灶具开着 + 厨房无人 + 老人在其他房间
跟 FG-01 类似但在老人场景下更危险（认知衰退风险更高）

No sufficiently supported anomaly pattern was identified across the 12-hour log.

Explanation: The supervisor explicitly stated that the risk of false alarm is high and that the occupancy sensor polling hypothesis (normal) is more plausible than an anomaly hypothesis, instructing this as the final verifier to not equate insufficient evidence with anomaly.

Explanation: All occupancy sensors across kitchen, bedroom, living room, and entrance report 'occupied' in a highly regular ~5-minute cadence throughout all four chunks — this pattern strongly suggests periodic polling rather than event-driven motion detection, which is consistent with a normal Matter-based system design and does not constitute a sensor fault.

Explanation: The bathroom occupancy sensor does report both 'occupied' (C10, 20:55:07) and 'unoccupied' events (multiple), confirming it functions correctly. The 'unoccupied'-only pattern in other chunks is consistent with a sensor that reports occupancy at intervals and only sends the state change on timeout; the investigator's earlier factual error about bathroom occupancy was corrected by the supervisor.

Explanation: The front door contact 'true' at 20:55:15 followed by an auto-lock at 20:55:16, with no logged 'false' event, cannot be interpreted as an intrusion because the contact may have already been 'true' (open) from a prior event, and the lock can engage after the door is closed even if the contact sensor does not log the transition. The supervisor explicitly warned that this missing 'false' event is not evidence of an open door.

Explanation: The kitchen temperature sensor's single 'None' reading at 17:23:00 is isolated and was followed by a normal reading 2 minutes later; no repeated non-recovery or other fault evidence exists. Per the Matter Notes, a device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence such as stuck values or repeated non-recovery — this does not meet that threshold.

Explanation: The 12-second bedroom light toggle and brief bathroom visit at 20:55 are consistent with a normal arrival routine (e.g., drop belongings, use bathroom). No other behavioral indicators (e.g., extended inactivity, unusual cross-room movements) are present in the logs.

Explanation: Health concern hypotheses (A3) lack baseline data and are not supported by the available 12-hour log; the frequency of bathroom 'unoccupied' events (8 over 12 hours) is within a plausible normal range for an elderly person.

Explanation: No intrusion, fire, carbon monoxide, water leak, fall, or other safety/emergency events are logged. The system is reporting normally with only a single transient data-quality issue.

All four occupancy sensors (living_room, bedroom, kitchen, entrance) report 'occupied' in a consistent ~5-minute cadence across all chunks — indicative of polling, not motion detection.

Bathroom occupancy sensor reports both 'occupied' and 'unoccupied' events: 'occupied' at 20:55:07 (C10) and 'unoccupied' at multiple timestamps (e.g., 20:55:32, 21:25:32, 22:55:32).

Front door contact 'true' event is not preceded by a 'false' event, but no door closure log exists — cannot conclude the door remained open or that an intrusion occurred.

Kitchen temperature sensor shows a single 'None' value at 17:23:00 with immediate recovery at 17:25:00; no other sensor faults across all four chunks.

Bedroom light on/off cycle at 20:55:23-35 (12 seconds) and bathroom occupancy pair at 20:55:07-32 are consistent with a brief arrival routine.

No explicit fault codes, repeated non-recovery, or stuck values from any device.

Confirm the occupancy sensor reporting mode (event-triggered vs polling) with the system administrator to definitively rule out the polling hypothesis.

Review full 12-hour log for any additional 'None' values or sensor anomalies not captured in the four chunks to ensure the kitchen temperature sensor incident is truly isolated.

Establish baseline occupancy and bathroom use patterns for the household (e.g., 7-day history) to assess whether future patterns indicate health concerns.

If door contact sensor is confirmed to log all transitions, add a front door contact 'false' event to the log to enable future intrusion detection.

Monitor the kitchen temperature sensor for recurring None values, which could indicate an intermittent hardware fault requiring replacement.

