 19:00:30. Kitchen temp rises sharply to 26.91 C by 19:30.

C10: Cook surface turns OFF at 19:34:00, ending the heating phase.

C10: No smoke/CO alarm events recorded, implying no fire was detected or alarms are missing/not logged.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:01:00.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:35:00.

C10: Rapid temperature fluctuation from 23.60 C to 26.91 C in 30 minutes, followed by a dropout.

Recovery occurs, but the intermittent `None` values suggest instability.

Water leak detector status (explicitly requested in query target devices and missing from analysis)

Smoke/CO alarm logs (to definitively rule out fire/gas detection)

Kitchen motion sensor data (to verify if anyone was actually in the kitchen during cooking)

Contextual chunks C05-C07 to bridge the gap between afternoon idle state and evening activity

Protocol Misunderstanding Risk: The investigator correctly interprets Matter-scaled temperatures but relies heavily on 'None' values as evidence of sensor malfunction or hazard. Per protocol, a single transient dropout without explicit fault codes or repeated non-recovery is insufficient for a 'device-fault' label and creates high false-alarm risk.

Missing Critical Evidence: The query explicitly lists 'water_leak_detector' and 'smoke_co_alarm' as target devices. The investigation completely ignores water leak status and infers smoke alarm status by absence of events (which is weak). This is a significant gap for a 'composite-safety' assessment.

Task Drift: The analysis focuses excessively on debating whether the temperature spike indicates a 'sensor malfunction' vs 'cooking'. While relevant, it misses the broader safety context required by the query, specifically the lack of water/fire safety verification.

Chunk Gap: The investigation jumps from C04 (morning) to C10 (evening). Chunks C05, C06, and C07 are missing. These likely contain the transition period where the house went unoccupied or where other appliances (like the dishwasher mentioned in C11) might have been active or where leaks could have occurred. Without these, the 'unattended cooking' hypothesis lacks full temporal grounding.

False Alarm Risk: High. The 'unattended cooking' risk is speculative because we don't know if someone was in the kitchen (no motion sensor data provided in chunks). The 'sensor malfunction' risk is high because it's based on one transient `None` value that recovered immediately.

Normal evening routine with cooking and cleanup. The kitchen temperature rise is caused by the active cooktop, and the subsequent drop indicates the appliance was turned off and the room cooled down normally.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 19:00:30.

C10: Kitchen temperature rose from ~23°C to a peak of 26.91°C between 19:00 and 19:30.

C10: Cook surface turned off at 19:34:00.

C11: Kitchen temperature steadily declined from 26.74°C to 22.53°C by 21:05, consistent with cooling after heat source removal.

C11: Dishwasher started at 20:02, consistent with post-dinner cleanup.

Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' throughout the evening (C10-C11), indicating supervision.

Does not fully account for the brief telemetry dropout (`None`) at 19:01:00 and 19:35:00 in the kitchen sensor, though this could be transient network issues or sensor saturation.

Morning entry was authorized and secure. The door was unlocked manually, opened, and then automatically locked shortly after, which is standard behavior for smart locks with auto-lock features.

C04: LockOperation event at 07:25:19 shows Manual unlock.

C04: Door contact opened (false) then closed (true).

C04: LockOperation event at 07:25:28 shows Auto lock, securing the home within 9 seconds.

No signs of forced entry or repeated failed attempts.

The short interval might be considered risky if the user forgot to lock it, but the auto-lock mitigates this.

Potential unattended cooking or sensor malfunction due to rapid temperature spike and data loss. The kitchen temperature spiked significantly while the cooktop was on, followed by a `None` reading, which could indicate the sensor was damaged by heat or the device failed during a high-heat event.

C10: Cook surface turned ON at 19:00:30.

C10: At 19:01:00 (30 seconds later), kitchen_temp_sensor reports `None`, suggesting immediate sensor failure or saturation.

