CH-04-FP: 家长在玄关操作门锁

厨房温度传感器两次报告None是瞬时通信异常，灶具短时使用且无人时已关闭，家庭安全状况正常。

Explanation: 厨房温度传感器在C06的07:11:05和07:21:00两次报告None，但其前后时刻（07:15、07:20、07:25等）均正常报告25.06-25.30°C的数值，且C05和C07中传感器持续正常，表明这是间歇性瞬时故障而非设备故障。

Explanation: 灶具从07:10:35开启到07:20:00关闭，运行时间仅约9.5分钟，属于低风险烹饪场景，且厨房温度传感器在灶具运行期间恢复后温度读数无异常升高（最高25.30°C），无过热迹象。

Explanation: 厨房烟雾/CO报警器数据缺失（无法确认存在或触发），但无任何火灾报警、异常温度尖峰或烟雾/CO触发记录，不支持无人值守烹饪导致危险的假设。

Explanation: 前门07:14:35手动解锁后8秒内关闭并自动上锁的序列完整、时序合理，符合家庭成员短暂外出或扔垃圾的正常行为，且家人随即通过入口传感器显示返回，不支持入侵假设。

Explanation: 厨房窗户在灶具关闭后开启（07:20:30）是烹饪后正常通风的行为，与无人值守风险假设矛盾，更支持正常活动解释。

Explanation: 全家灯光、门锁关闭和离家行为（07:14-07:14:46）发生在灶具关闭前，但灶具在07:20:00关闭时入口Occupancy显示有人（07:19:38），说明灶具关闭时人员在场，消除了无人值守的重大安全隐患。

厨房温度传感器在C06中两次None值后立即恢复正常，且C05和C07无异常 灶具运行时间短（9.5分钟），温度无异常升高 灶具关闭时入口Occupancy显示有人（07:19:38），前门解锁序列正常 厨房窗户在灶具关闭后开启用于通风 无任何烟雾/CO报警器触发记录

检查厨房烟雾/CO报警器是否存在并定期维护 监控厨房温度传感器的通信稳定性，若重复出现None值则需排查传感器或网络问题 考虑在厨房安装Occupancy传感器以更清晰地监测人员活动

传感器数据丢失 灶具在无人时开启 温度整体缓慢上升但无报警

厨房传感器异常需要结合烟雾报警器、漏水传感器等其他设备状态综合判断是否真实存在风险。

其他chunk的温度变化平稳，没有异常波动或故障证据，因此初步聚焦C06即可评估核心问题。

传感器数据丢失 灶具在无人时开启 温度整体缓慢上升但无报警

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "正常早晨家庭活动：家庭成员在早上6:20至8:35期间起床，使用厨房准备早餐，然后离开家。厨房温度传感器的两个None值是瞬时通信故障，传感器随后恢复正常。",
      "evidence": [
        "C05中厨房温度传感器在06:20到07:10之间正常报告24.87-25.12°C的数值，且与其他房间温度一致",
        "C06中厨房温度传感器在07:11:05和07:21:00两次报告None后，在07:15、07:20、07:25等后续时间点恢复正常报告25.06-25.30°C",
        "C07中厨房温度传感器从07:50到08:35持续正常报告数值，无故障迹象",
        "灶具于07:10:35开启，07:20:00关闭，使用时长约9.5分钟，符合短暂烹饪场景",
        "厨房灯开启30秒后关闭（07:10:05开，07:14:10关），窗户在07:20:30开启（通风），之后全家多处灯和门锁在07:14-07:14:46被操作，显示有人准备离家",
        "C07中家庭成员持续出现在多个房间（主卧室、儿童房、入口），活动正常"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "厨房温度传感器在灶具开启时出现两个None值，虽然短暂但时机可疑",
        "厨房烟雾/CO报警器数据缺失，无法确认烹饪过程安全",
        "灶具从开启到关闭期间（07:10-07:20）无直接人员在场证据（厨房无Occupancy传感器）"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "燃气灶无人值守风险：烹饪期间厨房无人，温度传感器两次故障/中断，可能掩盖危险状况，事后窗户被开启可能是为排出烟雾或异常气味。",
      "threat_type": "unattended_cooking",
      "evidence": [
        "灶具07:10:35开启时，厨房无Occupancy传感器，但其他房间活动显示有人在主卧室和儿童房，厨房可能无人",
        "灶具开启期间（07:10:35到07:20:00），厨房温度传感器在07:11和07:21两次报告None，可能因过热导致传感器临时失效",
        "厨房灯在07:14:10关闭（开启仅4分钟后），暗示人员离开或无人在厨房操作",
        "厨房窗户在07:20:30开启（灶具关闭30秒后），可能用于通风排出异常气味或蒸汽",
        "全家灯光和门锁在07:14集中操作，随后前门解锁、打开、再自动上锁（07:14:35-07:14:46），显示有人离家，但灶具仍在运行约5分钟"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "灶具实际运行时间仅9.5分钟（07:10:35-07:20:00），较短，低风险烹饪场景",
        "厨房温度传感器在None前后数值正常（25°C左右），无异常升温迹象",
        "无烟雾报警器触发记录（数据缺失但可推断未触发），无火灾迹象",
        "窗户开启也可能是正常通风（如烹饪后排除气味）"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "厨房温度传感器间歇性故障：传感器在烹饪开始时两次报告None，可能预示传感器退化或连接问题，需持续监测。",
      "threat_type": "sensor_malfunction",
      "evidence": [
        "C06中07:11:05和07:21:00两次出现MeasuredValue = None，而在同一时间其他传感器（客厅、主卧室、儿童房）均正常工作",
        "None值出现在灶具开启后30秒和灶具关闭后1分钟，与灶具使用时间高度关联",
        "传感器在07:15和07:20的报告恢复数值，说明故障为间歇性而非永久失效"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "None值在每次报告后下一周期即恢复，未出现持续故障或明显数据丢失",
        "C05和C07中传感器完全正常，无重复None或其他异常",
        "两个None值分别出现在灶具刚启动和刚关闭时，可能只是临时通信或采样时序问题，非硬件故障",
        "无传感器诊断数据（电池、信号强度）支持故障假设"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A3",
      "description": "燃气灶开启期间前门被解锁并打开：07:14:35前门手动解锁并开启，同时灶具仍在运行，可能为尾随入侵或不当使用钥匙的异常行为。",
      "threat_type": "intrusion",
      "evidence": [
        "前门在07:14:35手动解锁（LockOperationType=1, Manual），0.5秒后门磁开启（StateValue=false），11秒后关闭并自动上锁（LockOperationType=0, Auto）",
        "门被手动解锁时，入口Occupancy在07:14:38显示有人（但入口传感器可能先于开门触发），时间吻合异常",
        "前门解锁时，灶具仍在运行（到07:20才关闭），厨房灯刚关闭（07:14:10），存在安全漏洞"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "前门操作序列（手动解锁→开门→关门→自动上锁）逻辑完整，可能为家庭成员短暂外出或扔垃圾",
        "门磁和门锁时序无异常：门从开启到关闭约8秒（07:14:37-07:14:45），符合正常进出",
        "入口Occupancy在07:14:38显示有人，说明门口有人，可能是同一家庭成员返回"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "灶具开启期间厨房温度传感器两次报告None",
    "灶具运行（07:10:35-07:20:00）与全家灯关闭和前门解锁（07:14:35）时间重叠",
    "厨房窗户在灶具关闭30秒后被开启（07:20:30）",
    "C05和C07中厨房温度传感器完全正常",
    "前门手动解锁后8秒内开启关闭并自动锁定的完整序列"
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "厨房烟雾/CO报警器的完整日志（是否存在、有无触发历史、阈值设置等）",
    "厨房温度传感器在None值时的设备诊断状态（电池电量、信号强度、错误码等）",
    "厨房是否有人（Occupancy传感器）的历史记录，或是否有其他传感器可以推断厨房是否被占用",
    "灶具的具体类型（燃气/电磁）及其安全特性（如自动关闭、过热保护等）",
    "窗户开启状态的完整历史（是否经常在烹饪后开启通风）",
    "厨房温度传感器在不同时段的详细数据间隔（如07:11和07:21之间是否有更多报告轮次）",
    "入口传感器的详细位置（是否区分内外侧）"
  ]
}
```

C07中厨房温度传感器从07:50到08:35持续正常报告数值，无故障迹象

灶具于07:10:35开启，07:20:00关闭，使用时长约9.5分钟，符合短暂烹饪场景

C07中家庭成员持续出现在多个房间（主卧室、儿童房、入口），活动正常

厨房温度传感器在灶具开启时出现两个None值，虽然短暂但时机可疑

厨房烟雾/CO报警器数据缺失，无法确认烹饪过程安全

厨房灯在07:14:10关闭（开启仅4分钟后），暗示人员离开或无人在厨房操作

厨房窗户在07:20:30开启（灶具关闭30秒后），可能用于通风排出异常气味或蒸汽

灶具实际运行时间仅9.5分钟（07:10:35-07:20:00），较短，低风险烹饪场景

厨房温度传感器在None前后数值正常（25°C左右），无异常升温迹象

无烟雾报警器触发记录（数据缺失但可推断未触发），无火灾迹象

窗户开启也可能是正常通风（如烹饪后排除气味）

None值出现在灶具开启后30秒和灶具关闭后1分钟，与灶具使用时间高度关联

传感器在07:15和07:20的报告恢复数值，说明故障为间歇性而非永久失效

None值在每次报告后下一周期即恢复，未出现持续故障或明显数据丢失

C05和C07中传感器完全正常，无重复None或其他异常

两个None值分别出现在灶具刚启动和刚关闭时，可能只是临时通信或采样时序问题，非硬件故障

无传感器诊断数据（电池、信号强度）支持故障假设

前门操作序列（手动解锁→开门→关门→自动上锁）逻辑完整，可能为家庭成员短暂外出或扔垃圾

门磁和门锁时序无异常：门从开启到关闭约8秒（07:14:37-07:14:45），符合正常进出

入口Occupancy在07:14:38显示有人，说明门口有人，可能是同一家庭成员返回

灶具开启期间厨房温度传感器两次报告None

厨房窗户在灶具关闭30秒后被开启（07:20:30）

C05和C07中厨房温度传感器完全正常

前门手动解锁后8秒内开启关闭并自动锁定的完整序列

厨房烟雾/CO报警器的完整日志（是否存在、有无触发历史、阈值设置等）

厨房温度传感器在None值时的设备诊断状态（电池电量、信号强度、错误码等）

厨房是否有人（Occupancy传感器）的历史记录，或是否有其他传感器可以推断厨房是否被占用

灶具的具体类型（燃气/电磁）及其安全特性（如自动关闭、过热保护等）

窗户开启状态的完整历史（是否经常在烹饪后开启通风）

厨房温度传感器在不同时段的详细数据间隔（如07:11和07:21之间是否有更多报告轮次）

入口传感器的详细位置（是否区分内外侧）

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "medium",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C01", "C04", "C08"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "需要检查其他chunk中厨房烟雾/CO报警器的存在和触发记录",
    "需要检查C06中None值前后的厨房温度传感器原始数据间隔，确认是否可能在07:11:05到07:15:00之间有更多报告轮次",
    "需要检查灶具安全特性相关日志或配置",
    "需要检查厨房occupancy传感器是否存在，以及其在整个时间段的历史记录",
    "需要检查前门在更早时间段的解锁记录，以判断07:14:35的手动解锁是否为正常模式",
    "需要检查窗户开启状态的历史模式（是否经常在烹饪后开启通风）",
    "需要检查厨房温度传感器在None值时的设备诊断状态（如电池、信号强度）"
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "调查人员对Matter温度值的解析正确（centi-degrees Celsius），未将None或正常值误读为极端温度，false-alarm风险主要来自信息缺失而非误读",
    "调查人员正确区分了设备故障与行为安全的不同证据标准：对传感器故障假设（A2）要求更严格的直接故障证据，对行为安全假设（A1、A3）使用时序和跨设备推理",
    "核心问题（厨房温度传感器None值是否构成故障或安全风险）得到了针对性分析，但缺少对烟雾报警器、occupancy传感器和传感器诊断状态的检查，这些信息可能在其他chunk中",
    "调查人员没有将当前的证据模糊性自动转化为正常结论（N1），而是保留了两个替代假设（A1、A2、A3），这符合谨慎原则",
    "缺少的检查项中的关键信息可能存在于尚未查看的chunk中（C01、C04、C08），建议补充查看以降低不确定性",
    "False-alarm风险为中等：A1假设（无人值守烹饪）在时序上有一定说服力，但灶具运行时间短、温度无异常升高、无烟雾报警触发，使该假设仍然偏弱；A3假设（入侵）的序列模式本身正常，若无更多反例则不太可能"
  ]
}
```