是否存在异常行为模式（例如老人生活习惯异常、设备故障或安全风险）

厨房温度传感器在C06中出现一次None值，可能存在短暂故障

C10中在20:55左右出现一系列聚集事件：入户门开关、自动上锁、卧室灯开关、窗帘动作，符合夜间归家/就寝模式

C06包含kitchen_temp_sensor的None值，这是整个日志中唯一的传感器读数缺失事件，可能指向间歇性设备故障或网络波动

C10包含最丰富的事件交互序列（入户门→门锁→卧室灯→窗帘→卫生间），是判断老人生活习惯是否正常的核心窗口

两个chunk覆盖了温度异常信号和典型行为序列，是异常模式检测的关键

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Occupancy sensors operate in periodic polling mode, resulting in all rooms reporting 'occupied' at regular intervals throughout the entire 12-hour period. This pattern is consistent with a system that refreshes occupancy sensors on a timer rather than triggering only on state change events.",
      "evidence": [
        "All occupancy sensors (living_room, bedroom, kitchen, entrance) report 'occupied' approximately every 3-5 minutes continuously from 11:55 to 23:35, without any 'unoccupied' events except bathroom.",
        "The structured signals show 610 occupancy events total, which is consistent with ~5-minute polling for 4-5 sensors over 12 hours.",
        "The kitchen occupancy sensor never reports 'unoccupied' in any chunk, suggesting it either always detects presence or reports a cached/polled value.",
        "Bathroom occupancy sensor also reports only infrequent 'unoccupied' events, not a full occupied/unoccupied cycle, consistent with a sensor that only sends changes."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "If the sensors are truly event-triggered (motion-based), then persistent 'occupied' for kitchen and bedroom for 12+ hours without any unoccupied event would be highly abnormal, but the supervisor flagged this as a key missing check.",
        "The 'occupied' reports occur at fixed intervals across all rooms, which looks more like a heartbeat/polling pattern than real occupancy detection."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "N2",
      "description": "A normal home routine: occupant returns home around 20:55 (C10), enters through front door, auto-lock engages, briefly enters bedroom (turns light on/off in ~12 seconds), uses bathroom briefly, and then settles into normal evening activity. The kitchen cook surface is turned off earlier (17:22, C06) and no cooking-related anomalies follow.",
      "evidence": [
        "C10: front_door_contact true at 20:55:15, immediately followed by door auto-lock at 20:55:16, consistent with normal entry and lock activation.",
        "C10: bedroom_light on at 20:55:23, off at 20:55:35 (12-second duration) — plausible for a quick visit to drop belongings.",
        "C10: bathroom_occupancy occupied at 20:55:07, unoccupied at 20:55:32 (~25 seconds) — normal brief bathroom use upon arrival.",
        "C06: kitchen_cook_surface off at 17:22:00 — no unsafe cooking residue or fire risk.",
        "C00: living_room_light turned off at 12:39:00 — routine light adjustment."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The 12-second bedroom light interval is short but not impossible; occupant could have entered to place items and left immediately.",
        "No explicit door-closed event for front_door_contact, but the auto-lock event (OperationSource=Auto) strongly implies the door was closed for the lock to engage.",
        "No bathroom occupied-before-unoccupied event pair in C10; the occupant could have entered bathroom, and the first event seen is the unoccupied timestamp — this could indicate a sensor that only reports unoccupied at the end of a stay."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "N3",
      "description": "All temperature sensors show gradual, correlated temperature decreases from ~25°C in the late morning (C00) to ~21.5-23°C by late evening (C10-C12). This coherent downward trend is consistent with normal diurnal cooling in a residential environment.",
      "evidence": [
        "C00 (11:55-12:45): living_room ~25.04-25.36°C, bedroom ~24.07-24.40°C, kitchen ~25.03-25.31°C.",
        "C06 (17:20-18:10): living_room ~23.13-23.56°C, bedroom ~22.16-22.50°C, kitchen ~23.10-23.56°C.",
        "C10 (20:55-21:45): living_room ~22.42-22.66°C, bedroom ~21.45-21.64°C, kitchen ~22.41-22.62°C.",
        "C12 (22:45-23:35): living_room ~22.50-22.68°C, bedroom ~21.49-21.69°C, kitchen ~22.46-22.69°C.",
        "No sudden spikes, drifts, or impossible values observed."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "Temperature is not a focus of the anomaly investigation; values are within expected range and follow normal trends."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "All occupancy sensors (living_room, bedroom, kitchen, entrance) report only 'occupied' for the entire 12-hour period (with bathroom showing only occasional 'unoccupied'). If these sensors are event-triggered (motion-based), this is a strong anomaly — either a person (or multiple people) remains continuously present in all rooms, or the sensors have failed/stuck in the 'occupied' state. The kitchen occupancy never once reports 'unoccupied' across all chunks, which is especially suspicious.",
      "threat_type": "behavioral_anomaly",
      "evidence": [
        "Entire C00 chunk: kitchen_occupancy reports 'occupied' at 11:55, 12:00, 12:05, 12:10, 12:15, 12:20, 12:25, 12:30, 12:35, 12:40, 12:45 — every 5 minutes — never 'unoccupied'.",
        "C06 (17:24-18:09): same pattern — kitchen_occupancy 'occupied' every ~5 minutes, never 'unoccupied'.",
        "C10 (20:59-21:44): same pattern — kitchen_occupancy 'occupied' every ~5 minutes, never 'unoccupied'.",
        "C12 (22:44-23:34): same pattern — kitchen_occupancy 'occupied' every ~5 minutes, never 'unoccupied'.",
        "Bedroom_occupancy follows identical pattern: occupied every ~5 minutes across all chunks, only unoccupied events are in bathroom.",
        "Living_room_occupancy and entrance_occupancy also follow the same 5-minute 'occupied' cadence.",
        "Total of 610 occupancy events with only bathroom showing any state change (unoccupied) — this is consistent with either stuck sensors or a person who never leaves any room."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The supervisor's feedback explicitly warns: '未验证 occupancy 传感器的工作模式（事件触发 vs 轮询），这对 A3 的周期触发假设至关重要'. If the sensors are polling at fixed intervals and always caching the last known state (or always detecting presence due to a constantly occupied building), this pattern is normal.",
        "No evidence of a sensor fault (stuck value) because the values are consistent with polling cadence, not truly stuck at a single timestamp.",
        "A single person cannot be simultaneously present in kitchen, bedroom, living room, and entrance every 5 minutes for 12 hours — if sensors are motion-based, this requires multiple occupants or a system-level pattern.",
        "The structured signals show 610 occupancy events over 12 hours; if this were 4 motion sensors, that's about 2.5 events/hour/sensor, which is low for a person — suggesting polling, not motion."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "The front door event sequence at 20:55:15-16 shows door contact true followed by auto-lock, but there is no door-closed event (contact false) before the lock. In a normal entrance, the door opens (contact true), person enters, door closes (contact false), then lock engages. If the contact remained true (door still open) when the lock engaged, this could indicate a door that was forced closed while contact sensor malfunctioned, or the door was not fully closed. Combined with the bedroom light being on for only 12 seconds and no subsequent presence in other rooms except bathroom, this could indicate tailgating or an intruder who entered but did not actually stay in the home.",
      "threat_type": "intrusion / tailgating",
      "evidence": [
        "C10: front_door_contact StateValue=true at 20:55:15. Immediate lock event at 20:55:16 with OperationSource=Auto.",
        "No front_door_contact StateValue=false event exists in C10 or surrounding chunks C06/C12 — the door is never logged as closed.",
        "Bedroom_light on at 20:55:23, off at 20:55:35 (12 seconds) — unusually brief for settling in after returning home.",
        "After 20:55, occupant is not seen in bathroom or bedroom beyond a quick visit; the only occupied events are periodic polling from all rooms.",
        "If the occupant truly entered, one would expect a door close event before the lock, or at least some evidence of extended presence."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "Door contact sensors may only report state changes; if the door started in 'true' (open) state from earlier, no false event would be generated upon closing — the system might only report transitions.",
        "The lock event with OperationSource=Auto could still occur if the door was closed but contact sensor did not fire false; the absence of a false event does not prove the door was open.",
        "The supervisor already noted: 'front_door_contact 的 true 可能仅表示门当时打开，后续锁门可能瞬间关门，缺少闭合日志不代表异常'.",
        "The 12-second bedroom light duration could be normal behavior (e.g., dropping keys, picking up items, checking something).",
        "No other security-related events (alarm, forced entry, glass break) are present."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A3",
      "description": "Bathroom occupancy sensor logs infrequent 'unoccupied' events (12:01:39, 12:31:39, 17:31:39, 18:01:39, 20:55:32, 21:25:32, 22:55:32, 23:25:32) but never a corresponding 'occupied' event. The bathroom is reported as 'unoccupied' at these timestamps, meaning either: (a) the sensor only reports when it becomes unoccupied (possible), or (b) the occupant visited the bathroom but the sensor failed to register the 'occupied' event. If it's (b), bathroom use could be much higher than recorded — an 86-year-old with only 8 bathroom visits in 12 hours (some in rapid succession, e.g., 20:55:32 and 21:25:32 are only 30 minutes apart, but then 22:55:32 is 90 minutes later) — may indicate low fluid intake, dehydration, or a medical event if the person is actually present but not using the bathroom.",
      "threat_type": "health_concern",
      "evidence": [
        "Bathroom 'unoccupied' events occur at specific timestamps: 12:01:39, 12:31:39, 17:31:39, 18:01:39, 20:55:32, 21:25:32, 22:55:32, 23:25:32 — 8 events in ~12 hours.",
        "No 'occupied' event for bathroom is present in any chunk. The sensor either always reports only 'unoccupied', or occupied events are missing entirely.",
        "If occupied events are missing, the true number of bathroom uses could be higher or lower depending on sensor reliability.",
        "The gap between 20:55:32 and 22:55:32 is 2 hours without bathroom activity, which could be normal nighttime but also could indicate reduced fluid intake.",
        "Structured signals show only 31 bathroom events total in 12 hours, far fewer than other rooms (294-300)."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The supervisor noted '缺少基线数据，单独基于 12 小时日志不足以推断' health concerns.",
        "If the sensor only logs the 'unoccupied' transition (e.g., a PIR sensor that resets), the occupant could have visited the bathroom 8 times — which is a normal frequency for an elderly person.",
        "No explicit 'occupied' event is needed if the sensor's design only sends when it becomes unoccupied after timeout.",
        "The occupant could be sleeping or resting during the 2-hour gap, not indicating a medical issue.",
        "This hypothesis depends heavily on the sensor's reporting model, which is not documented."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A4",
      "description": "The kitchen temperature sensor recorded a 'None' value at 17:23:00 (C06), which is the only None value across all temperature sensors in all four chunks. While it recovered at the next reading (17:25:00) with a normal value of 23.56°C, this transient sensor failure could indicate an intermittent hardware issue, loose connection, or brief power fluctuation. Although not immediately dangerous, recurring failures could lead to missed detection of fire or unsafe cooking conditions.",
      "threat_type": "sensor_malfunction",
      "evidence": [
        "C06: kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None' at 2026-06-16T17:23:00.",
        "This is the only None value for any temperature sensor across all four chunks (C00, C06, C10, C12).",
        "Prior reading at 17:20:00 was 23.39°C; next reading at 17:25:00 was 23.56°C — both normal, so the None was transient, not a drift or stuck condition.",
        "No other environmental factor (e.g., power outage to all devices) is evident since other sensors reported normally at the same timestamp."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "A single transient None value could be a network glitch, radio interference, or buffer overflow rather than a hardware fault.",
        "The sensor recovered quickly and showed no further anomalies in subsequent readings.",
        "No repeated non-recovery or subsequent stuck values — the supervisor's condition for device-fault conclusion is not met.",
        "The supervisor suggested checking for other None values across the full log; no other chunks show None, so this is isolated."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "All occupancy sensors (kitchen, bedroom, living_room, entrance) report 'occupied' in a fixed 5-minute cadence for the entire 12-hour period with zero 'unoccupied' events outside of bathroom — this is the single most discriminating finding, as it either indicates perfect polling or a sensor behavior anomaly.",
    "Bathroom occupancy sensor logs only 'unoccupied' events (never 'occupied') at approximately 30-90 minute intervals — critical for determining if bathroom sensor is reporting correctly or if occupant has abnormal bathroom routine.",
    "Front door contact shows 'true' at 20:55:15 followed by immediate auto-lock at 20:55:16 with no intervening door-closed event — this temporal compression is the only potential security signal in the log.",
    "Kitchen temperature sensor solitary None value at 17:23:00 — the only data quality issue across the entire 12-hour period.",
    "Bedroom light on/off cycle lasting exactly 12 seconds at 20:55:23-35 — this quick toggle is the only non-routine actuator event in the sequence."
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "Occupancy sensor reporting mode (event-triggered vs periodic polling) — this is the single most critical piece of missing information to distinguish normal polling from a stuck or anomalous pattern.",
    "Baseline data for bathroom use frequency in this household — necessary to determine if 8 bathroom visits in 12 hours is normal or indicative of a health concern.",
    "Door contact sensor behavior specification — whether it reports every state transition (including false-to-true and true-to-false) or only 'true' events. This affects interpretation of A2 (intrusion).",
    "Full 12-hour period context for None values — are there any other None readings from any sensor at other times not covered by these four chunks?",
    "Presence of an 'occupied' event from bathroom before each 'unoccupied' event — the current data shows only unoccupied, which could be a reporting artifact or a missing event.",
    "Explicit door-closed event (front_door_contact false) — needed to confirm normal entry completion.",
    "Bedroom occupancy event status immediately before/after the 20:55 light toggle — bedroom occupancy reports 'occupied' at 20:55:06 which is before the entry, and continues to report occupied after. This timing is consistent with normal polling but makes the 12-second light toggle less anomalous."
  ]
}
```

The structured signals show 610 occupancy events total, which is consistent with ~5-minute polling for 4-5 sensors over 12 hours.

The kitchen occupancy sensor never reports 'unoccupied' in any chunk, suggesting it either always detects presence or reports a cached/polled value.

The 'occupied' reports occur at fixed intervals across all rooms, which looks more like a heartbeat/polling pattern than real occupancy detection.

C10: front_door_contact true at 20:55:15, immediately followed by door auto-lock at 20:55:16, consistent with normal entry and lock activation.

C10: bedroom_light on at 20:55:23, off at 20:55:35 (12-second duration) — plausible for a quick visit to drop belongings.

C10: bathroom_occupancy occupied at 20:55:07, unoccupied at 20:55:32 (~25 seconds) — normal brief bathroom use upon arrival.

C06: kitchen_cook_surface off at 17:22:00 — no unsafe cooking residue or fire risk.

C00: living_room_light turned off at 12:39:00 — routine light adjustment.

The 12-second bedroom light interval is short but not impossible; occupant could have entered to place items and left immediately.

No sudden spikes, drifts, or impossible values observed.

Temperature is not a focus of the anomaly investigation; values are within expected range and follow normal trends.

C06 (17:24-18:09): same pattern — kitchen_occupancy 'occupied' every ~5 minutes, never 'unoccupied'.

C10 (20:59-21:44): same pattern — kitchen_occupancy 'occupied' every ~5 minutes, never 'unoccupied'.

C12 (22:44-23:34): same pattern — kitchen_occupancy 'occupied' every ~5 minutes, never 'unoccupied'.

Bedroom_occupancy follows identical pattern: occupied every ~5 minutes across all chunks, only unoccupied events are in bathroom.

Living_room_occupancy and entrance_occupancy also follow the same 5-minute 'occupied' cadence.

No evidence of a sensor fault (stuck value) because the values are consistent with polling cadence, not truly stuck at a single timestamp.

C10: front_door_contact StateValue=true at 20:55:15. Immediate lock event at 20:55:16 with OperationSource=Auto.

No front_door_contact StateValue=false event exists in C10 or surrounding chunks C06/C12 — the door is never logged as closed.

Bedroom_light on at 20:55:23, off at 20:55:35 (12 seconds) — unusually brief for settling in after returning home.

After 20:55, occupant is not seen in bathroom or bedroom beyond a quick visit; the only occupied events are periodic polling from all rooms.

If the occupant truly entered, one would expect a door close event before the lock, or at least some evidence of extended presence.

The supervisor already noted: 'front_door_contact 的 true 可能仅表示门当时打开，后续锁门可能瞬间关门，缺少闭合日志不代表异常'.

The 12-second bedroom light duration could be normal behavior (e.g., dropping keys, picking up items, checking something).

No other security-related events (alarm, forced entry, glass break) are present.

No 'occupied' event for bathroom is present in any chunk. The sensor either always reports only 'unoccupied', or occupied events are missing entirely.

If occupied events are missing, the true number of bathroom uses could be higher or lower depending on sensor reliability.

Structured signals show only 31 bathroom events total in 12 hours, far fewer than other rooms (294-300).

The supervisor noted '缺少基线数据，单独基于 12 小时日志不足以推断' health concerns.

No explicit 'occupied' event is needed if the sensor's design only sends when it becomes unoccupied after timeout.

The occupant could be sleeping or resting during the 2-hour gap, not indicating a medical issue.

This hypothesis depends heavily on the sensor's reporting model, which is not documented.

C06: kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None' at 2026-06-16T17:23:00.

This is the only None value for any temperature sensor across all four chunks (C00, C06, C10, C12).

Prior reading at 17:20:00 was 23.39°C; next reading at 17:25:00 was 23.56°C — both normal, so the None was transient, not a drift or stuck condition.

No other environmental factor (e.g., power outage to all devices) is evident since other sensors reported normally at the same timestamp.

A single transient None value could be a network glitch, radio interference, or buffer overflow rather than a hardware fault.

The sensor recovered quickly and showed no further anomalies in subsequent readings.

No repeated non-recovery or subsequent stuck values — the supervisor's condition for device-fault conclusion is not met.

The supervisor suggested checking for other None values across the full log; no other chunks show None, so this is isolated.

Kitchen temperature sensor solitary None value at 17:23:00 — the only data quality issue across the entire 12-hour period.

Bedroom light on/off cycle lasting exactly 12 seconds at 20:55:23-35 — this quick toggle is the only non-routine actuator event in the sequence.

Full 12-hour period context for None values — are there any other None readings from any sensor at other times not covered by these four chunks?

Explicit door-closed event (front_door_contact false) — needed to confirm normal entry completion.

核实所有occupancy传感器的工作模式（事件触发 vs 轮询）——这直接影响对A1和A3的判断

检查C05中是否也有kitchen_temp_sensor的None值，以确认该故障是否为孤立事件

A2关于门未关的推论不可靠：front_door_contact在C10之前可能已经为true，因此缺少false事件不代表门未关，属false-alarm风险

A3关于健康状况的推论缺乏基线数据，12小时日志不足以推断脱水或医疗事件，需更多数据

整体上，investigator对occupancy传感器工作模式的假设（轮询）比异常假设更合理，但未充分验证

建议要求investigator明确occupancy传感器的工作模式，并检查C03和C05中的浴室事件，再做出最终判断

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "在C06时间窗口（17:19-18:11），老人处于正常的下午活动时段，在厨房、客厅、卧室、入口之间移动，厨房炉灶处于关闭状态。厨房温度传感器在17:23出现一次None值后立即恢复，可能是短暂的网络抖动或传感器间歇性通信故障，没有导致持续的数据丢失或异常读数。整体温度变化平缓（23.0-23.6°C），符合正常室内环境。",
      "evidence": [
        "厨房温度传感器在17:23出现None值，但17:25立即恢复至23.56°C，后续读数连续正常",
        "厨房炉灶从17:22起一直处于off状态，没有烹饪活动导致温度异常升高的迹象",
        "所有温度传感器读数稳定在22.16-23.56°C之间，波动幅度小于0.5°C，属于正常范围",
        "多个房间的Occupancy传感器频繁触发occupied（1），表明人物正常活动",
        "卫生间在17:31:39和18:01:39分别出现unoccupied事件，表明有正常使用卫生间的行为"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "没有直接的网络日志或设备诊断信息来确认17:23的None值原因",
        "老人活动模式的具体基线（如通常在此时间段的行为）未知",
        "厨房在多次检测到occupied却无烹饪活动，可能暗示正常操作（如取物、清洁）但无法确认"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "N2",
      "description": "在C10时间窗口（20:55-21:45），观察到典型的夜间归家-就寝序列：20:55入口门开启、前门自动上锁、卧室灯短暂开启、窗帘放下，随后老人进入卧室并长时间停留在那里。之后约50分钟内，occupancy事件显示人物在客厅、厨房、入口区域有持续活动（每5分钟一个周期），符合饭后收拾、洗漱、准备休息的正常夜间例行活动。",
      "evidence": [
        "20:55:15 front_door_contact从false变为true（门开）",
        "20:55:16 front_door_lock通过Auto来源自动上锁（LockState=locked）",
        "20:55:23 bedroom_light开启，20:55:32 bedroom_light关闭，20:55:32 bedroom_window窗帘放下至100%",
        "20:55:06 bedroom_occupancy=occupied，20:55:07 bathroom_occupancy=occupied，说明人物进入卧室后使用卫生间",
        "20:55:32 bathroom_occupancy变为unoccupied（使用完毕），后续21:25:32再次变为unoccupied（再次使用）",
        "20:56起，living_room/kitchen/entrance的occupancy以约5分钟为周期持续触发occupied，表现为正常的夜间多区域活动",
        "温度从约22.6°C缓慢降至约22.4°C，符合夜间降温趋势"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "无法确认卧室灯短时间内开关（20:55:23开，20:55:35关）的具体意图（可能是拿东西后关灯？）",
        "20:55:06 bedroom_occupancy=occupied与门开事件几乎同时发生，可能存在时间分辨率的歧义",
        "卫生间在20:55:07 occupied到20:55:32 unoccupied仅25秒，时间非常短，可能是传感器误触发或只是快速进入取物",
        "没有睡眠检测传感器或生物识别数据来确认人物是否最终入睡"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "厨房温度传感器在17:23出现None值，可能是传感器间歇性故障或电源/网络不稳定的早期征兆。虽然当前已恢复，但间歇性故障可能在未来演变为完全失效或数据漂移，特别是在传感器处于关键位置（厨房）需要监测烹饪安全时。",
      "threat_type": "sensor_stuck",
      "evidence": [
        "17:23:00 kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None，是日志中唯一的温度传感器None值事件",
        "该None值前后5分钟内其他两个温度传感器（living_room, bedroom）均正常读数，说明不是系统性问题",
        "厨房温度传感器在17:20和17:25分别有读数（23.39°C和23.56°C），故障后立即恢复，模式符合间歇性通信/电源故障",
        "厨房是高风险区域（烹饪、明火），传感器故障可能导致无法及时发现异常高温（如无人看管烹饪）"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "仅一次None值，没有重复出现，严格意义上不是'重复非恢复'的设备故障模式",
        "恢复后读数与其他房间传感器正常相关，不支持传感器漂移或持续损坏",
        "没有伴随的network fault、battery low或device alarm事件"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "20:55前后的事件序列可能存在安全隐患：入口门打开、前门自动上锁、但门接触传感器显示StateValue=true（门处于开启状态），可能指示门被长时间敞开或关闭/锁定时传感器状态异常。此外，卧室灯异常快速的开关（12秒内）可能暗示房间内存在非正常行为。",
      "threat_type": "intrusion",
      "evidence": [
        "20:55:15 front_door_contact | BooleanState.StateValue = true（门处于开启状态）",
        "20:55:16 front_door_lock | DoorLock.LockState = locked（同时自动上锁）",
        "门接触传感器在锁上锁后没有立即变为false（门关闭），后续日志中无front_door_contact的false事件",
        "20:55:23 bedroom_light on -> 20:55:35 off（仅12秒亮灯），随后20:55:32 bedroom_window窗帘放下至100%（10000/10000）",
        "20:55:06 bedroom_occupancy=occupied与门开事件极其接近（<10秒），可能暗示有人已在室内"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "front_door_contact的StateValue=true可能表示门已打开（即门在此时是开着的，而不是关着的），但随后自动上锁发生在门开着的情况下（不合理）或在门关闭的瞬间完成，但日志未记录关闭事件",
        "20:55:06 bedroom_occupancy=occupied可能对应的是老人从其他区域进入卧室，而非预先已在室内",
        "自动上锁来源为'Auto'，符合归家后正常设置（如门关闭后自动落锁），但不能完全排除门扇未关好的安全风险",
        "窗帘放下和卧室灯快速开关均可能为正常的归家后调整行为（如放下窗帘、关灯进入卫生间）"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A3",
      "description": "在C10窗口20:56-21:44期间，客厅、厨房、入口的occupancy以极其严格的5分钟周期（20:56, 21:01, 21:06...21:41）持续触发occupied，但卧室在此期间的occupancy也持续为occupied（20:55, 21:00, 21:05...21:40）。这暗示要么人物分身有术（不可能），要么occupancy传感器存在广泛触发异常的故障，可能给出虚假的多人存在信号。",
      "threat_type": "sensor_malfunction",
      "evidence": [
        "从21:00到21:40：bedroom_occupancy每隔5分钟（21:00:06, 21:05:06...21:40:06）触发occupied",
        "同时段：living_room_occupancy也每隔5分钟（21:01:00, 21:06:00...21:41:00）触发occupied",
        "这意味着在约40分钟内，卧室和客厅几乎同时被周期性占用，不符合单人居住场景",
        "kitchen_occupancy和entrance_occupancy也以同样5分钟周期触发，进一步加剧矛盾",
        "该周期性模式与温度传感器的5分钟采样周期高度一致，可能occupancy传感器被异常配置为周期性触发而非事件触发"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "所有occupancy事件的时间戳均在整点+5分钟偏移位置（如21:00:06, 21:05:06等），可能是传感器轮询间隔导致，并非真实人物移动",
        "如果传感器是轮询模式（polling），则occupied状态可能只是最近一次采样时保持的状态，不是新事件",
        "没有来自同一房间的occupancy从occupied变为unoccupied的事件来确认传感器是否正常工作",
        "单人居住场景中，人物可以在短时间内在不同房间之间移动，不一定构成矛盾"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A4",
      "description": "在整个12小时日志中，卫生间的活动极其稀少（活动计数31次，且只有2次unoccupied事件在C10中记录）。这不符合典型的老人生活模式，特别是C10的20:55-21:45约50分钟的窗口内，卫生间仅在开始和结尾出现短暂事件（20:55:07 occupied, 20:55:32 unoccupied, 21:25:32 unoccupied），中间长达近30分钟没有任何卫生间活动。如果老人夜间使用卫生间频率异常低，可能暗示泌尿系统健康问题或饮水不足。",
      "threat_type": "health_concern",
      "evidence": [
        "结构化信号的room_activity显示bathroom只有31次事件，远低于其他房间（kitchen 300, bedroom 295, living_room 294）",
        "在C10的50分钟夜间窗口内（20:55-21:45），卫生间只有2个事件，中间间隔约30分钟无活动",
        "在C06的52分钟窗口内（17:19-18:11），卫生间仅有2次unoccupied事件（17:31:39, 18:01:39），没有occupied事件",
        "老人群体夜间低泌尿频率可能指示脱水或肾功能问题"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "卫生间的occupancy事件只有31次，但占用检测可能因为传感器类型（如PIR）无法检测到静止占用，导致事件计数偏低",
        "没有生物识别数据或医疗记录来验证健康状态",
        "不同个体的夜间卫生间使用模式差异巨大，低频率不一定异常",
        "卫生间的unoccupied事件在C06中出现，但occupied事件未被记录，说明传感器可能漏报"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "17:23:00 kitchen_temp_sensor None值——整个日志中唯一的温度传感器故障事件",
    "20:55:15 front_door_contact true + 20:55:16 front_door_lock Auto locked —— 门状态与锁状态可能存在时序矛盾",
    "21:00-21:40区间多房间occupancy以严格5分钟周期同时触发occupied——强烈暗示传感器轮询导致数据失真或配置错误",
    "Bathroom在整个12小时中仅31次事件且C10窗口50分钟内低活动——可能反映老人健康或传感器覆盖盲区"
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "front_door_contact在锁上锁后是否应变为false（门关闭）的事件日志",
    "occupancy传感器是事件触发模式（PIR检测到运动时报告）还是轮询模式（定期报告当前状态）",
    "老人年龄、既往健康记录、正常行为基线数据",
    "卫生间传感器类型和安装位置（能否检测到静止占用）",
    "17:23 kitchen_temp_sensor None值对应的设备网络或电源日志",
    "自动上锁（LockOperationType=Auto）的触发条件（门关闭触发or时间延时触发）",
    "卧室窗帘（CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths=10000）是自动还是手动操作"
  ]
}
```