C10: When reporting resumes at 19:05:00, temp is 24.22°C, but continues to climb rapidly to 26.91°C by 19:30.

C10: Cook surface remains ON until 19:34:00, meaning the heat source was active for over 30 minutes without a corresponding temperature log for the first 30+ minutes.

C10: Kitchen window contact opens (state false) at 19:34:30, just after the cooktop turns off, potentially as a mitigation step or reaction to heat/smoke.

Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' throughout, suggesting someone was present in the house, reducing the 'unattended' risk compared to an empty home.

The temperature eventually dropped, indicating no catastrophic fire occurred.

The `None` reading could simply be a transient communication error rather than physical damage.

Sensor drift or calibration error in the kitchen temperature sensor. The kitchen temperatures are consistently higher than other rooms even when the cooktop is off (e.g., C11 20:00-21:05), and the initial spike might be exaggerated.

C11: From 20:00 to 21:05, with no active heat sources mentioned, kitchen temp hovers around 22.5-22.6°C, while living room is ~22.6°C and bedroom ~21.5°C. This gap is smaller than the cooking period but still distinct.

C10: During cooking, the temp jumped from 23.60 to 24.22 in 5 mins, then continued rising. If the sensor is near the heat source, this is expected, but the `None` gap makes verification impossible.

The magnitude of the rise during cooking (approx 3-4 degrees above baseline) is plausible for a kitchen with an active stove.

C10: kitchen_cook_surface OnOff=on at 19:00:30 followed immediately by kitchen_temp_sensor MeasuredValue=None at 19:01:00.

C10: Sustained high kitchen temperatures (up to 26.91°C) while cook surface was ON, contrasting with stable lower temps in other rooms.

C10: Kitchen window contact state change to 'false' (open) at 19:34:30, coinciding with cook surface turn-off.

Smoke or CO alarm status/logs during the 19:00-19:35 window to confirm absence of fire/gas.

Water leak detector status to rule out any concurrent plumbing issues.

Confirmation of whether the 'occupied' status in the living room implies direct supervision of the kitchen area.

Raw diagnostic logs for the kitchen temperature sensor to explain the `None` values.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 19:00:30.

C10: Kitchen temperature rose from ~23°C to a peak of 26.91°C between 19:00 and 19:30.

C10: Cook surface turned off at 19:34:00.

C11: Dishwasher started at 20:02, consistent with post-dinner cleanup.

Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' throughout the evening (C10-C11), indicating supervision.

C04: LockOperation event at 07:25:19 shows Manual unlock.

C04: Door contact opened (false) then closed (true).

C04: LockOperation event at 07:25:28 shows Auto lock, securing the home within 9 seconds.

No signs of forced entry or repeated failed attempts.

C10: Cook surface turned ON at 19:00:30.

C10: At 19:01:00 (30 seconds later), kitchen_temp_sensor reports `None`, suggesting immediate sensor failure or saturation.

C10: When reporting resumes at 19:05:00, temp is 24.22°C, but continues to climb rapidly to 26.91°C by 19:30.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 19:00:30. Temperature rose from 23.60 C to 26.91 C by 19:30.

C10: A single `None` reading occurred at 19:01:00 (immediately after turning on) and recovered to 24.22 C at 19:05:00.

C10: Cook surface turned off at 19:34:00.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered (inferred from absence of such events in logs).

C04: Door unlocked manually at 07:25:19, then auto-locked at 07:25:28 (3 seconds later).

C10: Door unlocked manually at 18:25:00, entrance light turned on, living room occupancy became occupied.

C12: Door auto-locked at 21:49:37 after lights were turned off, consistent with end-of-day routine.

Lock state transitions are logical (Unlocked -> Locked) with no contradictory contact states.

C10: Cook surface ON at 19:00:30. Kitchen temp rises sharply to 26.91 C by 19:30.

C10: Cook surface turns OFF at 19:34:00, ending the heating phase.

C10: No smoke/CO alarm events recorded, implying no fire was detected or alarms are missing/not logged.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:01:00.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:35:00.