需要检查其他chunk中厨房烟雾/CO报警器的存在和触发记录

需要检查灶具安全特性相关日志或配置

需要检查厨房occupancy传感器是否存在，以及其在整个时间段的历史记录

需要检查前门在更早时间段的解锁记录，以判断07:14:35的手动解锁是否为正常模式

需要检查窗户开启状态的历史模式（是否经常在烹饪后开启通风）

需要检查厨房温度传感器在None值时的设备诊断状态（如电池、信号强度）

全屋活动在清晨时段属于正常起居。厨房有人短暂开启灶具和灯光后关闭，随即离开；温度传感器短暂丢失后恢复，可能是传感器重启或网络瞬断。家庭成员在不同房间走动，前门在手动解锁后自动上锁，均为正常行为。

厨房灶具开启后约10分钟关闭（07:10:35开，07:20:00关），期间有人可能在厨房，无异常延长。

厨房温度传感器在07:11:05和07:21:00出现None，但随后的整点报告恢复正常（07:15:00、07:20:00、07:25:00等均有有效值），属于短暂丢失，非持续故障。

前门在07:14:35手动解锁后，07:14:45门磁恢复关闭，07:14:46自动上锁，符合正常进出流程。

各房间温度稳定在25°C附近，波动不超过0.3°C，无异常升温或降温趋势。

全屋多区域（厨房、卧室、儿童房、入口）在时段内均有占用事件，显示有人在活动，非空置状态。

温度传感器短暂丢失原因未明确，可能是网络抖动但无持续证据。 缺乏烟雾报警器或漏水传感器日志，无法完全排除隐蔽风险。

厨房灶具在有人但无人持续监视的情况下开启，且温度传感器短暂丢失（可能遮挡或被高温影响），随后厨房窗户被打开（07:20:30），可能用于排烟，构成未观察到的烹饪风险。虽然最终恢复，但存在隐蔽的火情或过热的可能性。

厨房灶具于07:10:35开启，07:20:00关闭，期间厨房温度传感器在07:11:05和07:21:00报告None值，可能由于传感器被蒸汽或烟雾干扰。

厨房窗户在07:20:30被打开（bool变为false），说明可能有人为排烟或降温进行手动操作。

没有烟雾报警器或漏水传感器的日志，无法确认是否产生了烟雾或过热。

厨房灯在07:10:05开启，07:14:10关闭，早于灶具关闭，暗示有人在熄灯后可能并未一直守在灶具旁。

无烟雾报警器触发记录，也无明显温度升高（厨房温度与全屋一致），可能只是轻度烹饪无风险。

窗户开闭可能只是通风习惯，不必然关联危险。

温度传感器None值发生两次，但后续恢复，也可能是传感器短暂断连而非物理故障。

厨房温度传感器出现两次None值，且未伴随明确的环境异常（温度稳定），但可能指示传感器硬件间歇性故障或连接问题，影响安全监控能力。

厨房温度传感器在07:11:05和07:21:00两次报告MeasuredValue=None，而同一时间其他房间传感器均正常。

两次None值间隔10分钟，期间传感器在其他时间点（如07:15:00）恢复读数，呈现间歇性缺陷模式。

每次None后传感器均能自动恢复，且没有持续故障或重复错误，也可能仅是网络瞬时抖动。

无其他传感器（如烟雾、水浸）报告异常，无法确认是设备硬件损坏。

厨房灶具在无人灯下运行（灯07:14:10关，灶07:20:00关），厨房温度传感器两度丢失值，窗户随后打开。

厨房烟雾/CO报警器的日志（是否存在，有无触发） 厨房漏水传感器的日志 厨房温度传感器在None值时的诊断细节（电池、信号强度等） 家庭主人或成员的出入日志（是否为已知人员操作） 厨房窗户的开关状态历史（是否经常通风）

各房间温度稳定在25°C附近，波动不超过0.3°C，无异常升温或降温趋势。

没有烟雾报警器或漏水传感器的日志，无法确认是否产生了烟雾或过热。

窗户开闭可能只是通风习惯，不必然关联危险。

温度传感器None值发生两次，但后续恢复，也可能是传感器短暂断连而非物理故障。

无其他传感器（如烟雾、水浸）报告异常，无法确认是设备硬件损坏。

C07中厨房温度传感器从07:50到08:35持续正常报告数值，无故障迹象

灶具于07:10:35开启，07:20:00关闭，使用时长约9.5分钟，符合短暂烹饪场景

C07中家庭成员持续出现在多个房间（主卧室、儿童房、入口），活动正常

厨房温度传感器在灶具开启时出现两个None值，虽然短暂但时机可疑

厨房烟雾/CO报警器数据缺失，无法确认烹饪过程安全

厨房灯在07:14:10关闭（开启仅4分钟后），暗示人员离开或无人在厨房操作

厨房窗户在07:20:30开启（灶具关闭30秒后），可能用于通风排出异常气味或蒸汽

厨房温度传感器在None前后数值正常（25°C左右），无异常升温迹象

无烟雾报警器触发记录（数据缺失但可推断未触发），无火灾迹象

窗户开启也可能是正常通风（如烹饪后排除气味）

None值出现在灶具开启后30秒和灶具关闭后1分钟，与灶具使用时间高度关联

传感器在07:15和07:20的报告恢复数值，说明故障为间歇性而非永久失效

None值在每次报告后下一周期即恢复，未出现持续故障或明显数据丢失

C05和C07中传感器完全正常，无重复None或其他异常

无传感器诊断数据（电池、信号强度）支持故障假设

前门解锁时，灶具仍在运行（到07:20才关闭），厨房灯刚关闭（07:14:10），存在安全漏洞

灶具开启期间厨房温度传感器两次报告None

厨房窗户在灶具关闭30秒后被开启（07:20:30）

C05和C07中厨房温度传感器完全正常

前门手动解锁后8秒内开启关闭并自动锁定的完整序列

厨房烟雾/CO报警器的完整日志（是否存在、有无触发历史、阈值设置等）

厨房温度传感器在None值时的设备诊断状态（电池电量、信号强度、错误码等）

灶具的具体类型（燃气/电磁）及其安全特性（如自动关闭、过热保护等）

窗户开启状态的完整历史（是否经常在烹饪后开启通风）

入口传感器的详细位置（是否区分内外侧）

厨房烟雾/CO报警器的日志（是否存在，有无触发） 厨房温度传感器在None值时的设备诊断细节（电池、信号强度等） 厨房窗户的开关状态历史（是否经常通风） 厨房温度传感器在C06之前和之后是否有持续故障或恢复模式

Investigator correctly identifies Matter-scale values and avoids false alarms on temperature.

The analysis stays on-topic, focusing on kitchen temperature sensor None values and cooking risk.

Evidence is insufficient to confirm device fault or unattended cooking; missing smoke alarm logs and sensor diagnostics.

Anomaly A1 (unattended cooking) relies on circumstantial evidence (window opened, light off) which could be normal, raising false-alarm potential.

Anomaly A2 (sensor malfunction) is plausible but lacks persistence data; retrieving adjacent chunks (C05 before, C07 after) could clarify if None values recur or are isolated.

The investigator's weakest points are acknowledged; a refined investigation with additional chunks and requested missing information is recommended.

需要检查其他chunk中厨房烟雾/CO报警器的存在和触发记录

需要检查灶具安全特性相关日志或配置

需要检查厨房occupancy传感器是否存在，以及其在整个时间段的历史记录

需要检查窗户开启状态的历史模式（是否经常在烹饪后开启通风）

需要检查厨房温度传感器在None值时的设备诊断状态（如电池、信号强度）

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 398,
    "master_bedroom": 517,
    "kids_room": 519,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 219,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 236,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1089,
    "OnOff": 26,

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["kitchen"],
    "target_devices": ["kitchen_temp_sensor"],
    "target_question": "厨房温度传感器在C06报告了None值，是否构成设备故障或安全风险？以及整个家庭的安全状况如何？"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["kitchen", "living_room", "master_bedroom", "kids_room"],
  "focus_devices": ["kitchen_temp_sensor", "kitchen_cook_surface", "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm", "front_door_lock"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C06"],
  "suspected_patterns": ["传感器数据丢失", "灶具在无人时开启", "温度整体缓慢上升但无报警"],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06是唯一出现厨房温度传感器值为None的时段，同时灶具和厨房灯被手动开启后又关闭，可能涉及安全隐患。",
    "厨房传感器异常需要结合烟雾报警器、漏水传感器等其他设备状态综合判断是否真实存在风险。",
    "其他chunk的温度变化平稳，没有异常波动或故障证据，因此初步聚焦C06即可评估核心问题。"
  ]
}