厨房温度传感器在17:23出现None值，但17:25立即恢复至23.56°C，后续读数连续正常

厨房炉灶从17:22起一直处于off状态，没有烹饪活动导致温度异常升高的迹象

所有温度传感器读数稳定在22.16-23.56°C之间，波动幅度小于0.5°C，属于正常范围

多个房间的Occupancy传感器频繁触发occupied（1），表明人物正常活动

卫生间在17:31:39和18:01:39分别出现unoccupied事件，表明有正常使用卫生间的行为

没有直接的网络日志或设备诊断信息来确认17:23的None值原因

老人活动模式的具体基线（如通常在此时间段的行为）未知

厨房在多次检测到occupied却无烹饪活动，可能暗示正常操作（如取物、清洁）但无法确认

20:55:23 bedroom_light开启，20:55:32 bedroom_light关闭，20:55:32 bedroom_window窗帘放下至100%

温度从约22.6°C缓慢降至约22.4°C，符合夜间降温趋势

无法确认卧室灯短时间内开关（20:55:23开，20:55:35关）的具体意图（可能是拿东西后关灯？）

20:55:06 bedroom_occupancy=occupied与门开事件几乎同时发生，可能存在时间分辨率的歧义

卫生间在20:55:07 occupied到20:55:32 unoccupied仅25秒，时间非常短，可能是传感器误触发或只是快速进入取物

没有睡眠检测传感器或生物识别数据来确认人物是否最终入睡

厨房温度传感器在17:23出现None值，可能是传感器间歇性故障或电源/网络不稳定的早期征兆。虽然当前已恢复，但间歇性故障可能在未来演变为完全失效或数据漂移，特别是在传感器处于关键位置（厨房）需要监测烹饪安全时。

17:23:00 kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None，是日志中唯一的温度传感器None值事件

该None值前后5分钟内其他两个温度传感器（living_room, bedroom）均正常读数，说明不是系统性问题

厨房温度传感器在17:20和17:25分别有读数（23.39°C和23.56°C），故障后立即恢复，模式符合间歇性通信/电源故障

厨房是高风险区域（烹饪、明火），传感器故障可能导致无法及时发现异常高温（如无人看管烹饪）

仅一次None值，没有重复出现，严格意义上不是'重复非恢复'的设备故障模式

恢复后读数与其他房间传感器正常相关，不支持传感器漂移或持续损坏

没有伴随的network fault、battery low或device alarm事件

20:55前后的事件序列可能存在安全隐患：入口门打开、前门自动上锁、但门接触传感器显示StateValue=true（门处于开启状态），可能指示门被长时间敞开或关闭/锁定时传感器状态异常。此外，卧室灯异常快速的开关（12秒内）可能暗示房间内存在非正常行为。

20:55:15 front_door_contact | BooleanState.StateValue = true（门处于开启状态）

20:55:16 front_door_lock | DoorLock.LockState = locked（同时自动上锁）

门接触传感器在锁上锁后没有立即变为false（门关闭），后续日志中无front_door_contact的false事件

20:55:23 bedroom_light on -> 20:55:35 off（仅12秒亮灯），随后20:55:32 bedroom_window窗帘放下至100%（10000/10000）

front_door_contact的StateValue=true可能表示门已打开（即门在此时是开着的，而不是关着的），但随后自动上锁发生在门开着的情况下（不合理）或在门关闭的瞬间完成，但日志未记录关闭事件

20:55:06 bedroom_occupancy=occupied可能对应的是老人从其他区域进入卧室，而非预先已在室内

自动上锁来源为'Auto'，符合归家后正常设置（如门关闭后自动落锁），但不能完全排除门扇未关好的安全风险

窗帘放下和卧室灯快速开关均可能为正常的归家后调整行为（如放下窗帘、关灯进入卫生间）

这意味着在约40分钟内，卧室和客厅几乎同时被周期性占用，不符合单人居住场景

该周期性模式与温度传感器的5分钟采样周期高度一致，可能occupancy传感器被异常配置为周期性触发而非事件触发

所有occupancy事件的时间戳均在整点+5分钟偏移位置（如21:00:06, 21:05:06等），可能是传感器轮询间隔导致，并非真实人物移动

如果传感器是轮询模式（polling），则occupied状态可能只是最近一次采样时保持的状态，不是新事件

没有来自同一房间的occupancy从occupied变为unoccupied的事件来确认传感器是否正常工作

单人居住场景中，人物可以在短时间内在不同房间之间移动，不一定构成矛盾

结构化信号的room_activity显示bathroom只有31次事件，远低于其他房间（kitchen 300, bedroom 295, living_room 294）

在C10的50分钟夜间窗口内（20:55-21:45），卫生间只有2个事件，中间间隔约30分钟无活动

在C06的52分钟窗口内（17:19-18:11），卫生间仅有2次unoccupied事件（17:31:39, 18:01:39），没有occupied事件

老人群体夜间低泌尿频率可能指示脱水或肾功能问题

卫生间的occupancy事件只有31次，但占用检测可能因为传感器类型（如PIR）无法检测到静止占用，导致事件计数偏低

没有生物识别数据或医疗记录来验证健康状态

不同个体的夜间卫生间使用模式差异巨大，低频率不一定异常

卫生间的unoccupied事件在C06中出现，但occupied事件未被记录，说明传感器可能漏报

20:55:15 front_door_contact true + 20:55:16 front_door_lock Auto locked —— 门状态与锁状态可能存在时序矛盾

21:00-21:40区间多房间occupancy以严格5分钟周期同时触发occupied——强烈暗示传感器轮询导致数据失真或配置错误

Bathroom在整个12小时中仅31次事件且C10窗口50分钟内低活动——可能反映老人健康或传感器覆盖盲区

occupancy传感器是事件触发模式（PIR检测到运动时报告）还是轮询模式（定期报告当前状态）

老人年龄、既往健康记录、正常行为基线数据

卫生间传感器类型和安装位置（能否检测到静止占用）

自动上锁（LockOperationType=Auto）的触发条件（门关闭触发or时间延时触发）

The structured signals show 610 occupancy events total, which is consistent with ~5-minute polling for 4-5 sensors over 12 hours.

The kitchen occupancy sensor never reports 'unoccupied' in any chunk, suggesting it either always detects presence or reports a cached/polled value.

The 'occupied' reports occur at fixed intervals across all rooms, which looks more like a heartbeat/polling pattern than real occupancy detection.

C10: front_door_contact true at 20:55:15, immediately followed by door auto-lock at 20:55:16, consistent with normal entry and lock activation.

C10: bedroom_light on at 20:55:23, off at 20:55:35 (12-second duration) — plausible for a quick visit to drop belongings.

C10: bathroom_occupancy occupied at 20:55:07, unoccupied at 20:55:32 (~25 seconds) — normal brief bathroom use upon arrival.

C06: kitchen_cook_surface off at 17:22:00 — no unsafe cooking residue or fire risk.

C00: living_room_light turned off at 12:39:00 — routine light adjustment.

The 12-second bedroom light interval is short but not impossible; occupant could have entered to place items and left immediately.

No sudden spikes, drifts, or impossible values observed.

Temperature is not a focus of the anomaly investigation; values are within expected range and follow normal trends.

C06 (17:24-18:09): same pattern — kitchen_occupancy 'occupied' every ~5 minutes, never 'unoccupied'.

C10 (20:59-21:44): same pattern — kitchen_occupancy 'occupied' every ~5 minutes, never 'unoccupied'.

C12 (22:44-23:34): same pattern — kitchen_occupancy 'occupied' every ~5 minutes, never 'unoccupied'.

Bedroom_occupancy follows identical pattern: occupied every ~5 minutes across all chunks, only unoccupied events are in bathroom.

Living_room_occupancy and entrance_occupancy also follow the same 5-minute 'occupied' cadence.

No evidence of a sensor fault (stuck value) because the values are consistent with polling cadence, not truly stuck at a single timestamp.

C10: front_door_contact StateValue=true at 20:55:15. Immediate lock event at 20:55:16 with OperationSource=Auto.

No front_door_contact StateValue=false event exists in C10 or surrounding chunks C06/C12 — the door is never logged as closed.

Bedroom_light on at 20:55:23, off at 20:55:35 (12 seconds) — unusually brief for settling in after returning home.

After 20:55, occupant is not seen in bathroom or bedroom beyond a quick visit; the only occupied events are periodic polling from all rooms.

If the occupant truly entered, one would expect a door close event before the lock, or at least some evidence of extended presence.

The supervisor already noted: 'front_door_contact 的 true 可能仅表示门当时打开，后续锁门可能瞬间关门，缺少闭合日志不代表异常'.

The 12-second bedroom light duration could be normal behavior (e.g., dropping keys, picking up items, checking something).

No other security-related events (alarm, forced entry, glass break) are present.

No 'occupied' event for bathroom is present in any chunk. The sensor either always reports only 'unoccupied', or occupied events are missing entirely.

If occupied events are missing, the true number of bathroom uses could be higher or lower depending on sensor reliability.

Structured signals show only 31 bathroom events total in 12 hours, far fewer than other rooms (294-300).

The supervisor noted '缺少基线数据，单独基于 12 小时日志不足以推断' health concerns.

No explicit 'occupied' event is needed if the sensor's design only sends when it becomes unoccupied after timeout.

The occupant could be sleeping or resting during the 2-hour gap, not indicating a medical issue.

This hypothesis depends heavily on the sensor's reporting model, which is not documented.