C10: Rapid temperature fluctuation from 23.60 C to 26.91 C in 30 minutes, followed by a dropout.

Recovery occurs, but the intermittent `None` values suggest instability.

C10: Kitchen cook surface turned on at 19:00:30. Temperature rose from 23.60 C to 26.91 C by 19:30.

C10: A single `None` reading occurred at 19:01:00 (immediately after turning on) and recovered to 24.22 C at 19:05:00.

C10: Cook surface turned off at 19:34:00.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered (inferred from absence of such events in logs).

C04: Door unlocked manually at 07:25:19, then auto-locked at 07:25:28 (3 seconds later).

C10: Door unlocked manually at 18:25:00, entrance light turned on, living room occupancy became occupied.

C12: Door auto-locked at 21:49:37 after lights were turned off, consistent with end-of-day routine.

Lock state transitions are logical (Unlocked -> Locked) with no contradictory contact states.

C10: Cook surface ON at 19:00:30. Kitchen temp rises sharply to 26.91 C by 19:30.

C10: Cook surface turns OFF at 19:34:00, ending the heating phase.

C10: No smoke/CO alarm events recorded, implying no fire was detected or alarms are missing/not logged.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:01:00.

C10: `kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None` at 19:35:00.

C10: Rapid temperature fluctuation from 23.60 C to 26.91 C in 30 minutes, followed by a dropout.

Recovery occurs, but the intermittent `None` values suggest instability.

Smoke/CO alarm status during the cooking event (C10) to rule out fire/gas.

Water leak detector status to rule out concurrent plumbing issues.

Verification of 'unattended' risk: Confirm if living room occupancy implies supervision of the kitchen or if there is a gap in human presence.

Check for explicit fault/alarm events from the cooktop or sensors, rather than inferring malfunction solely from telemetry gaps.

The investigator correctly identified the key temporal window (C10) and the temperature anomaly. However, the conclusion relies heavily on the assumption that a `None` telemetry value combined with high temperatures constitutes a 'fire risk' or 'sensor damage' without corroborating evidence from safety devices (smoke/CO alarms).

Per protocol, a device-fault or safety-emergency conclusion requires direct fault evidence (alarms, explicit faults) or impossible state transitions. The current evidence shows a transient data dropout (`None`) which recovered, and no alarms were triggered. This pattern is more consistent with transient network/sensor saturation than catastrophic failure or unattended fire, especially given the subsequent cooling trend.

The investigation lacks the critical context of whether the home was actually supervised during the cooking event (beyond generic 'living room occupied') and whether safety systems activated. Without smoke/CO logs, labeling this as a potential fire risk is speculative and carries a high false-alarm risk.

Request C09 (pre-cooking context) and C12 (post-event recovery/diagnostics) to verify sensor health and check for any missed alarm events or extended downtime.

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 398,
    "bedroom": 358,
    "kitchen": 300,
    "bathroom": 58,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 224,
    "OnOff": 20,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 224,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

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

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance",
      "kitchen",
      "living_room",
      "bedroom",
      "bathroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "cook_surface",
      "dishwasher",
      "air_conditioner"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the home's current safety condition and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance",
    "kitchen",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "living_room_ac"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C10",
    "C11",
    "C04"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Unlocked door with entry activity (potential security risk)",
    "Kitchen temperature anomaly vs other rooms (potential appliance hazard or sensor error)",
    "Occupancy patterns indicating presence during evening hours"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C10 captures the critical event of the front door being unlocked and opened, along with entry into the living room, which is a primary security concern.",
    "C11 shows the subsequent state of the kitchen temperature (26.74 C) which is significantly higher than other rooms, potentially indicating an active cooktop or heating issue, requiring safety assessment.",
    "C04 provides context for earlier morning activity and bathroom occupancy, helping to establish baseline behavior and rule out false alarms or missed events in the early part o