## Investigator
```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "正常早晨家庭活动：家庭成员在早上6:20至8:35期间起床，使用厨房准备早餐，然后离开家。厨房温度传感器的两个None值是瞬时通信故障，传感器随后恢复正常。",
      "evidence": [
        "C05中厨房温度传感器在06:20到07:10之间正常报告24.87-25.12°C的数值，且与其他房间温度一致",
        "C06中厨房温度传感器在07:11:05和07:21:00两次报告None后，在07:15、07:20、07:25等后续时间点恢复正常报告25.06-25.30°C",
        "C07中厨房温度传感器从07:50到08:35持续正常报告数值，无故障迹象",
        "灶具于07:10:35开启，07:20:00关闭，使用时长约9.5分钟，符合短暂烹饪场景",
        "厨房灯开启30秒后关闭（07:10:05开，07:14:10关），窗户在07:20:30开启（通风），之后全家多处灯和门锁在07:14-07:14:46被操作，显示有人准备离家",
        "C07中家庭成员持续出现在多个房间（主卧室、儿童房、入口），活动正常"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "厨房温度传感器在灶具开启时出现两个None值，虽然短暂但时机可疑",
        "厨房烟雾/CO报警器数据缺失，无法确认烹饪过程安全",
        "灶具从开启到关闭期间（07:10-07:20）无直接人员在场证据（厨房无Occupancy传感器）"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "燃气灶无人值守风险：烹饪期间厨房无人，温度传感器两次故障/中断，可能掩盖危险状况，事后窗户被开启


发生在正常午睡时段（12:30-14:00），最后活动在卧室且灯已关/窗帘已关

No smoke/CO alarm data is available across the entire 9+ hour monitoring period, leaving a critical gap in verifying fire safety, especially given morning kitchen cooking activity.

Explanation: The query requires a comprehensive safety assessment, which necessitates verifying all life-safety devices such as smoke/CO alarms and water leak detectors.

Explanation: Across all provided chunks (C00 through C06 covering a full night and morning), no smoke_co_alarm events or water_leak_detector events are present, and structured signals show no such attributes logged.

Explanation: The kitchen cook surface was actively used (on from 06:06:32 to 06:26:00), representing a realistic fire/CO scenario, but no alarm data exists to confirm or deny hazard detection.

Explanation: Per the supervisor, absence of smoke/CO alarm data is a critical missing check; even if no alarm sounds, the sheer absence of any event across hours is unusual for a properly functioning device and may indicate the device is offline, mismonitored, or absent.

Explanation: No explicit device-fault events (e.g., alarm_smoke_detector_offline, fault_battery_low) are recorded to confirm a malfunction, but the complete absence of data supports a cautious safety_device_failure conclusion.

Explanation: Temperatures remain normal (21–25.5°C), and no fire or CO hazard is directly observed; however, the failure to confirm detection capability is a safety risk independent of immediate hazard presence.

No smoke_co_alarm events appear in any chunk (C00–C06) covering 00:00 to 09:15.

Kitchen cook surface on (06:06:32) and off (06:26:00) without any corresponding alarm data.

Supervisor notes 'No smoke/CO alarm data in any provided chunk' and recommends checking C13, C14, C17 for these events.

Verify presence and operational status of smoke/CO alarm and water leak detector devices in the home.

Check additional chunks (particularly C13, C14, C17) for any alarm events or device fault codes.

If devices exist but produced no events, inspect for battery failure, disconnection, or communication errors.

Ensure kitchen cooking activities are monitored by functional smoke/CO detection and consider smart alarm integration.

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.

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.

living_room bedroom kitchen bathroom entrance

判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险

possible water leak in bathroom or kitchen

prolonged unattended occupancy in living areas

C05 shows continued kitchen occupation and high temperature (25.05 C) with no clear normal pattern, suggesting potential overheating or appliance left on.

C00 provides baseline nighttime behavior for comparison: all rooms unoccupied with stable temperatures, helping to detect anomalies in later chunks.

判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal morning routine: The resident wakes (bedroom occupied at 05:29, light on, window opens), uses bathroom (occupied 05:40-06:06), moves to kitchen (light on at 06:06, cook surface on at 06:06:32, occupied continuously through ~08:24), then exits home (kitchen light off at 06:51, front door unlocked manually at 06:51, door contact opens/closes, auto-lock engages, entrance occupancy appears). Resident returns around 08:35 (front door unlocked manually, door contact opens, living room occupancy appears). All temperatures show a gradual diurnal rise from nighttime lows (~21-23°C) to daytime highs (~24-25.5°C) consistent with ambient warming and normal cooking activity. The brief None reading on kitchen temp sensor at 06:07 and again at 06:27 may be a transient sensor communication hiccup or normal data polling delay, as it recovers quickly in both instances.",
      "evidence": [
        "Temperatures in all three monitored rooms follow a smooth diurnal curve: baseline ~22.7°C at midnight, peaking around 25.4°C by morning, consistent across living room, kitchen and bedroom.",
        "The two 'None' readings on kitchen temp sensor (06:07:02, 06:27:00) each last less than 5 minutes and are followed by valid readings, indicating temporary sensor communication loss rather than permanent damage.",
        "The kitchen cook surface turning on at 06:06:32 after kitchen occupancy begins is normal cooking activity; the cook surface turns off at 06:26, within typical breakfast duration.",
        "The front door lock sequence at 06:51 shows a complete, normal cycle: manual unlock, door opens/closes, then auto re-lock — no evidence of forced entry or malfunction.",
        "Bedroom occupancy events repeat every 5 minutes from ~05:29 to ~08:24, consistent with a motion sensor's periodic occupancy re-reporting rather than a human leaving the room.",
        "Occupancy in kitchen and entrance after 06:51 is consistent with a resident getting ready near the door or a sensor holdover timeout, not necessarily a second person."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "Cannot confirm the resident actually left at 06:51 — the kitchen occupancy remains occupied at 06:51:02 despite kitchen light off at 06:51:00, and entrance occupancy also shows occupied at 06:51:09, but these could be sensor delays.",
        "No smoke/CO alarm data in any chunk, so a normal environment cannot be fully confirmed.",
        "The 'None' reading on kitchen temp at 06:07 occurs within 1 minute of cook surface turning on; while likely coincidental, the timing could be suspicious.",
        "The lock events only appear twice (06:51 and 08:35), with no historical pattern to establish normal patterns."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "Possible brief sensor communication issue or transient fault on kitchen temperature sensor: The sensor reports 'None' twice (06:07:02 and 06:27:00) immediately after or during cook surface usage. The first None occurs <1 minute after cook surface turns on (06:06:32); the second occurs ~1 minute after cook surface turns off (06:26:00). Both recover quickly. This could indicate a temporary sensor malfunction, heat-induced sensor reading failure, or communication dropout. Not a fire risk since absolute temperatures remain ~24-25°C and the sensor returns to normal readings. But the temporal coincidence with cooking events could point to sensor degradation from heat exposure.",
      "threat_type": "sensor_malfunction",
      "evidence": [
        "Kitchen temp sensor reports None at 06:07:02, within 1 minute of kitchen cook surface turning on (06:06:32).",
        "Kitchen temp sensor reports None again at 06:27:00, within 1 minute of kitchen cook surface turning off (06:26:00).",
        "Both None readings are brief (under 5 minutes) and the sensor returns to valid readings each time.",
        "No explicit 'fault' event or alarm is associated with either None reading, but the temporal pattern of both events aligning with cook surface transitions is notable.",
        "On the second None (06:27), the kitchen occupancy at 06:26:02 is still 'occupied', so the sensor reading loss is not due to absence of power."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "Temperatures at all times remain within safe indoor ranges (never exceeding ~25.5°C), so no evidence of fire or overheating.",
        "The 'None' readings are not labeled as fault events — Matter sensors sometimes report None during normal communication gaps or sensor self-tests.",
        "No repetitive or permanent failure; the sensor recovers and continues providing readings normally for the rest of the morning.",
        "No explicit alarm/fault event from the temperature sensor itself (e.g., 'alarm_temperature_out_of_range', 'fault_sensor_malfunction')."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "Potential unattended cooking hazard: The kitchen cook surface turns on at 06:06:32, but its state after the recorded 'off' event (06:26:00) is unknown — we only know it turned off, not what its full operating state was. Meanwhile, kitchen occupancy remained 'occupied' continuously, suggesting someone was present. However, the kitchen light turned off at 06:51:00 (could indicate resident left kitchen) while kitchen occupancy still shows 'occupied' at 06:51:02 — a possible 'stuck occupied' sensor or a sign the person left the kitchen but the sensor failed to update. If the cook surface remained on longer than monitored, unattended cooking could occur.",
      "threat_type": "unattended_cooking",
      "evidence": [
        "Kitchen cook surface turned on at 06:06:32; off event recorded at 06:26:00 — no subsequent 'on' events, so the burner was apparently off after 06:26.",
        "Kitchen light at 06:51:00 turns off, while kitchen occupancy still shows 'occupied' at 06:51:02 — inconsistency suggests either a sensor holdover or the occupant was still present despite light off.",
        "Kitchen occupancy remains 'occupied' consistently from 06:06:02 through at least 08:24, with events every 5 minutes — consistent with a motion sensor with a timer, not necessarily continuous human presence.",
        "No direct evidence of cook surface state after 06:26.",
        "Kitchen temperatures (24.5-25.5°C) are only slightly above living room temps, not showing a rising fire signature."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The cook surface clearly turned off at 06:26 and remained off per available data, so unattended operation is unlikely.",
        "Kitchen temperatures are stable (not increasing), arguing against a burner left on.",
        "The 'light off' at 06:51 followed by 'occupancy occupied' is typical behavior for a PIR sensor that maintains its last state for 30-60 seconds after departure.",
        "No smoke/CO alarm data suggests no actual smoke event occurred."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A3",
      "description": "Possible intrusion/tailgating event at 06:51: The front door lock sequence (manual unlock at 06:51:06, door contact opens at 06:51:08, closes at 06:51:12, auto re-lock at 06:51:13) is consistent with someone exiting. However, entrance occupancy shows 'occupied' at 06:51:09 (within seconds of door closing and re-locking) — if the resident exited, why would entrance still be occupied? This could indicate a second person remaining in the entrance area (tailgater) or a sensor artifact.",
      "threat_type": "intrusion / tailgating",
      "evidence": [
        "Front door lock sequence at 06:51: manual unlock (LockOperationType=1/Manual), door contact opens (false), then closes (true) at 06:51:12, auto re-lock (LockOperationType=0/Auto) at 06:51:13.",
        "Entrance occupancy shows 'occupied' at 06:51:09 (3 seconds after door re-lock) and continues 'occupied' at nearly every 5-minute interval through 08:24, e.g., 06:56:09, 07:01:09, 07:06:09.",
        "If the resident exited at 06:51, the entrance occupancy should have cleared. Persistent entrance occupancy for ~1.5 hours after door re-lock is inconsistent with normal exit.",
        "No front door contact sensor state change events outside this 06:51 event to verify tailgater hypothesis.",
        "Bedroom occupancy continues through 08:24 (every 5 min), which could be a separate person in the bedroom."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "Entrance occupancy showing 'occupied' could be a normal sensor holdover timeout (~5 min) — a PIR sensor often maintains its last detected state for a timer if no clear transition is detected.",
        "No front door contact sensor state changes after 06:51 — the door was only opened once and then re-locked, inconsistent with a second person entering.",
        "No lock code/credential data — cannot distinguish who manually unlocked.",
        "The pattern could be the resident simply staying near the entrance after closing the door (e.g., putting on shoes, checking mail).",
        "Bedroom occupancy continuing could be the resident re-entering the bedroom after exiting.",
        "No explicit 'intrusion' alarms or security system events."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A4",
      "description": "Unverified smoke/CO alarm status: The available chunks contain no smoke or CO alarm events, but the query asks for comprehensive safety assessment. The absence of alarm events does not guarantee no hazard exists, particularly if the device is non-operational or disconnected.",
      "threat_type": "safety_device_failure",
      "evidence": [
        "No smoke_co_alarm events appear in any provided chunk (C00-C06, covering a full night and morning).",
        "The triage output and supervisor feedback both highlight 'No smoke/CO alarm data in any focused chunk' and 'Need to check other chunks for these events.'",
        "If a smoke/CO alarm exists in the home, its total absence of events across 9+ hours of data could indicate it is offline, malfunctioning, or not reporting — a critical safety gap.",
        "The kitchen cook surface was active (on from 06:06:32 to 06:26:00) — a real-world scenario where smoke/CO events might occur.",
        "The structured signals show no water_leak_detector data at all, suggesting either no device installed or no events logged."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "No explicit device fault event (e.g., 'alarm_smoke_detector_offline', 'fault_battery_low') to confirm the smoke/CO alarm is truly missing or faulty.",
        "The structured signal 'attribute frequency' does not include any smoke/CO attributes, suggesting no such device exists in the dataset.",
        "The 'Missing Information' in supervisor feedback notes 'No water leak detector data; need to verify presence or absence of this device' — same logic applies to smoke/CO.",
        "Absence of events does not prove a hazard exists."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A5",
      "description": "Possible bathroom unoccupancy anomaly: Bathroom occupancy shows 'unoccupied' at many timestamps (06:36:35, 07:06:35, 08:06:35, etc.) but never shows any 'occupied' event — only unoccupied readings. This might indicate a malfunctioning sensor or a wired/wrong state reporting, or simply a sensor that is not detecting occupancy. If the bathroom has a water leak sensor or a person at risk of fall, the missing occupancy could be a safety concern.",
      "threat_type": "sensor_stuck",
      "evidence": [
        "Bathroom occupancy at all timestamps in all chunks is always 'unoccupied' (raw=0) — no 'occupied' (1) event is recorded.",
        "The structured signals show total 943 occupancy events across all rooms, but bathroom occupancy never shows occupied.",
        "Bathroom light did turn on at 05:40:00 and turned off at 06:06:00 — but occupancy never reflects movement.",
        "No explicit fault event for bathroom occupancy sensor indicates it may be stuck reporting 'unoccupied' or has a dead battery.",
        "If the bathroom occupancy sensor is working, the resident never used the bathroom after initial use at 05:40, which is possible but less likely over a 9+ hour period."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "A resident could simply not use the bathroom during this time period.",
        "Without a dedicated fault event (e.g., 'alarm_sensor_stuck', 'fault_battery'), a 'stuck' hypothesis is speculative.",
        "Bathroom occupancy sensors may have different sensitivity or placement than other rooms.",
        "The bathroom light turning on at 05:40 could be the resident using the bathroom even if the sensor does not register — or the light event itself could confirm bathroom use.",
        "No water leak detector data to confirm whether a leak sensor exists."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "The two None readings on kitchen temp sensor (06:07:02, 06:27:00) occurring exactly around cook surface on/off transitions — suggesting a possible transient sensor fault rather than fire.",
    "Entrance occupancy remaining 'occupied' for ~1.5 hours after the 06:51 door lock/unlock sequence — inconsistent with a normal exit behavior if the resident departed.",
    "No smoke/CO alarm events in any chunk covering 9+ hours — concerning absence if a device exists.",
    "Bathroom occupancy showing only 'unoccupied' despite a clear bathroom light on event (05:40) — possible sensor stuck or malfunction.",
    "Kitchen light off at 06:51:00 vs. kitchen occupancy still 'occupied' at 06:51:02 — a potential sensor inconsistency that could indicate a stuck sensor or a lingering occupant.",
    "Temperatures in all rooms remain within normal indoor ranges (~21-25.5°C) — no fire risk.",
    "The locked sequence at 06:51: manual unlock -> door open -> door close -> auto re-lock — complete and normal, with no evidence of forced entry."
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "No smoke/CO alarm data from any chunk — need events from C13-C23 or other chunks to determine if such a device exists and its status.",
    "No water leak detector data — need to check if this device is present and its reported state.",
    "No health/fall detection sensor or bathroom occupancy 'occupied' events — bathroom occupancy stuck at unoccupied.",
    "No explicit fault or alarm events from any temperature sensor for the None readings.",
    "No front door contact sensor state transitions outside the single 06:51 event — cannot verify tailgating hypothesis.",
    "No lock code or credential-type data for the manual unlocks — cannot determine who unlocked the door.",
    "No kitchen cook surface power level or multi-zone data — the 'OnOff' alone doesn't indicate which burners or intensity.",
    "No occupancy sensor timeout/hold duration configuration data — cannot confirm whether 5-minute occupancy reports are holdover or real movement.",
    "No data from afternoon, evening, or overnight periods after 09:15 — cannot establish normal daily patterns or see if anomalies repeat.",
    "No explicit battery or low-power alerts from any sensor."
  ]
}
```