C06: kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None' at 2026-06-16T17:23:00.

This is the only None value for any temperature sensor across all four chunks (C00, C06, C10, C12).

Prior reading at 17:20:00 was 23.39°C; next reading at 17:25:00 was 23.56°C — both normal, so the None was transient, not a drift or stuck condition.

No other environmental factor (e.g., power outage to all devices) is evident since other sensors reported normally at the same timestamp.

A single transient None value could be a network glitch, radio interference, or buffer overflow rather than a hardware fault.

The sensor recovered quickly and showed no further anomalies in subsequent readings.

No repeated non-recovery or subsequent stuck values — the supervisor's condition for device-fault conclusion is not met.

The supervisor suggested checking for other None values across the full log; no other chunks show None, so this is isolated.

缺少 front_door_contact 在锁门后是否变为 false（门关闭）的事件，用于验证 A2 的入侵假设

未检查整个日志周期内所有None值的上下文，仅 C06 有单次温度None，需确认其他时段是否也有类似瞬态故障

缺少 bathroom_occupancy 在 C10 窗口的 occupied 事件（如21:25:32 unoccupied之前应有 occupied 事件），以判断传感器是否漏报

未验证 occupancy 传感器的工作模式（事件触发 vs 轮询），这对 A3 的周期触发假设至关重要

未检查 bedroom_light 的状态机：短暂开启（12秒）前是否已有 occupied 事件，以区分正常行为与异常

温度值已按 Matter 格式正确解析（如 2466→24.66°C），未出现误读为极端温度的情况

A2（入侵假设）过度依赖时序矛盾，但 front_door_contact 的 true 可能仅表示门当时打开，后续锁门可能瞬间关门，缺少闭合日志不代表异常

A3（多重occupancy周期异常）是高价值线索，但需确认传感器模式：若为轮询则正常，若为事件触发则可能指示故障或多人存在

A4（卫生间低活动）是健康关注点，但缺少基线数据，单独基于 12 小时日志不足以推断

建议获取 C00（日志开头）和 C12（日志末尾）以检查 occupancy 传感器的整体行为模式

## Query
以下是过去 12 小时的设备活动日志。请分析是否存在异常行为模式，并说明推理过程。

## 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": 294,
    "bedroom": 295,
    "kitchen": 300,
    "entrance": 147,
    "bathroom": 31
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 610,
    "MeasuredValue": 438,
    "OnOff": 12,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 3,
    "CurrentLevel": 1,
    "StateValue": 1,
    "LockState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 1,
  "occupancy_events": 610,
  "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": "2026-06-16T11:55:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-16T12:49:03",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 22,
      "bedroom": 23,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "entrance": 11,
      "bathr

## Query
以下是过去 12 小时的设备活动日志。请分析是否存在异常行为模式，并说明推理过程。

## 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
```json
{
  "primary_task_profile": "behavior-sequence",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["all"],
    "target_devices": ["all"],
    "target_question": "是否存在异常行为模式（例如老人生活习惯异常、设备故障或安全风险）"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["kitchen", "bedroom", "entrance", "bathroom"],
  "focus_devices": ["kitchen_temp_sensor", "kitchen_occupancy", "kitchen_cook_surface", "front_door_lock", "front_door_contact", "bedroom_light", "bathroom_occupancy"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C06", "C10"],
  "suspected_patterns": ["厨房温度传感器在C06中出现一次None值，可能存在短暂故障", "C10中在20:55左右出现一系列聚集事件：入户门开关、自动上锁、卧室灯开关、窗帘动作，符合夜间归家/就寝模式"],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06包含kitchen_temp_sensor的None值，这是整个日志中唯一的传感器读数缺失事件，可能指向间歇性设备故障或网络波动",
    "C10包含最丰富的事件交互序列（入户门→门锁→卧室灯→窗帘→卫生间），是判断老人生活习惯是否正常的核心窗口",
    "两个chunk覆盖了温度异常信号和典型行为序列，是异常模式检测的关键"
  ]
}
```

## Investigator
```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Occupancy sensors operate in periodic polling mode, resulting in all rooms reporting 'occupied' at regular intervals throughout the entire 12-hour period. This pattern is consistent with a system that refreshes occupancy sensors on a timer rather than triggering only on state change events.",
      "evidence": [
        "All occupancy sensors (living_room, bedroom, kitchen, entrance) report 'occupied' approximately every 3-5 minutes continuously from 11:55 to 23:35, without any 'unoccupied' events except bathroom.",
        "The structured signals show 610 occupancy events total, which is consistent with ~5-minute polling for 4-5 sensors over 12 hours.",
        "The kitchen occupancy sensor never reports 'unoccupied' in


FG-01-FP: 煲汤/慢炖（正常长时间开灶）

温度上升后稳定（不持续飙升），住户定期回来检查，烟雾传感器未触发

The observed events are consistent with normal evening cooking followed by intentional ventilation, and no credible evidence of a safety or device fault was found.

Explanation: The triage and investigator initially flagged kitchen temperature readings of 2750 and 2700 as anomalies, but these are correctly interpreted as 27.50°C and 27.00°C under Matter centi-degree Celsius semantics — entirely normal indoor temperatures and not indicative of any abnormal spike or device fault.

Explanation: The kitchen temperature rose from 23.50°C to 26.89°C during cooking (19:00–19:30), a 3.4°C increase consistent with normal stove use, and then dropped steadily after the cook surface was turned off at 19:43.

Explanation: The kitchen window contact reported false (open) at 19:43 immediately after the cook surface turned off, which is consistent with a deliberate action to ventilate the kitchen after cooking.

Explanation: Two brief None readings from the kitchen temperature sensor (19:16 and 19:44) each resolved within a minute, which is typical of transient Matter network interruptions and not indicative of persistent sensor fault.

Explanation: The living room was occupied and air-conditioned throughout the evening, explaining the stable low temperature there, while the kitchen's faster cooling after 19:43 (about 0.9°C per 10 minutes for a period) is a normal result of open-window ventilation and the existing temperature gradient.

Explanation: There is no evidence of carbon monoxide, fire, intrusion, or device malfunction: no gas/CO sensor data, no other windows or doors opened unexpectedly, and no sustained sensor failures or alarms in any of the reviewed logs.

Explanation: Because the normal hypothesis (N1) is well-supported by the data and the anomaly hypotheses (A1, A2, A3) rely on speculative missing information or misinterpreted values, the conclusion is that no anomaly is present.

Kitchen temperature rose +3.4°C during cooking and then declined steadily after the cook surface was turned off, consistent with normal ventilation.

Kitchen window opened (false) at 19:43 right after cooking ended, indicating purposeful ventilation.

Two transient None sensor readings (19:16, 19:44) each lasted <1 minute and are typical of network interruptions.

Living room occupancy and AC operation account for the low and stable temperature there; kitchen cooling is explained by open window and cross-flow.

No safety action required. The events reflect normal cooking and ventilation behavior.

enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code

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

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

kitchen living_room bedroom bathroom entrance

厨房温度异常突增（2750→None） 厨房温度骤升后传感器离线 厨房窗户可能未关闭（晚19:43） 可能有设备故障

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "正常晚间烹饪活动，随后开窗通风降温。19:15开启厨房灯和灶具开始做饭，厨房温度从23.50°C升至26.89°C（19:00-19:30），这是烹饪时的正常温度升高。19:43关闭灶具后立即开窗（BooleanState=false），厨房温度从26.82°C开始快速下降，20分钟内降至26.04°C，30分钟后降至24.28°C，符合开窗通风的降温特征。短暂None值（19:16和19:44）可能是通信瞬断或传感器更新延迟，不影响整体合理模式。",
      "evidence": [
        "19:15开启厨房灯和灶具，符合开始烹饪的时序",
        "烹饪期间厨房温度从23.50°C（19:00）逐步升至26.89°C（19:30），升幅约3.4°C，在烹饪场景下完全正常",
        "19:43灶具关闭后立即出现厨房窗户接触器BooleanState=false（开窗），行为符合主动通风",
        "开窗后厨房温度从26.82°C（19:35）降至22.63°C（20:30），约1.2小时内下降4.2°C，降温速率合理",
        "客厅温度在同期因空调持续运行（18:00开启SystemMode=3）稳定在22.5-23.0°C低温，与开窗降温无关",
        "None值仅出现两次（19:16一次，19:44一次）且立即恢复，符合Matter网络短暂通信中断特征"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "无法确认厨房窗户在19:43之前的具体状态，无法区分是主动开窗还是传感器误报",
        "缺乏对19:15-19:43之间的厨房窗户状态数据，无法确认窗户在烹饪期间是否关闭",
        "厨房温度传感器19:16出现过一次None，但当时灶具已开启，可能是有意远离高温区域或传感器短暂失联"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "烹饪期间厨房窗户可能一直处于开启状态，导致热量流失和燃气设备可能产生的一氧化碳无法有效排出室外，存在一氧化碳积聚风险。灶具关闭后继续开窗约17分钟（19:43-20:00），降温速率异常快（0.9°C/10分钟，19:50-20:10段），可能表示窗户开度较大或存在其他通风路径。然而缺乏燃气/CO传感器数据，无法确认一氧化碳风险。",
      "threat_type": "carbon_monoxide",
      "evidence": [
        "19:43灶具关闭时厨房窗户接触器显示BooleanState=false（开窗），但此前（19:15-19:43）无窗户状态记录，无法确认窗户在烹饪全程是否一直开启",
        "烹饪期间（19:15-19:43）厨房温度从25.49°C升至26.82°C，升幅仅1.3°C，若窗户关闭，在燃气灶具持续工作的28分钟内，升温应更显著",
        "灶具关闭后降温速率较高：从19:50的26.04°C降至20:10的24.28°C（20分钟降1.76°C），明显快于开窗前的缓慢变化",
        "客厅空调在18:00已开启（SystemMode=3制冷模式），客厅温度持续22.5-23.0°C，厨房快速降温可能与空调冷气经走廊进入厨房有关，但开窗后形成交叉通风的可能性更高",
        "厨房窗户在烹饪结束后仍然开着（19:43至20:15期间无关闭记录），若无人注意则存在安全隐患"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "没有燃气或一氧化碳传感器的日志数据，无法直接确认CO风险",
        "烹饪期间的温度上升幅度（1.3°C/28分钟）虽然在关闭窗户情景下偏低，但考虑到烹饪类型（可能仅为短时加热）和锅具遮挡热源，仍属于合理范围",
        "降温速率0.9°C/10分钟对于开窗通风而言属于正常范围，并非异常快",
        "厨房窗户在19:43才显示false，若此前一直关闭则通风行为属于正确操作，不应视为风险"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "厨房窗户接触器可能发生故障，19:43的BooleanState=false（开窗）报告可能是误报，实际窗户处于关闭状态。灶具关闭后厨房温度仍然较高（26.80°C），自然降温速率慢，但传感器随后出现None值可能表示传感器受热故障。不过传感器在19:45恢复读数，且后续降温曲线平滑，不支持故障持续。",
      "threat_type": "sensor_malfunction",
      "evidence": [
        "厨房温度传感器在19:16和19:44两次出现None值，其中19:44的None紧随窗户接触器false报告之后，时间上高度关联",
        "厨房窗户接触器BooleanState=false（开窗）仅出现在19:43一条记录中，之前（C10中无窗户数据）和之后（C11中无后续记录）均无该传感器其他状态数据，无法验证状态是否持续",
        "厨房温度传感器在19:44出现None后，19:45恢复至26.38°C，但随后降温速度（19:50至20:10段0.9°C/10分钟）是否真实反映实际环境变化存疑"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "窗户接触器false值可能是一次正常通风操作，而非传感器故障",
        "温度传感器None值仅短暂出现两次且即恢复，不满足设备故障证据标准（重复非恢复、粘滞值、显式故障事件）",
        "降温曲线平滑且连续，没有跳变或不合理读数，不支持温度传感器漂移或故障",
        "缺乏其他传感器（如厨房其他触点）的状态数据进行交叉验证"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A3",
      "description": "灶具关闭后厨房窗户未关闭，且无人注意——存在无人看管的开窗状态，可能引入外部安全风险（如入侵），或室内儿童/宠物意外通过窗户离开。客厅人员持续在客厅（19:35-20:55均显示occupied），可能不知道厨房窗户开启。",
      "threat_type": "intrusion",
      "evidence": [
        "19:43灶具关闭后厨房窗户显示false（开窗），截至C11数据结尾（21:00）无窗户关闭记录",
        "客厅从18:00至20:55持续显示人员活动，但厨房区域无独立占用传感器，无法判断是否有人及时关窗",
        "窗口作为非主入口，若无人注意长期开启，存在入侵或儿童/宠物跌落/走失风险",
        "前门在07:27和18:00均有开关记录，人员进出模式显示正常作息，但开窗可能为疏忽行为"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "厨房窗户接触器可能只是短暂触发或误报，实际窗户状态可能已恢复（但数据中未记录关闭事件）",
        "客厅人员可能已在关窗后回到客厅，只是窗户状态事件未被记录（Matter日志可能仅记录变化）",
        "缺乏厨房窗户在19:43前（烹饪期间）的状态，如果此前窗户已开启并一直未关，则属于持续性疏忽而非新风险"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "19:43厨房灶具关闭后立即出现厨房窗户接触器BooleanState=false（开窗），截至21:00数据结束无关闭记录",
    "19:44厨房温度传感器出现None，与窗户false高度时间关联",
    "厨房温度在烹饪期间（19:15-19:43）升幅仅1.3°C，可能暗示窗户在烹饪过程中已开启",
    "烹饪期间厨房温度峰值26.89°C（19:30）属正常范围，但开窗后降温速率0.9°C/10分钟在合理范围内",
    "客厅空调持续制冷（18:00开启SystemMode=3），但厨房高温区与客厅低温区有约4°C温差",
    "早上06:50和07:15厨房温度传感器出现过MeasuredValue=2700/2750（27.00°C/27.50°C），已按厘摄氏度正确解读，属正常值"
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "厨房窗户接触器在19:43之前（烹饪期间18:00-19:43）的状态数据——用于判断窗户是否在烹饪全程开启",
    "厨房窗户在19:43之后（19:43-21:00及之后）的持续状态记录——用于确认窗户是否关闭以及何时关闭",
    "厨房是否有燃气或一氧化碳传感器的日志数据——用于评估CO积聚风险",
    "厨房温度传感器在19:16和19:44出现None的具体原因（如传感器是否被烟雾、蒸汽遮挡）",
    "厨房窗户接触器的校准/状态历史记录——用于判断BooleanState=false是否为单次误报",
    "烹饪的具体结束时间（19:43之外灶具是否还有其他操作）",
    "其他房间温度传感器在相同时间段（19:00-20:00）是否也出现过None值——用于区分通信系统性问题",
    "家庭中是否有儿童或宠物的明确记录——用于评估开窗相关的跌落或走失风险"
  ]
}
```