The kitchen cook surface turning on at 06:06:32 after kitchen occupancy begins is normal cooking activity; the cook surface turns off at 06:26, within typical breakfast duration.

The front door lock sequence at 06:51 shows a complete, normal cycle: manual unlock, door opens/closes, then auto re-lock — no evidence of forced entry or malfunction.

Bedroom occupancy events repeat every 5 minutes from ~05:29 to ~08:24, consistent with a motion sensor's periodic occupancy re-reporting rather than a human leaving the room.

Occupancy in kitchen and entrance after 06:51 is consistent with a resident getting ready near the door or a sensor holdover timeout, not necessarily a second person.

No smoke/CO alarm data in any chunk, so a normal environment cannot be fully confirmed.

The 'None' reading on kitchen temp at 06:07 occurs within 1 minute of cook surface turning on; while likely coincidental, the timing could be suspicious.

The lock events only appear twice (06:51 and 08:35), with no historical pattern to establish normal patterns.

Kitchen temp sensor reports None at 06:07:02, within 1 minute of kitchen cook surface turning on (06:06:32).

Kitchen temp sensor reports None again at 06:27:00, within 1 minute of kitchen cook surface turning off (06:26:00).

Both None readings are brief (under 5 minutes) and the sensor returns to valid readings each time.

No explicit 'fault' event or alarm is associated with either None reading, but the temporal pattern of both events aligning with cook surface transitions is notable.

On the second None (06:27), the kitchen occupancy at 06:26:02 is still 'occupied', so the sensor reading loss is not due to absence of power.

Temperatures at all times remain within safe indoor ranges (never exceeding ~25.5°C), so no evidence of fire or overheating.

The 'None' readings are not labeled as fault events — Matter sensors sometimes report None during normal communication gaps or sensor self-tests.

No repetitive or permanent failure; the sensor recovers and continues providing readings normally for the rest of the morning.

No explicit alarm/fault event from the temperature sensor itself (e.g., 'alarm_temperature_out_of_range', 'fault_sensor_malfunction').

Kitchen cook surface turned on at 06:06:32; off event recorded at 06:26:00 — no subsequent 'on' events, so the burner was apparently off after 06:26.

No direct evidence of cook surface state after 06:26.

Kitchen temperatures (24.5-25.5°C) are only slightly above living room temps, not showing a rising fire signature.

The cook surface clearly turned off at 06:26 and remained off per available data, so unattended operation is unlikely.

Kitchen temperatures are stable (not increasing), arguing against a burner left on.

The 'light off' at 06:51 followed by 'occupancy occupied' is typical behavior for a PIR sensor that maintains its last state for 30-60 seconds after departure.

No smoke/CO alarm data suggests no actual smoke event occurred.

If the resident exited at 06:51, the entrance occupancy should have cleared. Persistent entrance occupancy for ~1.5 hours after door re-lock is inconsistent with normal exit.

No front door contact sensor state change events outside this 06:51 event to verify tailgater hypothesis.

Bedroom occupancy continues through 08:24 (every 5 min), which could be a separate person in the bedroom.

No front door contact sensor state changes after 06:51 — the door was only opened once and then re-locked, inconsistent with a second person entering.

No lock code/credential data — cannot distinguish who manually unlocked.

The pattern could be the resident simply staying near the entrance after closing the door (e.g., putting on shoes, checking mail).

Bedroom occupancy continuing could be the resident re-entering the bedroom after exiting.

No explicit 'intrusion' alarms or security system events.

No smoke_co_alarm events appear in any provided chunk (C00-C06, covering a full night and morning).

The triage output and supervisor feedback both highlight 'No smoke/CO alarm data in any focused chunk' and 'Need to check other chunks for these events.'

If a smoke/CO alarm exists in the home, its total absence of events across 9+ hours of data could indicate it is offline, malfunctioning, or not reporting — a critical safety gap.

The kitchen cook surface was active (on from 06:06:32 to 06:26:00) — a real-world scenario where smoke/CO events might occur.

The structured signals show no water_leak_detector data at all, suggesting either no device installed or no events logged.

No explicit device fault event (e.g., 'alarm_smoke_detector_offline', 'fault_battery_low') to confirm the smoke/CO alarm is truly missing or faulty.

The structured signal 'attribute frequency' does not include any smoke/CO attributes, suggesting no such device exists in the dataset.

The 'Missing Information' in supervisor feedback notes 'No water leak detector data; need to verify presence or absence of this device' — same logic applies to smoke/CO.

Absence of events does not prove a hazard exists.

Bathroom occupancy at all timestamps in all chunks is always 'unoccupied' (raw=0) — no 'occupied' (1) event is recorded.

The structured signals show total 943 occupancy events across all rooms, but bathroom occupancy never shows occupied.

Bathroom light did turn on at 05:40:00 and turned off at 06:06:00 — but occupancy never reflects movement.

No explicit fault event for bathroom occupancy sensor indicates it may be stuck reporting 'unoccupied' or has a dead battery.

If the bathroom occupancy sensor is working, the resident never used the bathroom after initial use at 05:40, which is possible but less likely over a 9+ hour period.

A resident could simply not use the bathroom during this time period.

Without a dedicated fault event (e.g., 'alarm_sensor_stuck', 'fault_battery'), a 'stuck' hypothesis is speculative.

Bathroom occupancy sensors may have different sensitivity or placement than other rooms.

The bathroom light turning on at 05:40 could be the resident using the bathroom even if the sensor does not register — or the light event itself could confirm bathroom use.

No water leak detector data to confirm whether a leak sensor exists.

Entrance occupancy remaining 'occupied' for ~1.5 hours after the 06:51 door lock/unlock sequence — inconsistent with a normal exit behavior if the resident departed.

No smoke/CO alarm events in any chunk covering 9+ hours — concerning absence if a device exists.

Bathroom occupancy showing only 'unoccupied' despite a clear bathroom light on event (05:40) — possible sensor stuck or malfunction.

Kitchen light off at 06:51:00 vs. kitchen occupancy still 'occupied' at 06:51:02 — a potential sensor inconsistency that could indicate a stuck sensor or a lingering occupant.

Temperatures in all rooms remain within normal indoor ranges (~21-25.5°C) — no fire risk.

The locked sequence at 06:51: manual unlock -> door open -> door close -> auto re-lock — complete and normal, with no evidence of forced entry.

No smoke/CO alarm data from any chunk — need events from C13-C23 or other chunks to determine if such a device exists and its status.

No water leak detector data — need to check if this device is present and its reported state.

No health/fall detection sensor or bathroom occupancy 'occupied' events — bathroom occupancy stuck at unoccupied.

No explicit fault or alarm events from any temperature sensor for the None readings.

No front door contact sensor state transitions outside the single 06:51 event — cannot verify tailgating hypothesis.

No lock code or credential-type data for the manual unlocks — cannot determine who unlocked the door.

No kitchen cook surface power level or multi-zone data — the 'OnOff' alone doesn't indicate which burners or intensity.

No occupancy sensor timeout/hold duration configuration data — cannot confirm whether 5-minute occupancy reports are holdover or real movement.

No data from afternoon, evening, or overnight periods after 09:15 — cannot establish normal daily patterns or see if anomalies repeat.

No explicit battery or low-power alerts from any sensor.

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "high",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C13", "C14", "C17"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "No smoke/CO alarm data in any provided chunk; must verify if a smoke_co_alarm device exists and its status across the full day, especially during and after the morning cooking period.",
    "No water_leak_detector data; needs confirmation of device presence or absence.",
    "Bathroom occupancy sensor stuck hypothesis cannot be confirmed without checking later chunks for any occupied events or sensor fault events.",
    "The 'None' kitchen temperature readings need cross-referencing with historical sensor fault events in other chunks to determine if they represent hardware failure or just transient glitches.",
    "No explicit device-fault events (e.g., alarm_temperature_out_of_range, fault_sensor_malfunction) are present; without them, the sensor hypotheses remain speculative.",
    "Entrance occupancy persistence after 06:51 door sequence needs checking beyond C06 to see if occupancy eventually clears or if other entrance-related events occur."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "The investigator correctly interprets Matter-scaled temperatures and avoids false alarm on literal 2466°C readings. Temperature data throughout remains in a safe 21-25.5°C range, so no fire/overheat risk is supported by direct evidence.",
    "The 'None' readings on kitchen temp sensor (06:07, 06:27) are flagged as possible sensor faults, but the investigator correctly notes they are brief and without explicit fault events—so they should not be over-alarmed.",
    "The unattended cooking hypothesis (A2) is weak because the cook surface is recorded as off at 06:26 and kitchen temperatures are stable, not rising. The risk of false alarm from this hypothesis is high.",
    "The intrusion/tailgating hypothesis (A3) relies on entrance occupancy staying 'occupied' after the door sequence, but this could be a normal sensor holdover. Without contact sensor changes or alarm events, this is speculative—marked high false-alarm risk.",
    "The investigator correctly notes the absence of smoke/CO and water leak data as critical missing information. The recommended action 'refine_investigation' is appropriate to check additional chunks (C13, C14, C17) that may contain such data.",
    "The bathroom occupancy stuck hypothesis (A5) is plausible but unsupported by explicit fault events. Checking later chunks for any 'occupied' or fault events would clarify.",
    "The investigator's normal hypothesis (N1) is well reasoned and explains most data coherently; however, the missing smoke/CO and water leak data leaves a gap in comprehensive safety assessment. Evidence is not yet sufficient to confirm normalcy.",
    "The triage output correctly identified kitchen and entrance as focus areas, but the investigator should more explicitly check whether a smoke_co_alarm device is even listed in the available device inventory before concluding absence is concerning."
  ]
}
```

No water_leak_detector data; needs confirmation of device presence or absence.

Bathroom occupancy sensor stuck hypothesis cannot be confirmed without checking later chunks for any occupied events or sensor fault events.

No explicit device-fault events (e.g., alarm_temperature_out_of_range, fault_sensor_malfunction) are present; without them, the sensor hypotheses remain speculative.

Entrance occupancy persistence after 06:51 door sequence needs checking beyond C06 to see if occupancy eventually clears or if other entrance-related events occur.

The bathroom occupancy stuck hypothesis (A5) is plausible but unsupported by explicit fault events. Checking later chunks for any 'occupied' or fault events would clarify.

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal morning routine: Residents wake up, prepare breakfast in the kitchen, and move throughout the house. The kitchen was used for cooking, the cook surface was turned off, and temperatures rose naturally due to morning activity and sunlight. The None reading from the kitchen sensor was a transient communication glitch that self-resolved within 3 minutes.",
      "evidence": [
        "Kitchen temperature rose from ~22.76°C at night to ~24.88°C by 06:20, consistent with morning warming.",
        "Kitchen cook surface turned off at 06:26, and the None reading at 06:27 was brief (recovered by 06:30).",
        "Occupancy patterns show normal morning routine: kitchen occupied, bedroom occupied, bathroom unoccupied, entrance used for a brief exit at 06:51.",
        "Temperatures across all rooms rose gradually and consistently from 06:20 to 08:24 (kitchen: 24.88→25.44°C, living room: 24.89→25.41°C, bedroom: 23.98→24.33°C).",
        "The front door lock event at 06:51 shows normal locking/unlocking sequence with auto-lock after 7 seconds.",
        "No explicit alarm, fault, or error events from any device in the logs."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The None reading at 06:27 is unusual even for a glitch; a 3-minute data gap in a sensor that reports every 5 minutes is suspicious but within possibility.",
        "Kitchen temperature remained slightly higher than other rooms during the period, which is expected for a cooking area but could also signal residual heat.",
        "No smoke/CO alarm events or water leak sensor data, which could indicate normal conditions but also missing safety devices."
      ]
    },
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "Kitchen fire risk / cooking hazard: The kitchen temperature sensor briefly reported a peak of 24.88°C at 06:20, then the cook surface went off, followed by a None reading at 06:27. This could indicate a sensor fault (from heat exposure) or tampering. The kitchen remained occupied for over 2 hours (06:21 to 08:24) with temperatures consistently around 25°C, suggesting someone may have left cooking unattended or the cook surface was left on despite the off command.",
      "threat_type": "fire_risk",
      "evidence": [
        "Kitchen temperature peaked at 24.88°C at 06:20, slightly higher than living room (24.89°C) at 06:25.",
        "Cook surface OnOff = off at 06:26, but the None reading at 06:27 immediately after.",
        "The None value is a diagnostic: sensor reported no valid reading which could indicate sensor failure due to heat exposure, overheating, or physical damage.",
        "Kitchen occupancy persisted continuously from 06:21 to 08:24, and entrance occupancy also persisted, suggesting someone was present near the kitchen.",
        "Bedroom occupancy also persisted, indicating another resident asleep or away.",
        "The temperature pattern in the kitchen stayed elevated (e.g., 25.05°C at 07:20, 25.39°C at 08:05), not cooling down significantly.",
        "No explicit smoke or CO alarm events, but the absence of such alarms is not conclusive.",
        "The cook surface being off but temperatures remaining high could indicate a residual heat hazard or a gas burner left on (not covered by OnOff).",
        "The entrance was locked at 06:51, but the sensor data shows entrance occupancy persisted from 07:21 onward, which could mean someone returned but may not have fully checked the kitchen."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The None reading was brief (3 minutes) and the sensor recovered; a fire likely would cause permanent failure.",
        "Temperatures are within safe ranges (max ~25.44°C) and consistent with normal morning activity.",
        "No explicit over-temperature threshold warnings or alarms.",
        "The cook surface turning off suggests an intentional action, not a fault.",
        "The persistence of kitchen occupancy could simply mean someone was preparing food or eating.",
        "The lock sequence at 06:51 shows normal behavior (unlock, open, re-lock); no evidence of forced entry or tailgating."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "Possible intrusion or tailgating: The front door was unlocked at 06:51, and within 2 seconds the contact sensor opened (false), likely someone exited. However, the entrance occupancy registered as occupied from 06:56 onward, even after the front door was re-locked, suggesting someone may have entered without authorization while residents were inside, or there is a tailgating incident where an intruder entered after the legitimate exit event.",
      "threat_type": "intrusion",
      "evidence": [
        "Front door lock unlocked at 06:51:06 (OperationSource=Manual) and then locked at 06:51:13 (OperationSource=Auto), indicating a manual unlock by a resident.",
        "Entrance occupancy was unoccupied at 06:30 but became occupied at 06:56:09, which is 5 minutes after the door lock event, which could be a separate person entering.",
        "Bedroom occupancy persisted throughout (06:24 to 08:24), meaning at least one person was in the bedroom.",
        "The sequence: door unlocked→door contact opened→door contact closed→door auto-locked within 7 seconds. But entrance occupancy shows occupancy from 06:56 onward, even though the door was locked.",
        "No explicit tailgating event, but the occupancy pattern shows entrance occupied while door is locked, which is odd if the only entry point is the front door.",
        "The kitchen and entrance occupied simultaneously for most of the morning; if one person was in kitchen and another in entrance, it could be a second person entering.",
        "The 5-minute gap between door lock (06:51) and entrance occupancy (06:56) could allow an intruder to slip in before the door auto-locked."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "Entrance occupancy could be a false positive from the sensor or a momentary event; the sensor may not distinguish multiple people.",
        "The door lock sequence appears normal and rapid; no signs of forced entry.",
        "No other sensors detect an open door or unusual contact state transitions.",
        "The entrance occupancy duration is short and concurrent with other occupancies.",
        "No alarm events from smoke/CO detectors to suggest a security breach."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A3",
      "description": "Unattended cooking hazard: The kitchen cook surface turned off at 06:26, but kitchen occupancy persisted until 08:24, indicating someone remained in the kitchen for an extended period, possibly cooking unattended or a burner was left on (gas not monitored by OnOff). The persistent occupancy and elevated temperatures suggest cooking continued.",
      "threat_type": "unattended_cooking",
      "evidence": [
        "Cook surface turned off at 06:26, but kitchen temperature was still elevated at 06:27 (None) and later readings (e.g., 24.88°C at 07:20, 25.17°C at 07:25, 25.39°C at 08:05).",
        "Kitchen occupancy persisted from 06:21 to 08:24, suggesting someone was in the kitchen for 2 hours continuously.",
        "No explicit turn-on event for the cook surface, but its off event could indicate a stove with multiple burners; some may have been left on.",
        "The None reading at 06:27 could indicate sensor failure from heat or smoke exposure.",
        "No smoke/CO alarm events, but the absence of such alarms is not conclusive if they are not installed or working.",
        "The water leak detector or smoke alarms may not have been captured in the focused chunks.",
        "If a gas burner was left on without detection, it could cause carbon monoxide risk with prolonged occupancy.",
        "Bedroom occupancy persisted, meaning someone else may be sleeping or unaware of the cooking hazard."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "No direct evidence of a water leak or alarm events from smoke/CO detectors.",
        "Kitchen temperature is not excessively high (max ~25.44°C) and within safe limits.",
        "The None reading was brief and recovered; a fire or overheating likely would cause permanent sensor failure or a continuous alarm.",
        "The cook surface off event may simply mean cooking ended normally.",
        "Occupancy sensors may have long hold times; 2 hours of kitchen occupancy could just mean a resident cooking a large meal or eating in the kitchen."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "Kitchen_temp_sensor None at 06:27 immediately after cook surface off at 06:26, indicating possible sensor damage or smoke exposure.",
    "Kitchen temperature stayed elevated (~25.05°C) even 1 hour after the cook surface off, suggesting residual heat or a gas burner left on.",
    "Front door lock unlock+auto-lock within 7 seconds at 06:51, but entrance occupancy persists from 06:56 to 08:24, which is inconsistent with a single exit/entry event.",
    "Kitchen occupancy persisted continuously from 06:21 to 08:24 (2+ hours), indicating prolonged cooking or unattended activity.",
    "Bedroom occupancy persisted throughout (06:24 to 08:24), suggesting someone asleep or isolated.",
    "No explicit alarm or fault events from smoke/CO alarms or water leak detectors, but their absence is notable if the sensor data is incomplete.",
    "The lock_state_flips count is 4, but only one lock/unlock event (at 06:51) was recorded, indicating that the lock events were isolated and not part of a larger sequence."
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "No data from smoke/CO alarms or water leak detectors in the focused chunks—these safety devices are missing events, which could indicate they are absent, not reporting, or that no hazard occurred.",
    "The gas cook surface is not modeled—its OnOff only controls an electric burner? Not clear if it covers all burners.",
    "No explicit temperature threshold or overheat alarm events to confirm or rule out fire/overheating.",
    "Actual time of day is unclear: the morning pattern suggests normal awakening, but the entrance occupancy pattern at 06:51 with a lock event and re-lock could be a resident leaving and returning; missing a second person entry is plausible but not confirmed.",
    "The occupancy sensors may have long timeout holds; 2-hour persistent kitchen occupancy could be a sensor stuck in occupied state, but no explicit stuck-occupied fault is indicated.",
    "The kitchen contact sensor or lock actuator status is documented; no fault events for the lock or contact sensor are present.",
    "Health-related data: no falls or vital signs monitors are mentioned.",
    "The exact model of the cook surface: is the OnOff attribute indicating state of the entire surface or just one zone? No evidence of multi-zone control."
  ]
}
```

The kitchen cook surface turning on at 06:06:32 after kitchen occupancy begins is normal cooking activity; the cook surface turns off at 06:26, within typical breakfast duration.