19:15开启厨房灯和灶具，符合开始烹饪的时序

烹饪期间厨房温度从23.50°C（19:00）逐步升至26.89°C（19:30），升幅约3.4°C，在烹饪场景下完全正常

19:43灶具关闭后立即出现厨房窗户接触器BooleanState=false（开窗），行为符合主动通风

开窗后厨房温度从26.82°C（19:35）降至22.63°C（20:30），约1.2小时内下降4.2°C，降温速率合理

客厅温度在同期因空调持续运行（18:00开启SystemMode=3）稳定在22.5-23.0°C低温，与开窗降温无关

None值仅出现两次（19:16一次，19:44一次）且立即恢复，符合Matter网络短暂通信中断特征

无法确认厨房窗户在19:43之前的具体状态，无法区分是主动开窗还是传感器误报

缺乏对19:15-19:43之间的厨房窗户状态数据，无法确认窗户在烹饪期间是否关闭

厨房温度传感器19:16出现过一次None，但当时灶具已开启，可能是有意远离高温区域或传感器短暂失联

灶具关闭后降温速率较高：从19:50的26.04°C降至20:10的24.28°C（20分钟降1.76°C），明显快于开窗前的缓慢变化

厨房窗户在烹饪结束后仍然开着（19:43至20:15期间无关闭记录），若无人注意则存在安全隐患

没有燃气或一氧化碳传感器的日志数据，无法直接确认CO风险

烹饪期间的温度上升幅度（1.3°C/28分钟）虽然在关闭窗户情景下偏低，但考虑到烹饪类型（可能仅为短时加热）和锅具遮挡热源，仍属于合理范围

降温速率0.9°C/10分钟对于开窗通风而言属于正常范围，并非异常快

厨房窗户在19:43才显示false，若此前一直关闭则通风行为属于正确操作，不应视为风险

厨房温度传感器在19:16和19:44两次出现None值，其中19:44的None紧随窗户接触器false报告之后，时间上高度关联

窗户接触器false值可能是一次正常通风操作，而非传感器故障

温度传感器None值仅短暂出现两次且即恢复，不满足设备故障证据标准（重复非恢复、粘滞值、显式故障事件）

降温曲线平滑且连续，没有跳变或不合理读数，不支持温度传感器漂移或故障

缺乏其他传感器（如厨房其他触点）的状态数据进行交叉验证

19:43灶具关闭后厨房窗户显示false（开窗），截至C11数据结尾（21:00）无窗户关闭记录

客厅从18:00至20:55持续显示人员活动，但厨房区域无独立占用传感器，无法判断是否有人及时关窗

窗口作为非主入口，若无人注意长期开启，存在入侵或儿童/宠物跌落/走失风险

前门在07:27和18:00均有开关记录，人员进出模式显示正常作息，但开窗可能为疏忽行为

厨房窗户接触器可能只是短暂触发或误报，实际窗户状态可能已恢复（但数据中未记录关闭事件）

客厅人员可能已在关窗后回到客厅，只是窗户状态事件未被记录（Matter日志可能仅记录变化）

缺乏厨房窗户在19:43前（烹饪期间）的状态，如果此前窗户已开启并一直未关，则属于持续性疏忽而非新风险

19:43厨房灶具关闭后立即出现厨房窗户接触器BooleanState=false（开窗），截至21:00数据结束无关闭记录

19:44厨房温度传感器出现None，与窗户false高度时间关联

厨房温度在烹饪期间（19:15-19:43）升幅仅1.3°C，可能暗示窗户在烹饪过程中已开启

烹饪期间厨房温度峰值26.89°C（19:30）属正常范围，但开窗后降温速率0.9°C/10分钟在合理范围内

客厅空调持续制冷（18:00开启SystemMode=3），但厨房高温区与客厅低温区有约4°C温差

厨房窗户接触器在19:43之前（烹饪期间18:00-19:43）的状态数据——用于判断窗户是否在烹饪全程开启

厨房窗户在19:43之后（19:43-21:00及之后）的持续状态记录——用于确认窗户是否关闭以及何时关闭

厨房是否有燃气或一氧化碳传感器的日志数据——用于评估CO积聚风险

厨房温度传感器在19:16和19:44出现None的具体原因（如传感器是否被烟雾、蒸汽遮挡）

厨房窗户接触器的校准/状态历史记录——用于判断BooleanState=false是否为单次误报

烹饪的具体结束时间（19:43之外灶具是否还有其他操作）

其他房间温度传感器在相同时间段（19:00-20:00）是否也出现过None值——用于区分通信系统性问题

家庭中是否有儿童或宠物的明确记录——用于评估开窗相关的跌落或走失风险

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "high",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C00", "C01", "C02", "C06", "C07", "C08", "C12", "C13", "C14"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "The investigator misinterpreted the temperature data: raw values 2700 and 2750 in C04 are 27.00°C and 27.50°C (within normal range), not anomalies. The '异常突增' claim is a false alarm.",
    "Kitchen window contact state before 19:43 is missing from all available chunks; need to check C06-C08 and C12-C14 for any earlier window events.",
    "Kitchen temp sensor 'None' values at 19:16 and 19:44 require comparison with other rooms' sensors at those times to assess if it's a network issue.",
    "No cross-check of living room AC thermostat setpoint vs. actual temperature to verify the 'unusually fast cooling' claim.",
    "CO risk claim (A1) lacks any gas/CO sensor data and the observed temperature rise is normal for cooking; this hypothesis is highly speculative.",
    "The intrusion hypothesis (A3) requires checking if the window was open earlier (before cooking) and if door/window alarms are configured.",
    "Need to check if kitchen dishwasher startup at 20:15 is relevant to the window being open or if it's a routine activity.",
    "The investigator's 'most_discriminative_evidence' list includes the misinterpreted raw=2700/2750 values, indicating a fundamental scaling error that biases the analysis."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "Critical protocol-format error: The temperature values 2700 and 2750 in C04 are 27.00°C and 27.50°C, correctly interpreted as centi-degrees Celsius. They are not '异常突增' nor sensor faults. This single error invalidates the 'anomaly' framing and the Triage's focus on C04 as indicating danger.",
    "The investigator correctly identified that the window was likely opened after cooking (N1 is plausible), but then constructed three speculative anomaly hypotheses on top of a misinterpreted baseline data.",
    "To resolve this, we need to check: (1) the window contact state during the entire afternoon (chunks C06-C08, C12-C14) to see if it was already open before 19:43; (2) the consistency of None values across all sensors to distinguish local vs. network failures; (3) whether the cooling rate is actually normal given AC-induced cross-ventilation.",
    "The analysis is on-topic (composite safety assessment of the home) but the evidence is insufficient due to missing chunks and the scaling misinterpretation. A refine round is needed to fix the baseline before concluding.",
    "The 'normal hypothesis' N1 is currently the strongest, but the investigator needs to verify the window status before cooking to distinguish between 'intentional ventilation after cooking' and 'window left open by accident'."
  ]
}
```

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "厨房晚间的温度升高是正常烹饪活动所致，随后传感器恢复正常，窗户打开通风，未发生安全事件",
      "evidence": [
        "C11中19:35厨房温度26.82°C（raw=2682），略高于其他房间（约21.7°C）的5°C左右，符合烹饪后正常余热",
        "19:43灶具关闭（OnOff=off），表明烹饪活动结束",
        "19:43厨房窗户接触传感器显示false（未关闭），可能是主动打开通风降温",
        "19:44至19:55厨房温度从26.38°C持续下降至25.48°C，下降趋势一致，非异常",
        "20:00后厨房温度继续降至25.13°C，最终在21:00稳定在22.59°C，与客厅（22.53°C）持平",
        "19:44出现一次None值后立即恢复，可能为传感器短暂通信中断或电源波动，非永久故障",
        "客厅19:35至20:55持续有人（occupancy=occupied），表明有人在家可处理任何潜在问题"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "厨房温度19:35时达26.82°C，起始点偏高（之前C04结束时08:45为25.41°C），但白天的温度数据缺失，无法判断是否异常升温",
        "传感器在19:44出现None值的时间点恰好位于窗户打开之后，可能是误操作或线缆受影响，但概率较低"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "厨房灶具关闭前窗户未关闭，可能发生燃气泄漏或一氧化碳积累风险，传感器离线后数据恢复异常",
      "threat_type": "carbon_monoxide",
      "evidence": [
        "C11中19:35厨房温度26.82°C显著高于其他房间（21.7°C），温差达5°C，远超正常烹饪余热范围（通常1-2°C）",
        "19:43灶具关闭（OnOff=off）的同一分钟窗户接触传感器显示false（未关闭），若窗户用于通风但灶具已关，若燃气持续泄漏则无排气，存在窒息或爆炸风险",
        "19:44厨房温度传感器出现None值，随后在19:45恢复但读数26.38°C，之后下降速度异常快（19:45至19:55从26.38降至25.48°C，降幅0.9°C/10分钟），不符合自然冷却曲线（通常0.2-0.5°C/10分钟）",
        "C04中07:15厨房温度曾出现2750（27.50°C）的单次突增，与前后25.10°C有显著差异，但前后恢复，可能预示传感器间歇性不稳定",
        "厨房温度传感器在当晚从26.82°C降至22.59°C共下降4.23°C，而客厅仅从22.70°C降至22.53°C变化0.17°C，环境温差过大，暗示开窗造成强对流或设备问题"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "无直接燃气泄漏或一氧化碳检测传感器数据，无法确认实际泄漏",
        "灶具关闭前窗户打开可能是正常通风行为，不能仅凭时序推断泄漏",
        "传感器None值仅出现一次（19:44），之后立即恢复正常值，符合短暂通信中断模式",
        "缺乏烹饪期间（如18:00-19:30）的连续温度数据，无法判断升温是否合理"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "厨房温度传感器在C04早间07:15出现单次突增至2750（27.50°C）后维持正常，但后续行为可能存在间歇性异常，需防设备故障",
      "threat_type": "sensor_drift",
      "evidence": [
        "C04中07:15:00厨房温度传感器MeasuredValue突变为2750（27.50°C），瞬间比前5分钟（25.10°C）升高2.4°C，且仅此单点异常，之后恢复25.05°C，符合传感器偶发性漂移或电磁干扰特征",
        "C04中当天其他时间厨房温度读数在25.05°C至25.46°C范围内波动，无持续偏离；但该单次尖峰无环境原因（如灶具使用）可解释",
        "C11中19:44再次出现None值，可能表现为间歇性故障"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "单次尖峰（2750）后恢复正常，无重复异常，不符合传感器故障的典型模式（如持续漂移或卡死）",
        "无显式故障事件（alarm/fault）记录，仅靠温度值无法确诊",
        "正常假说中温度变化可被正常烹饪活动解释"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "厨房19:43灶具关闭与窗户接触传感器false同时发生，构成燃气泄漏或一氧化碳无法排出的安全威胁",
    "厨房温度传感器19:35达到26.82°C的高点且19:44出现None值，之后下降速率异常（0.9°C/10分钟），需区分是开窗通风正常冷却还是潜在危险迹象",
    "C04早间07:15厨房温度传感器出现单次2750（27.50°C）尖峰，前后恢复，预示传感器稳定性存疑",
    "C11中厨房温度从26.82°C降至22.59°C（19:35至20:45下降4.23°C），远大于其他房间（客厅0.17°C），环境温度差异极显著"
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "烹饪期间（如18:00-19:30）的连续厨房温度数据，用于判断19:35温度是否合理上升还是异常突增",
    "厨房是否有燃气泄漏探测器（如一氧化碳传感器）的日志",
    "厨房窗户接触传感器在19:43之前的状态（如是否一直false或从true变为false），用于判断窗户是主动打开还是故障",
    "C04晚间的完整数据（从08:45到C11的19:35之间），了解温度自然波动区间",
    "厨房温度传感器型号和校准历史，确认None值恢复后是否需维护"
  ]
}
```