The front door lock sequence at 06:51 shows a complete, normal cycle: manual unlock, door opens/closes, then auto re-lock — no evidence of forced entry or malfunction.

Bedroom occupancy events repeat every 5 minutes from ~05:29 to ~08:24, consistent with a motion sensor's periodic occupancy re-reporting rather than a human leaving the room.

Occupancy in kitchen and entrance after 06:51 is consistent with a resident getting ready near the door or a sensor holdover timeout, not necessarily a second person.

No smoke/CO alarm data in any chunk, so a normal environment cannot be fully confirmed.

The 'None' reading on kitchen temp at 06:07 occurs within 1 minute of cook surface turning on; while likely coincidental, the timing could be suspicious.

The lock events only appear twice (06:51 and 08:35), with no historical pattern to establish normal patterns.

Kitchen temp sensor reports None at 06:07:02, within 1 minute of kitchen cook surface turning on (06:06:32).

Kitchen temp sensor reports None again at 06:27:00, within 1 minute of kitchen cook surface turning off (06:26:00).

Both None readings are brief (under 5 minutes) and the sensor returns to valid readings each time.

No explicit 'fault' event or alarm is associated with either None reading, but the temporal pattern of both events aligning with cook surface transitions is notable.

On the second None (06:27), the kitchen occupancy at 06:26:02 is still 'occupied', so the sensor reading loss is not due to absence of power.

Temperatures at all times remain within safe indoor ranges (never exceeding ~25.5°C), so no evidence of fire or overheating.

The 'None' readings are not labeled as fault events — Matter sensors sometimes report None during normal communication gaps or sensor self-tests.

No repetitive or permanent failure; the sensor recovers and continues providing readings normally for the rest of the morning.

No explicit alarm/fault event from the temperature sensor itself (e.g., 'alarm_temperature_out_of_range', 'fault_sensor_malfunction').

Kitchen cook surface turned on at 06:06:32; off event recorded at 06:26:00 — no subsequent 'on' events, so the burner was apparently off after 06:26.

No direct evidence of cook surface state after 06:26.

Kitchen temperatures (24.5-25.5°C) are only slightly above living room temps, not showing a rising fire signature.

The cook surface clearly turned off at 06:26 and remained off per available data, so unattended operation is unlikely.

Kitchen temperatures are stable (not increasing), arguing against a burner left on.

The 'light off' at 06:51 followed by 'occupancy occupied' is typical behavior for a PIR sensor that maintains its last state for 30-60 seconds after departure.

No smoke/CO alarm data suggests no actual smoke event occurred.

If the resident exited at 06:51, the entrance occupancy should have cleared. Persistent entrance occupancy for ~1.5 hours after door re-lock is inconsistent with normal exit.

No front door contact sensor state change events outside this 06:51 event to verify tailgater hypothesis.

Bedroom occupancy continues through 08:24 (every 5 min), which could be a separate person in the bedroom.

No front door contact sensor state changes after 06:51 — the door was only opened once and then re-locked, inconsistent with a second person entering.

No lock code/credential data — cannot distinguish who manually unlocked.

The pattern could be the resident simply staying near the entrance after closing the door (e.g., putting on shoes, checking mail).

Bedroom occupancy continuing could be the resident re-entering the bedroom after exiting.

No explicit 'intrusion' alarms or security system events.

No smoke_co_alarm events appear in any provided chunk (C00-C06, covering a full night and morning).

The triage output and supervisor feedback both highlight 'No smoke/CO alarm data in any focused chunk' and 'Need to check other chunks for these events.'

If a smoke/CO alarm exists in the home, its total absence of events across 9+ hours of data could indicate it is offline, malfunctioning, or not reporting — a critical safety gap.

The kitchen cook surface was active (on from 06:06:32 to 06:26:00) — a real-world scenario where smoke/CO events might occur.

The structured signals show no water_leak_detector data at all, suggesting either no device installed or no events logged.

No explicit device fault event (e.g., 'alarm_smoke_detector_offline', 'fault_battery_low') to confirm the smoke/CO alarm is truly missing or faulty.

The structured signal 'attribute frequency' does not include any smoke/CO attributes, suggesting no such device exists in the dataset.

The 'Missing Information' in supervisor feedback notes 'No water leak detector data; need to verify presence or absence of this device' — same logic applies to smoke/CO.

Absence of events does not prove a hazard exists.

Bathroom occupancy at all timestamps in all chunks is always 'unoccupied' (raw=0) — no 'occupied' (1) event is recorded.

The structured signals show total 943 occupancy events across all rooms, but bathroom occupancy never shows occupied.

Bathroom light did turn on at 05:40:00 and turned off at 06:06:00 — but occupancy never reflects movement.

No explicit fault event for bathroom occupancy sensor indicates it may be stuck reporting 'unoccupied' or has a dead battery.

If the bathroom occupancy sensor is working, the resident never used the bathroom after initial use at 05:40, which is possible but less likely over a 9+ hour period.

A resident could simply not use the bathroom during this time period.

Without a dedicated fault event (e.g., 'alarm_sensor_stuck', 'fault_battery'), a 'stuck' hypothesis is speculative.

Bathroom occupancy sensors may have different sensitivity or placement than other rooms.

The bathroom light turning on at 05:40 could be the resident using the bathroom even if the sensor does not register — or the light event itself could confirm bathroom use.

No water leak detector data to confirm whether a leak sensor exists.

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "medium",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C01", "C02", "C03", "C06", "C07", "C08", "C09", "C13", "C14", "C15", "C16", "C17", "C18", "C19", "C20", "C21", "C22", "C23"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "No smoke/CO alarm data in any focused chunk; need to check other chunks for these events.",
    "No water leak detector data; need to verify presence or absence of this device.",
    "No bathroom occupancy transitions to occupied; bathroom occupancy only shows unoccupied at various timestamps, need to check for any occupied events.",
    "No explicit temperature threshold warnings or overheat alarm events from any device.",
    "No direct gas burner or multi-zone cook surface modeling data; OnOff may not represent all burners.",
    "Occupancy sensor timeout/hold durations not documented; 2-hour persistent occupancy could be sensor characteristics, not human behavior.",
    "No front door contact sensor state transitions outside the 06:51 event to verify tailgating hypothesis.",
    "Lock events only captured once; need to check if unlock from inside at 06:51 is consistent with resident exiting or someone else entering.",
    "Kitchen light off event at 06:51 not correlated with occupancy changes; need to interpret intention (leaving kitchen or turning off light before leaving).",
    "No health/fall detection sensor data mentioned.",
    "The kitchen_cook_surface on event is missing; only off event captured. Need to verify if there was a prior on event.",
    "Sensor fault (stuck occupied) not ruled out for kitchen_occupancy or entrance_occupancy because no explicit stuck-value fault events are present."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "Temperature values are correctly interpreted as centi-degrees Celsius (e.g., 2488 = 24.88°C). No false-alarm risk from misreading scaled values -- investigator handled this correctly.",
    "All temperatures (max ~25.44°C) are within normal indoor ranges, not indicative of fire. The fire risk hypothesis (A1) is significantly weakened by the absolute temperature values and the brief None reading recovery.",
    "The intrusion hypothesis (A2) relies heavily on entrance occupancy appearing 5 minutes after door lock event, but entrance occupancy could be a delayed sensor update or sensor artifact, especially since door contact shows normal open/close and lock sequence without anomaly flags.",
    "The unattended cooking hazard (A3) has weak absolute temperature evidence, as kitchen temperatures (24.5-25.5°C) are near living room temps, not showing an increasing fire signature.",
    "The most discriminative evidence listed is reasonable but speculative. The None reading for 3 minutes is not labeled as a 'fault' but simply a missing value; the investigator correctly noted it recovered, which argues against permanent damage.",
    "Major missing information concerns absence of smoke/CO alarm events and water leak detector data. These chunks are needed to rule in/out hazards.",
    "The analysis is on-topic but has not utilized available chunk IDs beyond C00, C04, C05, missing potentially critical data from other time periods (e.g., earlier morning, nighttime, and afternoon chunks) that could show whether this pattern is routine or truly anomalous.",
    "Recommend pulling additional chunks covering pre-06:20 morning, late morning, and any afternoon/evening to see if temperatures stabilize or if similar temperature/occupancy patterns recur daily.",
    "The investigator's normal hypothesis (N1) is plausible given the evidence, but the analysis leans slightly toward anomaly given the None reading. With more data across a full day, a more definitive assessment can be made."
  ]
}
```

No smoke/CO alarm data in any focused chunk; need to check other chunks for these events.

No water leak detector data; need to verify presence or absence of this device.

No bathroom occupancy transitions to occupied; bathroom occupancy only shows unoccupied at various timestamps, need to check for any occupied events.

No explicit temperature threshold warnings or overheat alarm events from any device.

No direct gas burner or multi-zone cook surface modeling data; OnOff may not represent all burners.

Occupancy sensor timeout/hold durations not documented; 2-hour persistent occupancy could be sensor characteristics, not human behavior.

No front door contact sensor state transitions outside the 06:51 event to verify tailgating hypothesis.

Lock events only captured once; need to check if unlock from inside at 06:51 is consistent with resident exiting or someone else entering.

Kitchen light off event at 06:51 not correlated with occupancy changes; need to interpret intention (leaving kitchen or turning off light before leaving).

No health/fall detection sensor data mentioned.

The kitchen_cook_surface on event is missing; only off event captured. Need to verify if there was a prior on event.

Sensor fault (stuck occupied) not ruled out for kitchen_occupancy or entrance_occupancy because no explicit stuck-value fault events are present.

Major missing information concerns absence of smoke/CO alarm events and water leak detector data. These chunks are needed to rule in/out hazards.

No water_leak_detector data; needs confirmation of device presence or absence.

Bathroom occupancy sensor stuck hypothesis cannot be confirmed without checking later chunks for any occupied events or sensor fault events.

No explicit device-fault events (e.g., alarm_temperature_out_of_range, fault_sensor_malfunction) are present; without them, the sensor hypotheses remain speculative.

Entrance occupancy persistence after 06:51 door sequence needs checking beyond C06 to see if occupancy eventually clears or if other entrance-related events occur.

The bathroom occupancy stuck hypothesis (A5) is plausible but unsupported by explicit fault events. Checking later chunks for any 'occupied' or fault events would clarify.

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 496,
    "bedroom": 533,
    "kitchen": 532,
    "bathroom": 61,
    "entrance": 231
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 943,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 22,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 943,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

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

## 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": ["living_room", "bedroom", "kitchen", "bathroom", "entrance"],
    "target_devices": ["all devices"],
    "target_question": "判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["kitchen", "bathroom", "living_room"],
  "focus_devices": ["kitchen_temp_sensor", "kitchen_cook_surface", "water_leak_detector", "smoke_co_alarm", "temperature_sensor", "occupancy_sensor"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C04", "C05", "C00"],
  "suspected_patterns": ["abnormal temperature rise in kitchen", "possible water leak in bathroom or kitchen", "prolonged unattended occupancy in living areas"],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains a None temperature reading from the kitchen sensor right after a temperature peak and cook surface off event, which could indicate sensor malfunction, tampering, or fire-related damage.",
    "C05 shows continued kitchen occupation and high temperature (25.05 C) with no clear normal pattern, suggesting potential overheating or appliance left on.",
    "C00 provides baseline nighttime behavior for comparison: all rooms unoccupied with stable temperatures, helping to detect anomalies in later chunks."
  ]
}

## Investigator
```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal morning routine: The resident wakes (bedroom occupied at 05:29, light on, window opens), uses bathroom (occupied 05:40-06:06), moves to kitchen (light on at 06:06, cook surface on at 06:06:32, occupied continuously through ~08:24), then exits home (kitchen light off at 06:51, front door unlocked manually at 06:51, door


EL-03-FP: 老人在旁边慢慢做饭

虽然老人短暂离开了厨房，但5分钟后回来检查，不是忘了关火

早晨离家后厨房和卧室持续占用且入口反复触发，存在人员滞留或跌倒风险。

Explanation: 06:58前门解锁后手动开门，随后接触器关闭并触发自动上锁，形成清晰的离家流程。

Explanation: 离家后（06:58-07:20）厨房和卧室的occupancy始终为occupied，未出现任何unoccupied事件，且入口传感器在07:03-07:18反复报告occupied，但无任何门锁操作或接触器变化，表明有人在该区域活动但未离开。

Explanation: 根据Matter笔记，OccupancySensing.Occupancy=1表示有人，0表示无人。从06:58到07:20数据截止，厨房和卧室持续为1，且无新解锁或开门事件，支持可能有人滞留。

Explanation: 虽然入口反复触发可能是传感器灵敏度或宠物误触所致，但结合厨房和卧室无unoccupied，滞留可能性不能被排除。

06:58:16前门自动上锁后，厨房和卧室从06:58到07:20持续occupied无unoccupied

07:03-07:20入口反复出现的occupied事件无对应门锁或接触器变化

检查家中是否有老年人或行动不便者，确认其安全 在厨房和卧室安装跌倒检测传感器或紧急按钮 设置离家模式自动化，若离家后房间长时间占用则推送告警

早晨离家后厨房和卧室持续占用且入口反复触发，存在人员滞留或跌倒风险。

07:03-07:20入口反复出现的occupied事件无对应门锁或接触器变化

综合判断家庭安全状况，指出潜在风险

kitchen bathroom living_room bedroom entrance

综合判断家庭安全状况，指出潜在风险

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "正常的家庭日常生活模式。早晨活动从厨房开始，随后有人离开家（06:58前门解锁，接触器短暂打开后重新锁上）。之后厨房和卧室在07:03-07:20连续报告有人，但入口区域同时也有占用事件（07:03-07:18多个入口占用事件），这可能是传感器对同一人经过的反复触发，或家庭中有多人同时活动的正常早晨场景。傍晚和晚间时段（17:26-21:54）所有主要房间（客厅、卧室、厨房、入口）持续报告occupied，符合家庭晚餐、放松、睡前准备等正常家庭活动模式。浴室全天仅报告unoccupied事件，可能是传感器安装位置或检测范围限制所致。温度全天在21.45-25.18°C范围内平稳波动，无异常过热或过冷。炉头在早晨(06:36)和傍晚(17:32)均被关闭，之后厨房温度短暂出现None读数但迅速恢复，可能是温度传感器在网络通信或数据采样瞬间的短暂丢包，而非持续性故障。",
      "evidence": [
        "06:20-06:58: 厨房、卧室依次出现occupied，符合早晨起床活动模式",
        "06:58:05-06:58:16: 前门解锁→打开接触器→关闭接触器→自动上锁，清晰的离家流程",
        "07:03-07:20: 入口多次出现occupied事件，与入口传感器对同一人经过的重复检测一致",
        "17:26-17:29: 卧室、客厅、厨房依次出现occupied，家庭人员傍晚回归",
        "17:32: 厨房炉头off，安全关闭",
        "06:36: 厨房炉头off，安全关闭",
        "所有房间温度全天在21.45-25.18°C范围，波动平缓",
        "浴室全天仅报告unoccupied事件（06:21、06:51、17:51、21:18、21:48），位置或配置导致",
        "厨房温度传感器None仅出现在炉头关闭后（06:37和17:33），各一次后立即恢复，非持续性"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "无法确认07:00-07:20之间厨房和卧室同时occupied且入口反复占用是否意味着有人滞留，还是正常复检",
        "全天无任何unoccupied事件在厨房、客厅、卧室出现（仅在浴室出现），不符合完全无人的预期",
        "未提供烟雾、CO、漏水等安全告警数据，无法完全排除隐蔽风险",
        "无门窗传感器（除前门外）验证是否有门窗未关闭风险"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "早晨离家后可能还有人员滞留。06:58前门关闭并锁定后，厨房和卧室依然保持occupied（06:58-07:20），且入口区域在07:03-07:18反复报告占用，但无任何新的解锁/开门事件。这可能意味着：1) 出门后有人未离开（如老人或儿童滞留）；2) 传感器灵敏度过高或存在持续误触；3) 入口传感器被宠物或窗帘等环境因素误触发。长时间无unoccupied事件（截至07:20数据）也支持滞留风险。",
      "threat_type": "possible_fall",
      "evidence": [
        "06:58:16: 前门自动上锁，锁状态为locked，无人后续开门",
        "06:58-07:20: 厨房、卧室保持occupied无unoccupied",
        "07:00: 客厅occupancy为unoccupied，但卧室和厨房仍为occupied",
        "07:03-07:18: 入口连续出现5次occupied事件（07:03, 07:08, 07:13, 07:18, 07:20），但无门锁操作或接触器变化",
        "07:20: 数据截止时，厨房和卧室仍为occupied"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "未提供全天更完整的数据（07:20之后）来确认是否最终有unoccupied事件",
        "无老年人或健康状况的背景信息，滞留风险仅为推测",
        "入口传感器在占用模式下反复触发在多层建筑或传感器灵敏度高的情况下常见"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "晚间多房间同时occupied且持续数小时无任何unoccupied，可能表明有人活动受限或异常，特别是20:35-21:54期间浴室出现唯一的occupied事件，但持续时间极短（20:35:08-20:48:35）。同时，20:47有前门接触器状态为true（关闭）且锁状态为locked，表明外部无入侵。但所有房间持续occupied超过4小时（17:26-21:54）未出现一次全房间unoccupied，可能意味着家庭活动特别集中或有人行动不便未离开房间。",
      "threat_type": "health_concern",
      "evidence": [
        "17:26-21:54: 客厅、卧室、厨房、入口持续occupied，无任何unoccupied事件",
        "20:35:08: 浴室出现唯一一次occupied（20:35:08），但20:48:35即unoccupied",
        "20:47:10-20:47:11: 前门接触器=true，锁状态=locked，外部安全",
        "20:47:18-20:47:22: 卧室灯短暂开闭，窗户升至10000，可能是睡前操作",
        "21:54: 数据截止时所有房间仍为occupied"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "长时间多房间occupied在家庭晚间团聚、看电视等场景下完全正常",
        "无任何健康监测设备（心率、跌倒检测等）数据支撑",
        "21:54后无数据，无法确认是否最终有人离开各房间"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A3",
      "description": "厨房温度传感器在炉头关闭后出现短暂None读数（06:37和17:33各一次），虽然每次后均恢复，且温度未显著升高（06:37的None后06:40温度25.03°C，仅微升），但无法完全排除传感器连接或炉头残留热量导致的瞬态异常。但无后续烟雾或CO报警事件，火灾风险较低。",
      "threat_type": "fire_risk",
      "evidence": [
        "06:36: kitchen_cook_surface off",
        "06:37: kitchen_temp_sensor = None",
        "17:32: kitchen_cook_surface off",
        "17:33: kitchen_temp_sensor = None",
        "None后温度读数迅速恢复且仅略高于关闭前（06:35:24.86 vs 06:40:25.03，温差0.17°C）",
        "无烟雾或CO报警事件记录"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "温度传感器None仅出现一次且短瞬，恢复后无异常，故障证据不足",
        "炉头在off状态下温度未飙升，无过热迹象",
        "缺乏烟雾传感器数据确认是否有隐蔽火源"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "06:58:16前门上锁后厨房和卧室从06:58到07:20持续occupied且入口反复占用",
    "全天（06:20-21:54）除浴室外，无任何主要房间出现unoccupied事件",
    "厨房温度传感器在炉头关闭后两次出现None（06:37、17:33），虽快速恢复但模式一致",
    "20:35:08浴室出现唯一一次occupied事件且仅持续约13分钟，与浴室使用习惯不符",
    "20:47:18-20:47:22: 卧室灯短暂开闭+窗户升至10000，可能在数据截止前有睡前准备"
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "07:20之后（直至次日）的完整occupancy、温度、门锁、接触器、烟雾/CO/漏水数据",
    "浴室传感器型号和安装说明（是否为静默检测型、检测范围、安装高度）",
    "家中居住人数及是否有老年人、儿童、慢性病患者等可能需关注的特殊人群",
    "厨房烟雾报警器、CO探测器数据",
    "除前门外其他门窗接触传感器数据",
    "是否有宠物（可能误触发入口或其他传感器）",
    "房屋结构信息（多层或多套传感器配置）",
    "历史数据对比：同一天其他时段或前几天的occupancy模式",
    "用户是否设置了任何离家/到家自动化或告警规则"
  ]
}
```

06:20-06:58: 厨房、卧室依次出现occupied，符合早晨起床活动模式

17:26-17:29: 卧室、客厅、厨房依次出现occupied，家庭人员傍晚回归

17:32: 厨房炉头off，安全关闭

06:36: 厨房炉头off，安全关闭

所有房间温度全天在21.45-25.18°C范围，波动平缓

未提供烟雾、CO、漏水等安全告警数据，无法完全排除隐蔽风险

无门窗传感器（除前门外）验证是否有门窗未关闭风险

06:58:16: 前门自动上锁，锁状态为locked，无人后续开门

未提供全天更完整的数据（07:20之后）来确认是否最终有unoccupied事件

无老年人或健康状况的背景信息，滞留风险仅为推测

入口传感器在占用模式下反复触发在多层建筑或传感器灵敏度高的情况下常见

20:47:10-20:47:11: 前门接触器=true，锁状态=locked，外部安全

长时间多房间occupied在家庭晚间团聚、看电视等场景下完全正常 无任何健康监测设备（心率、跌倒检测等）数据支撑 21:54后无数据，无法确认是否最终有人离开各房间

无烟雾或CO报警事件记录

温度传感器None仅出现一次且短瞬，恢复后无异常，故障证据不足 炉头在off状态下温度未飙升，无过热迹象 缺乏烟雾传感器数据确认是否有隐蔽火源

全天（06:20-21:54）除浴室外，无任何主要房间出现unoccupied事件

厨房温度传感器在炉头关闭后两次出现None（06:37、17:33），虽快速恢复但模式一致

20:35:08浴室出现唯一一次occupied事件且仅持续约13分钟，与浴室使用习惯不符

浴室传感器型号和安装说明（是否为静默检测型、检测范围、安装高度）

家中居住人数及是否有老年人、儿童、慢性病患者等可能需关注的特殊人群

厨房烟雾报警器、CO探测器数据

除前门外其他门窗接触传感器数据

是否有宠物（可能误触发入口或其他传感器）

房屋结构信息（多层或多套传感器配置）

历史数据对比：同一天其他时段或前几天的occupancy模式

用户是否设置了任何离家/到家自动化或告警规则

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": true,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "low",
  "recommended_action": "allow_final_verdict",
  "needs_more_chunks": [],
  "missing_checks": [
    "无烟雾/CO/漏水传感器数据，无法排除隐蔽安全风险",
    "无后续（07:20之后）的占用事件数据，无法确认早晨滞留风险是否解除",
    "无家庭成员构成信息（如是否有老年人或行动不便者）",
    "无宠物信息，无法判断入口传感器反复触发是否由宠物引起"
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "温度传感器None读数发生在炉头关闭后仅一次，且立即恢复，符合短暂通信丢包模式，未构成设备故障证据",
    "长时间多房间持续占用（17:26-21:54）在晚间家庭团聚场景下完全正常，但缺少健康监测数据限制了对健康风险的评估",
    "浴室全天仅报告unoccupied事件（除一次短暂occupied），可能是传感器安装位置或检测门限导致，需考虑传感器配置异常",
    "早晨离家后厨房与卧室持续占用（06:58-07:20）+入口反复占用但无门锁操作，是值得关注的滞留风险模式",
    "主要房间全天从未出现unoccupied事件，可能反映传感器未配置为在无人时报告状态变化，但无法仅凭此结论判定异常"
  ]
}
```