厨房晚间的温度升高是正常烹饪活动所致，随后传感器恢复正常，窗户打开通风，未发生安全事件

C11中19:35厨房温度26.82°C（raw=2682），略高于其他房间（约21.7°C）的5°C左右，符合烹饪后正常余热

19:43灶具关闭（OnOff=off），表明烹饪活动结束

19:43厨房窗户接触传感器显示false（未关闭），可能是主动打开通风降温

19:44至19:55厨房温度从26.38°C持续下降至25.48°C，下降趋势一致，非异常

20:00后厨房温度继续降至25.13°C，最终在21:00稳定在22.59°C，与客厅（22.53°C）持平

19:44出现一次None值后立即恢复，可能为传感器短暂通信中断或电源波动，非永久故障

客厅19:35至20:55持续有人（occupancy=occupied），表明有人在家可处理任何潜在问题

厨房温度19:35时达26.82°C，起始点偏高（之前C04结束时08:45为25.41°C），但白天的温度数据缺失，无法判断是否异常升温

传感器在19:44出现None值的时间点恰好位于窗户打开之后，可能是误操作或线缆受影响，但概率较低

厨房灶具关闭前窗户未关闭，可能发生燃气泄漏或一氧化碳积累风险，传感器离线后数据恢复异常

C11中19:35厨房温度26.82°C显著高于其他房间（21.7°C），温差达5°C，远超正常烹饪余热范围（通常1-2°C）

无直接燃气泄漏或一氧化碳检测传感器数据，无法确认实际泄漏

灶具关闭前窗户打开可能是正常通风行为，不能仅凭时序推断泄漏

传感器None值仅出现一次（19:44），之后立即恢复正常值，符合短暂通信中断模式

缺乏烹饪期间（如18:00-19:30）的连续温度数据，无法判断升温是否合理

厨房温度传感器在C04早间07:15出现单次突增至2750（27.50°C）后维持正常，但后续行为可能存在间歇性异常，需防设备故障

C04中当天其他时间厨房温度读数在25.05°C至25.46°C范围内波动，无持续偏离；但该单次尖峰无环境原因（如灶具使用）可解释

C11中19:44再次出现None值，可能表现为间歇性故障

单次尖峰（2750）后恢复正常，无重复异常，不符合传感器故障的典型模式（如持续漂移或卡死）

无显式故障事件（alarm/fault）记录，仅靠温度值无法确诊

正常假说中温度变化可被正常烹饪活动解释

厨房19:43灶具关闭与窗户接触传感器false同时发生，构成燃气泄漏或一氧化碳无法排出的安全威胁

C04早间07:15厨房温度传感器出现单次2750（27.50°C）尖峰，前后恢复，预示传感器稳定性存疑

烹饪期间（如18:00-19:30）的连续厨房温度数据，用于判断19:35温度是否合理上升还是异常突增

厨房是否有燃气泄漏探测器（如一氧化碳传感器）的日志

厨房窗户接触传感器在19:43之前的状态（如是否一直false或从true变为false），用于判断窗户是主动打开还是故障

C04晚间的完整数据（从08:45到C11的19:35之间），了解温度自然波动区间

厨房温度传感器型号和校准历史，确认None值恢复后是否需维护

19:15开启厨房灯和灶具，符合开始烹饪的时序

烹饪期间厨房温度从23.50°C（19:00）逐步升至26.89°C（19:30），升幅约3.4°C，在烹饪场景下完全正常

19:43灶具关闭后立即出现厨房窗户接触器BooleanState=false（开窗），行为符合主动通风

开窗后厨房温度从26.82°C（19:35）降至22.63°C（20:30），约1.2小时内下降4.2°C，降温速率合理

客厅温度在同期因空调持续运行（18:00开启SystemMode=3）稳定在22.5-23.0°C低温，与开窗降温无关

None值仅出现两次（19:16一次，19:44一次）且立即恢复，符合Matter网络短暂通信中断特征

无法确认厨房窗户在19:43之前的具体状态，无法区分是主动开窗还是传感器误报

灶具关闭后降温速率较高：从19:50的26.04°C降至20:10的24.28°C（20分钟降1.76°C），明显快于开窗前的缓慢变化

厨房窗户在烹饪结束后仍然开着（19:43至20:15期间无关闭记录），若无人注意则存在安全隐患

没有燃气或一氧化碳传感器的日志数据，无法直接确认CO风险

降温速率0.9°C/10分钟对于开窗通风而言属于正常范围，并非异常快

厨房温度传感器在19:16和19:44两次出现None值，其中19:44的None紧随窗户接触器false报告之后，时间上高度关联

窗户接触器false值可能是一次正常通风操作，而非传感器故障

降温曲线平滑且连续，没有跳变或不合理读数，不支持温度传感器漂移或故障

缺乏其他传感器（如厨房其他触点）的状态数据进行交叉验证

19:43灶具关闭后厨房窗户显示false（开窗），截至C11数据结尾（21:00）无窗户关闭记录

客厅从18:00至20:55持续显示人员活动，但厨房区域无独立占用传感器，无法判断是否有人及时关窗

窗口作为非主入口，若无人注意长期开启，存在入侵或儿童/宠物跌落/走失风险

前门在07:27和18:00均有开关记录，人员进出模式显示正常作息，但开窗可能为疏忽行为

19:44厨房温度传感器出现None，与窗户false高度时间关联

厨房是否有燃气或一氧化碳传感器的日志数据——用于评估CO积聚风险

烹饪的具体结束时间（19:43之外灶具是否还有其他操作）

家庭中是否有儿童或宠物的明确记录——用于评估开窗相关的跌落或走失风险

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "high",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C03", "C05", "C09", "C10"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "1. 厨房温度传感器2750的原始值未按Matter协议规范解读：实际为27.50°C，这在正常范围之内，不应视为异常突增",
    "2. 未核查厨房窗户接触器在19:43之前的状态（如C03/C05中是否已有false），用于区分是主动开窗通风还是传感器故障",
    "3. 缺少烹饪活动期间的厨房数据（约18:00-19:30），无法判断19:35的26.82°C是否合理",
    "4. 未检查其他房间温度传感器在相同时间段是否有类似None值，以判断是设备个体问题还是系统性问题",
    "5. 缺乏厨房是否有燃气或CO传感器的日志确认",
    "6. 未验证温度下降速率0.9°C/10分钟是否确实异常——需参考正常开窗通风的降温速率数据",
    "7. C04早间07:15的2750尖峰仅单次出现且前后恢复正常，不满足设备故障证据标准，属于正常波动"
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "TemperatureMeasurement值按协议应为厘摄氏度，2750=27.50°C，属正常室温范围，不应作为异常证据",
    "厨房19:35的26.82°C与客厅5°C温差在烹饪场景下属于正常范畴，并非异常",
    "A1假说中关于'降温速率0.9°C/10分钟异常'的断言缺乏基准数据支撑，开窗后快速降温合理",
    "None值仅出现一次且立即恢复，符合短暂通信中断模式，不应过度解读为传感器故障",
    "当前证据不足以支持燃气泄漏或一氧化碳风险的高置信度结论，存在较高的误报风险",
    "建议补充C03（窗状态前期）、C05（烹饪过程）、C09/C10（19:00-19:30数据）以完善分析"
  ]
}
```

1. 厨房温度传感器2750的原始值未按Matter协议规范解读：实际为27.50°C，这在正常范围之内，不应视为异常突增

2. 未核查厨房窗户接触器在19:43之前的状态（如C03/C05中是否已有false），用于区分是主动开窗通风还是传感器故障

3. 缺少烹饪活动期间的厨房数据（约18:00-19:30），无法判断19:35的26.82°C是否合理

4. 未检查其他房间温度传感器在相同时间段是否有类似None值，以判断是设备个体问题还是系统性问题

5. 缺乏厨房是否有燃气或CO传感器的日志确认

6. 未验证温度下降速率0.9°C/10分钟是否确实异常——需参考正常开窗通风的降温速率数据

7. C04早间07:15的2750尖峰仅单次出现且前后恢复正常，不满足设备故障证据标准，属于正常波动

TemperatureMeasurement值按协议应为厘摄氏度，2750=27.50°C，属正常室温范围，不应作为异常证据

厨房19:35的26.82°C与客厅5°C温差在烹饪场景下属于正常范畴，并非异常

A1假说中关于'降温速率0.9°C/10分钟异常'的断言缺乏基准数据支撑，开窗后快速降温合理

None值仅出现一次且立即恢复，符合短暂通信中断模式，不应过度解读为传感器故障

当前证据不足以支持燃气泄漏或一氧化碳风险的高置信度结论，存在较高的误报风险

建议补充C03（窗状态前期）、C05（烹饪过程）、C09/C10（19:00-19:30数据）以完善分析

## 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": 356,
    "kitchen": 301,
    "bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 868,
    "Occupancy": 225,
    "OnOff": 19,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 225,
  "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": "2026-06-01T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-01T01:50:00",
    "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
```json
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["kitchen", "living_room", "bedroom", "bathroom", "entrance"],
    "target_devices": [],
    "target_question": "综合安全评估"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["kitchen"],
  "focus_devices": ["kitchen_temp_sensor", "kitchen_window_contact", "kitchen_cook_surface"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C04", "C11"],
  "suspected_patterns": ["厨房温度异常突增（2750→None）", "厨房温度骤升后传感器离线", "厨房窗户可能未关闭（晚19:43）", "可能有设备故障"],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 chunk中包含厨房温度传感器温度异常突增至27.50℃的记录(MeasuredValue=2750)，远超正常波动范围，可能表示设备本身故障或环境异常",
    "C11 chunk中19:43厨房灶具显示关闭，但同时间厨房窗户显示未关闭（BooleanState=false），同时厨房温度传感器随后变成None（离线/故障），这些事件在时间上高度关联，指向一个复合安全风险"
  ]
}
```

## Investigator
```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "正常晚间烹饪活动，随后开窗通风降温。19:15开启厨房灯和灶具开始做饭，厨房温度从23.50°C升至26.89°C（19:00-19:30），这是烹饪时的正常温度升高。19:43关闭灶具后立即开窗（BooleanState=false），厨房温度从26.82°C开始快速下降，20分钟内降至26.04°C，30分钟后降至24.28°C，符合开窗通风的降温特征。短暂None值（19:16和19:44）可能是通信瞬断或传感器更新延迟，不影响整体合理模式。",
      "evidence": [
        "19:15开启厨房灯和灶具，符合开始烹饪的时序",
        "烹饪期间厨房温度从23.50°C（19:00）逐步升至26.89°C（19:30），升幅约3.4°C，在烹饪场景下完全正常",
        "19:43灶具关闭后立即出现厨房窗户接触器BooleanState=false（开窗），行为符合主动通风",
        "开窗后厨房温度从26.82°C（19:35）降至22.63°C（20:30），约1.2小时内下降4.2°C，降温速率合理",
        "客厅温度在同期因空调持续运行（18:00开启SystemMode=3）稳定在22.5-23.0°C低温，与开窗降温无关",
        "None值仅出现两次（19:16一次，19:44一次）且立即恢复，符合Matter网络短暂通信中断特征"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "无法确认厨房窗户在19:43之前的具体状态，无法区分是主动开窗还是传感器误报",
        "缺乏对19:15-19:43之间的厨房窗户状态数据，无法确认窗户在烹饪期间是否关闭",
        "厨房温度传感器19:16出现过一次None，但当时灶具已开启，可能是有意远离高温区域或传感器短暂失联"


FG-02-FP: 电暖器/取暖器正常使用

有人在房间且温度上升后趋于稳定（不是持续飙升），无烟雾报警触发

```json
{
  "is_anomaly": true,
  "confidence": "medium",
  "threat_type": "unattended_cooking",
  "threat_description": "厨房温度在灶具记录开启前已异常升高，且烹饪开始后温度持续上升至27.14°C，存在无人看管烹饪的潜在风险。",
  "reasoning": [
    "厨房温度在18:15（灶具记录开启的18:49之前34分钟）已达到25.75°C，而其他房间仅约23.1°C，温差达2.65°C，无法用正常烹饪活动解释，因为灶具此时尚未记录为开启。",
    "灶具日志18:49才记录为开启，与温度升高时间线存在至少34分钟的偏差，这表明灶具可能更早被开启但日志未记录（Matter日志仅记录状态变化事件），或者存在其他未记录的热源，但无论哪种解释，都说明厨房存在异常热源。",
    "厨房温度在18:35达到峰值27.14°C，随后在18:45开始下降（降至26.71°C），而此时灶具记录仍为开启状态（直到19:34才关闭），这种先于灶具关闭的降温可能表明有人采取了干预措施（如关小火力或开窗通风）。",
    "19:34灶具关闭和厨房窗户接触传感器同时记录为关闭状态，暗示通风操作，但开窗前烹饪活动是否有人持续值守未知。",
    "灶具关闭后，厨房温度从19:30起恢复至22.74°C，与周围房间温度一致，风险虽已解除，但18:15-19:34期间的温度异常升高序列反映了未充分监控的烹饪活动。",
    "尽管烟雾/一氧化碳报警器数据缺失，无法确认是否有危险气体产生，但温度异常升高与灶具日志的错位，以及峰值后先于灶具关闭的降温，共同指向一次潜在的无人看管烹饪事件。"
  ],
  "key_evidence": [
    "18:15厨房温度25.75°C，其他房间约23.1°C，温差2.65°C",
    "灶具18:49才记录开启，但温度自18:15起已开始异常升高",
    "厨房温度峰值27.14°C（18:35），之后在灶具关闭前已开始下降",
    "19:34灶具关闭与厨房窗户接触传感器同时记录为关闭"
  ],
  "recommended_actions": [
    "检查并确保厨房安装烟雾和一氧化碳报警器，并确认其功能正常",
    "考虑在厨房安装占用传感器，以便在无人看管烹饪时发出警报",
    "提醒家庭成员在烹饪期间始终留在厨房，避免无人看管",
    "审查灶具传感器日志记录策略，确保状态变化被可靠捕获",
    "作为预防措施，考虑设置烹饪超时自动关闭灶具的功能"
  ]
}
```

厨房温度在灶具记录开启前已异常升高，且烹饪开始后温度持续上升至27.14°C，存在无人看管烹饪的潜在风险。

Explanation: 19:34灶具关闭和厨房窗户接触传感器同时记录为关闭状态，暗示通风操作，但开窗前烹饪活动是否有人持续值守未知。

灶具18:49才记录开启，但温度自18:15起已开始异常升高

厨房温度峰值27.14°C（18:35），之后在灶具关闭前已开始下降

19:34灶具关闭与厨房窗户接触传感器同时记录为关闭

检查并确保厨房安装烟雾和一氧化碳报警器，并确认其功能正常 考虑在厨房安装占用传感器，以便在无人看管烹饪时发出警报 提醒家庭成员在烹饪期间始终留在厨房，避免无人看管 审查灶具传感器日志记录策略，确保状态变化被可靠捕获 作为预防措施，考虑设置烹饪超时自动关闭灶具的功能

综合判断家庭当前安全状况，指出潜在风险

厨房温度异常升高 灶具可能未关闭或异常工作

C16显示厨房温度在19:15为24.12℃，虽略有下降但仍偏高，需关注后期是否恢复正常或存在持续风险。

厨房温度短期剧烈上升且与其他房间温差大，结合灶具、烟雾报警器存在，应优先排查厨房安全。

综合判断家庭当前安全状况，指出潜在风险

厨房温度异常升高 灶具可能未关闭或异常工作

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "家庭成员在傍晚正常烹饪，活动结束后关闭灶具并开窗通风，厨房温度在烹饪结束后逐渐恢复正常。",
      "evidence": [
        "18:49厨房灯和灶具先后开启，明确指示正在进行烹饪活动。",
        "18:15至18:45厨房温度从25.75℃持续上升至27.14℃，与烹饪产生热量的时间线一致。",
        "19:34灶具关闭，19:34厨房窗户接触传感器显示关闭（可能被打开通风），之后厨房温度从24.52℃（19:10）持续下降至22.74℃（19:30），19:30后稳定在22.7-22.9℃。",
        "烹饪期间（18:15-19:34）客厅和入口占用传感器持续为有人状态，表明家中有人活动，符合正常生活场景。",
        "19:45洗碗机开启并进入运行状态，符合餐后清理的日常行为模式。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "厨房温度在灶具开启前（18:15）已升至25.75℃，而其他房间仅约23.1℃，温差高达2.6℃，用传感器滞后难以完全解释。",
        "厨房温度峰值27.14℃虽偏高，但仍未达到火灾危险级别(<40℃)，且缺乏烟雾/CO报警器数据，无法排除潜在危险。"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "N2",
      "description": "全屋温度在00:00-06:00时段经历自然小幅上升（22.7℃→25.0℃），为正常日间升温，无异常风险。",
      "evidence": [
        "00:00所有房间温度约22.7℃，此后每5分钟记录显示各房间温度同步缓慢上升。",
        "至06:00各房间温度约24.8℃，厨房约24.77℃，与其他房间一致，无局部异常。",
        "整个夜间（00:00-05:30）所有占用传感器均显示无人，符合睡眠习惯。",
        "温度变化速率约为0.2-0.3℃/小时，属于正常的昼夜室温变化范围。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "夜间温度上升幅度约2℃在无空调调节的情况下属正常，但若未记录空调运行状态，不能完全排除设备异常。"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "N3",
      "description": "清晨06:20-06:44卫生间频繁检测到占用且灯亮，为家庭成员正常的晨间使用，无安全风险。",
      "evidence": [
        "06:20客厅出现短暂占用后立即离开（可能起床），06:29、06:34、06:39、06:44卫生间连续占用并亮灯。",
        "06:30-06:40各房间温度保持平稳（约25℃），未出现异常。",
        "卫生间使用模式频率较高，但仍可能是洗漱、淋浴等正常活动。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "卫生间连续4次占用事件间隔约5分钟，若为单人使用则模式略频繁，可能暗示健康问题（如腹泻），但无其他证据支持。"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "厨房在18:15时温度已显著高于其他房间（25.75℃ vs 23.1℃），而灶具记录显示18:49才开启，存在约34分钟的温度异常升高，可能为灶具传感器记录延迟，也可能存在其他热源未关闭或灶具实际更早开启但日志缺失。",
      "threat_type": "unattended_cooking",
      "evidence": [
        "18:15厨房温度25.75℃，同期其他房间约23.1℃，温差2.65℃，明显异常。",
        "18:20厨房温度上升至26.39℃，18:25达27.09℃，18:35达27.14℃峰值，而灶具直到18:49才有开启记录。",
        "18:45厨房温度从峰值开始下降（27.14→26.71℃），早于灶具记录关闭时间（19:34），暗示可能在此期间有人采取了降温行动（如关火或开窗）。",
        "厨房窗户接触传感器在19:34被记录为关闭（false），但该事件与灶具关闭同时发生，可能表示正在打开窗户，烹饪期间窗户状态未知。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "灶具传感器日志可能仅记录状态变化事件，若灶具在18:15前已开启且状态未变化则无日志，18:49可能是首次记录，实际开启时间更早。",
        "厨房温度峰值27.14℃远低于火灾阈值，且后续自然下降，最终恢复正常22.7℃，未造成实际危害。",
        "缺乏烟雾/CO报警器数据，无法确认是否有危险气体产生。"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "厨房温度在灶具开启前已异常升高，且18:50记录为None后迅速恢复，可能为传感器临时故障或数据丢失，掩盖了真实温度峰值。",
      "threat_type": "sensor_malfunction",
      "evidence": [
        "18:50厨房温度传感器首次出现None值，18:35到18:50之间有15分钟无温度记录，18:50后温度恢复但值比18:45低0.47℃（26.71→26.24℃），出现跳跃。",
        "19:35厨房温度传感器再次出现None值，此后温度从19:30的22.74℃跳升至19:35的22.87℃，变化速率异常。",
        "传感器两次短暂无效可能暗示传感器本身存在间歇性故障。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "Matter协议中None值可能是网络延迟或临时通信中断，不必然代表硬件故障。",
        "温度跳跃幅度（0.13-0.47℃）较小，处于正常波动范围内。",
        "传感器在19:35后恢复正常并稳定运行至20:10，无持续异常。"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A3",
      "description": "卫生间在06:20-06:44期间被频繁占用（4次，间隔约5分钟），且占用状态持续显示为occupied而未有unoccupied事件，可能为传感器卡滞，也可能反映家庭成员健康问题。",
      "threat_type": "behavioral_anomaly",
      "evidence": [
        "06:29至06:44卫生间占用传感器连续4次上报occupied，期间无一次unoccupied事件，但每次间隔5分钟，理论上应有人进出。",
        "06:29卫生间灯亮，但至06:44最后一次占用时灯的状态未记录，无法判断灯是否关闭。",
        "卫生间作为隐私区域，单人高频使用可能暗示腹泻、呕吐等健康问题。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "占用传感器可能配置为检测到运动即持续上报occupied，不要求unoccupied事件，因此频繁上报可能是传感器特性而非故障。",
        "无其他健康监测数据（如体感、跌倒检测器）支持健康问题假设。",
        "06:44后卫生间不再占用，符合正常作息结束。"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "厨房温度在18:15（灶具记录开启前）已达25.75℃，与其他房间温差2.65℃，无法用正常烹饪解释。",
    "灶具在18:49才首次记录为开启，与温度升高的时间线存在34分钟偏差。",
    "厨房温度在灶具关闭前（19:34）已开始下降（18:45起从27.14℃降至26.71℃），暗示可能在正式关闭前已被关小或关闭。",
    "厨房窗户接触传感器在19:34与灶具同时被记录，可能是为通风而开窗，但开窗前烹饪活动是否有人值守未知。",
    "所有房间温度在00:00-06:00期间同步缓慢上升约2.3℃，属于正常昼夜变化，无异常。",
    "19:34灶具关闭后，厨房温度至19:30已降至22.74℃，与周围房间一致，风险已解除。"
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "缺少烟雾/一氧化碳报警器的任何数据，无法确认烹饪期间是否存在火灾或有毒气体风险。",
    "缺少水泄漏检测器数据，无法评估漏水风险。",
    "缺少入口门锁状态记录，无法判断人员实际进出时间（依赖占用传感器推断）。",
    "缺少厨房内部占用传感器，无法判断18:15-19:34烹饪期间厨房是否有人值守。",
    "缺少灶具的具体功率或状态等级数据（如火力大小），仅知开/关。",
    "缺少空调/暖气系统运行数据，无法确认夜间温度上升是否由HVAC系统导致。",
    "缺少06:20-06:44卫生间灯关闭记录，无法判断灯是否与占用同步。",
    "缺少18:15之前厨房温度的基线数据（C00-C14仅记录到05:30，C15之前的下午时段缺失），无法确认18:15是异常升温起点还是已有热源运行。",
    "缺少洗碗机启动前的厨房用水数据，无法确认是否有人在烹饪后使用了水槽。"
  ]
}
```

家庭成员在傍晚正常烹饪，活动结束后关闭灶具并开窗通风，厨房温度在烹饪结束后逐渐恢复正常。

18:49厨房灯和灶具先后开启，明确指示正在进行烹饪活动。

18:15至18:45厨房温度从25.75℃持续上升至27.14℃，与烹饪产生热量的时间线一致。

烹饪期间（18:15-19:34）客厅和入口占用传感器持续为有人状态，表明家中有人活动，符合正常生活场景。

19:45洗碗机开启并进入运行状态，符合餐后清理的日常行为模式。

全屋温度在00:00-06:00时段经历自然小幅上升（22.7℃→25.0℃），为正常日间升温，无异常风险。

00:00所有房间温度约22.7℃，此后每5分钟记录显示各房间温度同步缓慢上升。

至06:00各房间温度约24.8℃，厨房约24.77℃，与其他房间一致，无局部异常。

整个夜间（00:00-05:30）所有占用传感器均显示无人，符合睡眠习惯。

温度变化速率约为0.2-0.3℃/小时，属于正常的昼夜室温变化范围。

夜间温度上升幅度约2℃在无空调调节的情况下属正常，但若未记录空调运行状态，不能完全排除设备异常。

清晨06:20-06:44卫生间频繁检测到占用且灯亮，为家庭成员正常的晨间使用，无安全风险。

06:30-06:40各房间温度保持平稳（约25℃），未出现异常。

卫生间使用模式频率较高，但仍可能是洗漱、淋浴等正常活动。

卫生间连续4次占用事件间隔约5分钟，若为单人使用则模式略频繁，可能暗示健康问题（如腹泻），但无其他证据支持。

18:15厨房温度25.75℃，同期其他房间约23.1℃，温差2.65℃，明显异常。

厨房温度峰值27.14℃远低于火灾阈值，且后续自然下降，最终恢复正常22.7℃，未造成实际危害。

缺乏烟雾/CO报警器数据，无法确认是否有危险气体产生。

传感器两次短暂无效可能暗示传感器本身存在间歇性故障。

Matter协议中None值可能是网络延迟或临时通信中断，不必然代表硬件故障。 温度跳跃幅度（0.13-0.47℃）较小，处于正常波动范围内。 传感器在19:35后恢复正常并稳定运行至20:10，无持续异常。

06:29卫生间灯亮，但至06:44最后一次占用时灯的状态未记录，无法判断灯是否关闭。

卫生间作为隐私区域，单人高频使用可能暗示腹泻、呕吐等健康问题。

无其他健康监测数据（如体感、跌倒检测器）支持健康问题假设。

06:44后卫生间不再占用，符合正常作息结束。

厨房温度在18:15（灶具记录开启前）已达25.75℃，与其他房间温差2.65℃，无法用正常烹饪解释。

灶具在18:49才首次记录为开启，与温度升高的时间线存在34分钟偏差。

厨房窗户接触传感器在19:34与灶具同时被记录，可能是为通风而开窗，但开窗前烹饪活动是否有人值守未知。

所有房间温度在00:00-06:00期间同步缓慢上升约2.3℃，属于正常昼夜变化，无异常。

19:34灶具关闭后，厨房温度至19:30已降至22.74℃，与周围房间一致，风险已解除。

缺少烟雾/一氧化碳报警器的任何数据，无法确认烹饪期间是否存在火灾或有毒气体风险。

缺少水泄漏检测器数据，无法评估漏水风险。

缺少入口门锁状态记录，无法判断人员实际进出时间（依赖占用传感器推断）。

缺少厨房内部占用传感器，无法判断18:15-19:34烹饪期间厨房是否有人值守。

缺少灶具的具体功率或状态等级数据（如火力大小），仅知开/关。

缺少空调/暖气系统运行数据，无法确认夜间温度上升是否由HVAC系统导致。

缺少06:20-06:44卫生间灯关闭记录，无法判断灯是否与占用同步。

缺少洗碗机启动前的厨房用水数据，无法确认是否有人在烹饪后使用了水槽。

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "medium",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C05", "C06", "C07", "C08", "C09", "C10", "C11", "C12", "C13", "C14"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "缺少18:15之前的厨房温度数据（C05-C14覆盖下午时段），无法确认厨房温度异常升高的起点和灶具实际开启时间。",
    "缺少烟雾/一氧化碳报警器数据，无法评估烹饪期间是否存在火灾或有毒气体风险。",
    "缺少厨房内部占用传感器，无法判断烹饪期间厨房是否有人值守。",
    "缺少水泄漏检测器数据，无法评估漏水风险。",
    "缺少空调/暖气系统运行数据，无法确认夜间温度上升是否由HVAC系统导致。",
    "缺少入口门锁状态记录，无法验证人员进出准确时间。"
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "厨房温度在灶具记录开启前已升高（18:15为25.75℃，其他房间约23.1℃），这是关键异常，但需更多下午数据确认起点。",
    "灶具开启时间（18:49）与温度峰值（18:25-18:35）错位约24-34分钟，可能的解释包括传感器日志仅记录状态变化事件（若灶具在18:15前已开则无日志），或存在其他未记录的热源。",
    "18:50和19:35的None值可能是网络瞬断，而非硬件故障；温度跳跃幅度小，不建议直接打故障标签。",
    "卫生间连续占用（06:29-06:44）可能是传感器特性（持续上报occupied），单独不足以推断健康问题。",
    "正常假设N1（正常烹饪）与异常假设A1（潜在未看管烹饪）均有合理证据，但需更多数据（尤其C05-C14下午数据）来排除A1或确认N1。",
    "夜间温度同步上升（00:00-06:00约2.3℃）在所有房间一致，属于正常昼夜变化，无异常。"
  ]
}
```