无烟雾/CO/漏水传感器数据，无法排除隐蔽安全风险 无后续（07:20之后）的占用事件数据，无法确认早晨滞留风险是否解除 无家庭成员构成信息（如是否有老年人或行动不便者） 无宠物信息，无法判断入口传感器反复触发是否由宠物引起

正常家庭日常活动模式，早晨有人起床后在厨房活动，随后出门并锁门，傍晚多人回家，晚间各房间持续有人居住，无安全事件。

早晨06:20-07:20厨房持续有人（occupied），卧室有人，客厅无人，符合起床后在厨房准备早餐和在家休息的模式。

06:58厨房灯关闭，前门手动开锁，门打开后自动上锁，显示正常离家流程。

傍晚17:26-18:20客厅、卧室、厨房、门口陆续有人，符合下班回家后全家人聚集活动的场景。

晚间21:00-21:54所有房间（客厅、卧室、厨房、门口）持续occupied，温度平稳缓慢下降，符合夜间居家活动模式。

两次厨房温度传感器报None后均恢复正常读值（06:40恢复、17:35恢复），可能是瞬时通讯丢包，非持续性故障。

未提供窗口/门的接触传感器（除前门外）或烟雾/漏水等安全传感器的数据，无法完全排除其他风险。

厨房温度传感器短暂None虽恢复，但需更多数据确认是否为间歇性硬件问题。

厨房烹饪可能存在燃气或火灾风险：早晨和傍晚厨房炉头关闭后温度传感器报None，傍晚厨房高占用但炉头关闭可能表示做饭过程中意外关火或被遗忘，传感器None可能反映异常高温/蒸汽干扰。

06:36厨房炉头关闭（off）后，06:37厨房温度传感器报None。

17:32厨房炉头关闭（off）后，17:33厨房温度传感器报None。

傍晚厨房长时间处于occupied状态（17:29-18:19连续），但炉头在17:32已关闭，可能有人在厨房但未使用炉头，或炉头关闭但未确认安全。

厨房温度传感器在炉头关闭后立即报None，可能因为高温/水汽干扰传感器，而非简单的通讯故障。

温度传感器在两次None后均快速恢复正常（1-3分钟后），未出现持续异常，降低火灾可能性。

无烟雾报警或高温持续上升的证据，早晨炉头关闭后厨房温度未显著升高。

傍晚至晚间多房间长时间同时处于occupied状态，但无任何门窗开关或锁变化，可能有人长时间聚集或存在异常占用（如老人或孩子被长时间留在房内，但无移动记录）。

傍晚17:26-18:20期间客厅、卧室、厨房、门口全部occupied，且持续近1小时无任何房间变为unoccupied，可能多人长时间待在固定位置，缺乏走动。

晚间21:00-21:54同样模式：全部房间occupied，无任何变化（仅21:18和21:48浴室报unoccupied，但此期间其他房间持续occupied），可能有人活动受限或长时间未移动。

浴室在06:20、06:51、17:51、21:18、21:48均只报unoccupied事件，无occupied事件，可能浴室传感器故障或无人使用。

若家中有老人或小孩，长时间不动可能存在健康风险（如摔倒、疾病）。

多房间同时occupied可能正常表示多人在家各自活动，温度数据正常，且未触发任何警报。

浴室无occupied事件可能因传感器位于门外，需确认安装位置。

无明确摔倒检测或紧急呼叫记录，属推测性风险。

厨房炉头关闭后温度传感器两次报None（06:37和17:33），虽恢复但模式异常，需密切监控。

傍晚至晚间所有常用房间（客厅、卧室、厨房、门口）持续occupied长达30分钟以上，无任何unoccupied事件，可能异常聚集或活动受限。

浴室传感器全天仅报告unoccupied事件，未报告occupied，可能传感器故障或使用模式异常。

厨房温度传感器报None时的具体状态（是否处于高温/烟雾/蒸汽环境）。 房屋内烟雾、一氧化碳、漏水报警器是否安装及有无事件触发。 门窗接触传感器（除前门外）的状态，如窗户是否异常打开。 家中是否有需要关注的人群（老人、儿童、病人）及他们的日常活动模式。 浴室传感器只报告unoccupied是否因安装位置或配置问题。

06:58厨房灯关闭，前门手动开锁，门打开后自动上锁，显示正常离家流程。

厨房温度传感器短暂None虽恢复，但需更多数据确认是否为间歇性硬件问题。

06:36厨房炉头关闭（off）后，06:37厨房温度传感器报None。

17:32厨房炉头关闭（off）后，17:33厨房温度传感器报None。

无烟雾报警或高温持续上升的证据，早晨炉头关闭后厨房温度未显著升高。

若家中有老人或小孩，长时间不动可能存在健康风险（如摔倒、疾病）。

浴室无occupied事件可能因传感器位于门外，需确认安装位置。

无明确摔倒检测或紧急呼叫记录，属推测性风险。

06:20-06:58: 厨房、卧室依次出现occupied，符合早晨起床活动模式

17:26-17:29: 卧室、客厅、厨房依次出现occupied，家庭人员傍晚回归

17:32: 厨房炉头off，安全关闭

06:36: 厨房炉头off，安全关闭

所有房间温度全天在21.45-25.18°C范围，波动平缓

未提供烟雾、CO、漏水等安全告警数据，无法完全排除隐蔽风险

无门窗传感器（除前门外）验证是否有门窗未关闭风险

06:58:16: 前门自动上锁，锁状态为locked，无人后续开门

无老年人或健康状况的背景信息，滞留风险仅为推测

入口传感器在占用模式下反复触发在多层建筑或传感器灵敏度高的情况下常见

20:47:10-20:47:11: 前门接触器=true，锁状态=locked，外部安全

无烟雾或CO报警事件记录

浴室传感器型号和安装说明（是否为静默检测型、检测范围、安装高度）

家中居住人数及是否有老年人、儿童、慢性病患者等可能需关注的特殊人群

厨房烟雾报警器、CO探测器数据

除前门外其他门窗接触传感器数据

是否有宠物（可能误触发入口或其他传感器）

房屋结构信息（多层或多套传感器配置）

历史数据对比：同一天其他时段或前几天的occupancy模式

用户是否设置了任何离家/到家自动化或告警规则

厨房温度传感器None后是否紧接烟雾或CO报警事件 浴室传感器的安装位置或配置模式，缺少occupied事件是否正常 傍晚/晚间多房间同时occupied期间是否有其他活动或设备交互记录 早晨离家后各房间occupancy变化是否一致，是否存在人员滞留

厨房炉头关闭与温度传感器None的时间关联值得关注，但温度恢复快且无持续异常，火灾风险证据链不完整，需补充烟雾/CO数据。

浴室全天仅报告unoccupied事件（06:21、06:51、17:51、21:18、21:48），缺乏occupied事件可能因传感器位置或静默检测特性，不应直接推测故障。

多房间同时occupied（傍晚和晚间）模式在家庭活动场景中正常，但长时间无任何unoccupied事件需结合门、窗、锁或移动数据排除异常滞留或活动受限。

目前缺乏非前门区域的门窗接触传感器数据，无法全面评估环境安全。

部分温度变化在正常范围内，早晨厨房炉头关闭后温度波动在24.8-25.2°C之间，无过热证据。

目前缺乏非前门区域的门窗接触传感器数据，无法全面评估环境安全。

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 498,
    "bedroom": 529,
    "kitchen": 539,
    "bathroom": 59,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 946,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 22,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 946,
  "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": "2026-06-10T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-10T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "e

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["all"],
    "target_devices": ["all"],
    "target_question": "综合判断家庭安全状况，指出潜在风险"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["kitchen", "bathroom", "living_room", "bedroom", "entrance"],
  "focus_devices": ["all"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C04", "C16", "C20"],
  "suspected_patterns": ["kitchen cook surface turned off followed by temperature sensor None reading (possible fault)", "high occupancy with no window/contact changes may indicate elder stuck", "no explicit alarm events but need to verify leak/smoke"],
  "why_these_chunks": ["C04 captures morning activity onset and bathroom occupancy transitions; C16 captures critical kitchen cook surface off event and temperature sensor None; C20 captures evening high-occupancy pattern to check for anomalies or prolonged inactivity in specific rooms."]
}

## Investigator
```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "正常的家庭日常生活模式。早晨活动从厨房开始，随后有人离开家（06:58前门解锁，接触器短暂打开后重新锁上）。之后厨房和卧室在07:03-07:20连续报告有人，但入口区域同时也有占用事件（07:03-07:18多个入口占用事件），这可能是传感器对同一人经过的反复触发，或家庭中有多人同时活动的正常早晨场景。傍晚和晚间时段（17:26-21:54）所有主要房间（客厅、卧室、厨房、入口）持续报告occupied，符合家庭晚餐、放松、睡前准备等正常家庭活动模式。浴室全天仅报告unoccupied事件，可能是传感器安装位置或检测范围限制所致。温度全天在21.45-25.18°C范围内平稳波动，无异常过热或过冷。炉头在早晨(06:36)和傍晚(17:32)均被关闭，之后厨房温度短暂出现None读数但迅速恢复，可能是温度传感器在网络通信或数据采样瞬间的短暂丢包，而非持续性故障。",
      "evidence": [
        "06:20-06:58: 厨房、卧室依次出现occupied，符合早晨起床活动模式",
        "06:58:05-06:58:16: 前门解锁→打开接触器→关闭接触器→自动上锁，清晰的离家流程",
        "07:03-07:20: 入口多次出现occupied事件，与入口传感器对同一人经过的重复检测一致",
        "17:26-17:29: 卧室、客厅、厨房依次出现occupied，家庭人员傍晚回归",
        "17:32: 厨房炉头off，