缺少烟雾/一氧化碳报警器数据，无法评估烹饪期间是否存在火灾或有毒气体风险。

缺少厨房内部占用传感器，无法判断烹饪期间厨房是否有人值守。

缺少水泄漏检测器数据，无法评估漏水风险。

缺少空调/暖气系统运行数据，无法确认夜间温度上升是否由HVAC系统导致。

缺少入口门锁状态记录，无法验证人员进出准确时间。

18:50和19:35的None值可能是网络瞬断，而非硬件故障；温度跳跃幅度小，不建议直接打故障标签。

卫生间连续占用（06:29-06:44）可能是传感器特性（持续上报occupied），单独不足以推断健康问题。

夜间温度同步上升（00:00-06:00约2.3℃）在所有房间一致，属于正常昼夜变化，无异常。

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "厨房温度升高是由正常的烹饪活动引起的，并且活动在合理时间内结束，温度随后恢复正常。",
      "evidence": [
        "厨房温度从18:15的25.75℃升至18:25的27.09℃，与正常烹饪时炉灶加热一致。",
        "18:49:00厨房灯开启，随后18:49:30灶具开启，表明烹饪活动正在有意识地启动。",
        "灶具在19:34:00关闭，之后厨房温度从19:35开始降至约22.87℃，并与其他房间温度（约22.7-22.9℃）趋于一致，表明加热源已移除。",
        "从18:50到19:35，厨房温度（26.24℃至22.87℃）持续下降，符合灶具关闭后的散热规律。",
        "厨房窗接触传感器在19:34:30报告状态为false（可能是开启），这可能是烹饪后进行通风降温的正常操作。",
        "入口和客厅在18:15至20:10期间持续显示有人，表明有人员在场，可以对烹饪活动进行监控。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "温度峰值（27.09℃）相对于其他房间（~23.1℃）的偏差较大（约4℃），可能需要确认烹饪活动是否长时间无人看管。",
        "没有烟雾或一氧化碳报警器的数据（smoke_co_alarm作为目标设备被列出，但未提供其事件），无法完全排除异常燃烧或泄漏的微小可能性。"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "厨房烹饪活动存在异常：温度异常升高且持续时间较长，存在潜在的火灾风险，尽管最终得到控制，但无人值守期间存在安全隐患。",
      "threat_type": "fire_risk / unattended_cooking",
      "evidence": [
        "厨房温度在18:15至18:35间迅速从25.75℃升至27.14℃的峰值，而同期其他房间温度稳定在~23.0-23.2℃，形成显著温差（约4℃），表明可能存在过度加热或燃烧。",
        "18:49:30灶具开启后，厨房温度在仅25分钟内（18:50的26.24℃读数之后）仍然高于27℃，尽管后续灶具已关闭，但未明确记录关闭前的实时监控。",
        "厨房温度下降缓慢，从18:35的峰值27.14℃到19:00的25.43℃，耗时25分钟，降幅仅1.71℃，而灶具在19:34才关闭，表明热源长时间保持开启。",
        "厨房温度传感器在18:50和19:35出现了一次 'None' 值，这可能是传感器被暂时遮挡或数据异常，与高温环境关联，可能反映传感器受热影响。",
        "厨房窗在灶具关闭后（19:34:30）才被打开，提示通风是滞后反应，而非事前主动安全措施。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "温度数据并未超过常见的室内烹饪峰值（例如，煎炸或开水煮沸可导致局部区域温度升至30-40℃），仅从温差无法确认是否有火灾或过热危险，需要烟雾报警器数据佐证。",
        "灶具在19:34被明确关闭且温度随后恢复正常并保持稳定，表明风险最终被安全消除，未引发实质危险。",
        "无人值守烹饪的风险虽然存在，但没有证据表明人员完全离开（入口和客厅始终显示有人），人员可能在客厅，对厨房情况有一定监控。"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "厨房温度传感器可能存在间歇性故障或数据异常，导致报告了短暂的高温和 'None' 值，实际温度正常。",
      "threat_type": "sensor_malfunction",
      "evidence": [
        "厨房温度传感器在18:50和19:35两次报告了 'None'（空值），显示其存在数据不稳定或读取失败的问题，这是传感器故障的典型表现。",
        "温度峰值（27.09-27.14℃）相对于其他房间（约23.1℃）差异巨大，但整个过程中厨房温度与灶具开闭高度相关，'None' 值和高温值可能部分源于传感器自身异常。",
        "如果传感器因热浪或蒸汽出现临时漂移，可能导致读数偏高达数度，随后恢复正常（19:35后稳定在22.8-22.9℃）。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "'None' 值仅出现两次，且发生在灶具开启和关闭的短暂期间，也可能是传感器被物理遮挡（如锅具蒸汽）导致暂时通信失败，而非永久性故障。",
        "温度变化曲线（升高、峰值、下降）与灶具操作高度吻合，表明传感器读数整体上反映了真实的环境变化，而非完全随机漂移。",
        "从19:35到20:10，传感器读数与其他房间稳定一致，未再出现 'None' 值，支持临时性干扰而非长期故障。"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "厨房温度从18:15的25.75℃升至18:25的27.09℃（峰值），而其他房间稳定在约23.1℃，温差达4℃，表明有强烈的热源（灶具）在活动，且可能存在过度加热。",
    "灶具（kitchen_cook_surface）在18:49:30开启，并在19:34:00关闭，明确标记了烹饪活动的起止时间，但温度在灶具开启前（18:15）已显著升高，暗示灶具可能在更早时间（18:15之前）已开启，但未被记录。",
    "厨房窗接触传感器（kitchen_window_contact）在19:34:30报告状态为false，紧接在灶具关闭之后，提示通风行为是对高温的响应，而非事前防范。",
    "厨房温度传感器在18:50和19:35出现 'None' 读数，与高温环境同时出现，增加了传感器状态的不确定性。"
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "缺少厨房烟雾/一氧化碳报警器在18:15至20:10期间的任何事件或读数，无法直接判断是否有烟雾或有害气体泄漏。",
    "缺少入口门锁在18:15至20:10期间的状态记录，无法推断人员进出情况（是否有人离开厨房或进入厨房）。",
    "缺少厨房水泄漏检测器的任何数据，无法排除漏水风险（虽然温度异常与漏水关联性较弱）。",
    "缺失在18:15之前（即厨房温度开始升高前）的灶具状态记录，无法确认灶具的实际开启时间是否早于18:15。",
    "缺少房间占用传感器的精细数据（如厨房本身是否有占用传感器），无法明确知道烹饪期间人员是否一直在厨房内。"
  ]
}
```

厨房温度升高是由正常的烹饪活动引起的，并且活动在合理时间内结束，温度随后恢复正常。

厨房温度从18:15的25.75℃升至18:25的27.09℃，与正常烹饪时炉灶加热一致。

18:49:00厨房灯开启，随后18:49:30灶具开启，表明烹饪活动正在有意识地启动。

从18:50到19:35，厨房温度（26.24℃至22.87℃）持续下降，符合灶具关闭后的散热规律。

厨房窗接触传感器在19:34:30报告状态为false（可能是开启），这可能是烹饪后进行通风降温的正常操作。

入口和客厅在18:15至20:10期间持续显示有人，表明有人员在场，可以对烹饪活动进行监控。

厨房窗在灶具关闭后（19:34:30）才被打开，提示通风是滞后反应，而非事前主动安全措施。

灶具在19:34被明确关闭且温度随后恢复正常并保持稳定，表明风险最终被安全消除，未引发实质危险。

厨房温度传感器可能存在间歇性故障或数据异常，导致报告了短暂的高温和 'None' 值，实际温度正常。

厨房温度传感器在18:50和19:35出现 'None' 读数，与高温环境同时出现，增加了传感器状态的不确定性。

缺少厨房烟雾/一氧化碳报警器在18:15至20:10期间的任何事件或读数，无法直接判断是否有烟雾或有害气体泄漏。

缺少入口门锁在18:15至20:10期间的状态记录，无法推断人员进出情况（是否有人离开厨房或进入厨房）。

缺少厨房水泄漏检测器的任何数据，无法排除漏水风险（虽然温度异常与漏水关联性较弱）。

缺失在18:15之前（即厨房温度开始升高前）的灶具状态记录，无法确认灶具的实际开启时间是否早于18:15。

缺少房间占用传感器的精细数据（如厨房本身是否有占用传感器），无法明确知道烹饪期间人员是否一直在厨房内。

18:49厨房灯和灶具先后开启，明确指示正在进行烹饪活动。

18:15至18:45厨房温度从25.75℃持续上升至27.14℃，与烹饪产生热量的时间线一致。

烹饪期间（18:15-19:34）客厅和入口占用传感器持续为有人状态，表明家中有人活动，符合正常生活场景。

19:45洗碗机开启并进入运行状态，符合餐后清理的日常行为模式。

00:00所有房间温度约22.7℃，此后每5分钟记录显示各房间温度同步缓慢上升。

至06:00各房间温度约24.8℃，厨房约24.77℃，与其他房间一致，无局部异常。

整个夜间（00:00-05:30）所有占用传感器均显示无人，符合睡眠习惯。

温度变化速率约为0.2-0.3℃/小时，属于正常的昼夜室温变化范围。

06:30-06:40各房间温度保持平稳（约25℃），未出现异常。

卫生间使用模式频率较高，但仍可能是洗漱、淋浴等正常活动。

18:15厨房温度25.75℃，同期其他房间约23.1℃，温差2.65℃，明显异常。

缺乏烟雾/CO报警器数据，无法确认是否有危险气体产生。

传感器两次短暂无效可能暗示传感器本身存在间歇性故障。

06:29卫生间灯亮，但至06:44最后一次占用时灯的状态未记录，无法判断灯是否关闭。

卫生间作为隐私区域，单人高频使用可能暗示腹泻、呕吐等健康问题。

无其他健康监测数据（如体感、跌倒检测器）支持健康问题假设。

06:44后卫生间不再占用，符合正常作息结束。

灶具在18:49才首次记录为开启，与温度升高的时间线存在34分钟偏差。

缺少水泄漏检测器数据，无法评估漏水风险。

缺少入口门锁状态记录，无法判断人员实际进出时间（依赖占用传感器推断）。

缺少灶具的具体功率或状态等级数据（如火力大小），仅知开/关。

缺少空调/暖气系统运行数据，无法确认夜间温度上升是否由HVAC系统导致。

缺少06:20-06:44卫生间灯关闭记录，无法判断灯是否与占用同步。

缺少洗碗机启动前的厨房用水数据，无法确认是否有人在烹饪后使用了水槽。

缺少烟雾/一氧化碳报警器数据，无法排除火灾/有毒气体风险 缺少水泄漏检测器数据，无法评估漏水风险 缺少入口门锁状态，无法推断人员进出情况 缺少厨房灶具在18:15之前的任何记录，无法确认实际开启时间 缺少厨房内部占用传感器数据，无法判断烹饪期间是否有人值守 未检查其他时间段的温度基线，无法确认23℃是否为正常室温

温度值解读正确，未出现对Matter比例值的误解

分析聚焦于厨房温度异常和烹饪安全，符合查询目标

虽然厨房温度升高与灶具操作高度关联，但证据仍存歧义：温度升高在灶具记录开启前已开始，可能是传感器滞后或灶具更早开启而未记录

缺少烟雾/CO报警器数据是关键缺失，无法判断是否存在实质危险，但灶具最终关闭且温度恢复，风险已解除

当前仅分析C15和C16两个片段，不足以全面评估安全状况，应扩大覆盖范围至所有可用片段

建议进一步收集全量数据，特别是含报警器、门锁、水泄漏检测器的片段，以及更早的基线数据

温度值解读正确，未出现对Matter比例值的误解

分析聚焦于厨房温度异常和烹饪安全，符合查询目标

缺少烟雾/一氧化碳报警器数据，无法评估烹饪期间是否存在火灾或有毒气体风险。

缺少厨房内部占用传感器，无法判断烹饪期间厨房是否有人值守。

缺少水泄漏检测器数据，无法评估漏水风险。

缺少空调/暖气系统运行数据，无法确认夜间温度上升是否由HVAC系统导致。

缺少入口门锁状态记录，无法验证人员进出准确时间。

## 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: 两室一厅 (2BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- 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>
- 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>, 客厅落地灯<onoff_light>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 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_bedroom: 次卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 405,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 54,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1157,
    "Occupancy": 473,
    "OnOff": 14,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 473,
  "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",

## 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", "master_bedroom", "second_bedroom", "kitchen", "bathroom", "entrance"],
    "target_devices": ["temperature_sensor", "occupancy_sensor", "contact_sensor", "door_lock", "onoff_light", "air_conditioner", "smoke_co_alarm", "cook_surface", "water_leak_detector"],
    "target_question": "综合判断家庭当前安全状况，指出潜在风险"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["kitchen"],
  "focus_devices": ["kitchen_temp_sensor", "cook_surface", "smoke_co_alarm"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C15", "C16"],
  "suspected_patterns": ["厨房温度异常升高", "灶具可能未关闭或异常工作"],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C15显示厨房温度从约23.0℃突然升至25.75℃（18:15）和26.39℃（18:20），远高于其他房间温度（约23.1℃），同时厨房事件数增多，提示可能有烹饪活动异常或灶具未关。",
    "C16显示厨房温度在19:15为24.12℃，虽略有下降但仍偏高，需关注后期是否恢复正常或存在持续风险。",
    "厨房温度短期剧烈上升且与其他房间温差大，结合灶具、烟雾报警器存在，应优先排查厨房安全。"
  ]
}

## Investigator
```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "家庭成员在傍晚正常烹饪，活动结束后关闭灶具并开窗通风，厨房温度在烹饪结束后逐渐恢复正常。",
      "evidence": [
        "18:49厨房灯和灶具先后开启，明确指示正在进行烹饪活动。",
        "18:15至18:45厨房温度从25.75℃持续上升至27.14℃，与烹饪产生热量的时间线一致。",
        "19:34灶具关闭，19:34厨房窗户接触传感器显示关闭（可能被打开通风），之后厨房温度从24.52℃（19:10）持续下降至22.74℃（19:30），19:30后稳定在22.7-22.9℃。",
        "烹饪期间（18:15-19:34）客厅和入口占用传感器持续为有人状态，表明家中有人活动，符合正常生活场景。",
        "19:45洗碗机开启并进入运行状态，符合餐后清理的日常行为模式。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "厨房温度在灶具开启前（18:15）已升至25.75℃，而其他房间仅约23.1℃，温差高达2.6℃，用传感器滞后难以完全解释。",
        "厨房温度峰值27.14℃虽偏高，但仍未达到火灾危险级别(<40℃)，且缺乏烟雾/CO报警器数据，无法排除潜在危险。"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "N2",
      "description": "全屋温度在00:00-06:00时段经历自然小幅上升（22.7℃→25.0℃），为正常日间升温，无异常风险。",