DF-01-FP: 空调恒温控制导致温度稳定

有微小波动（±0.2°C），不是完全固定值；且空调处于开启状态

```json
{
  "is_anomaly": false,
  "confidence": "high",
  "threat_type": "none",
  "threat_description": "All living_room sensors including the temperature sensor and occupancy sensor are operating normally during the observed period (00:00 – 05:00).",
  "reasoning": [
    "The living_room temperature sensor shows a gradual, consistent rise from 22.69°C to 24.44°C over 5 hours, which matches a natural diurnal warming pattern and stays within ±0.3°C of other rooms' readings at all timestamps.",
    "The temperature sensor never repeats a raw value in consecutive readings, confirming it is not stuck. No explicit fault events, alarms, or impossible state transitions are present.",
    "The living_room occupancy sensor reports unoccupied at every 30-minute poll from 00:00 to 05:00, which is fully consistent with the expected sleep period for a household. All 7 other room occupancy sensors also show unoccupied, indicating the system is reporting uniformly and plausibly.",
    "The supervisor found evidence insufficient for a fault conclusion and requested additional daytime chunks to check for occupancy transitions. However, based on the available data covering only the overnight sleep window, the universal unoccupied state is a normal pattern and not evidence of a sensor fault. No anomaly hypothesis is confirmed or supported by the evidence.",
    "The anomaly hypothesis A1 (system-wide occupancy sensor fault) is speculative and is explicitly refuted here: the temperature sensors continue to update normally across all rooms, proving power and communication are intact; no error or fault events exist; and the data covers only a typical 5-hour sleep window. There is no positive evidence of a fault.",
    "The query and triage specifically identified the temperature sensor as the primary focus, and its behavior is clearly normal. The occupancy sensor cannot be judged abnormal during a period when all occupants are plausibly asleep and unoccupied.",
    "A false alarm risk is high if we labeled the universal unoccupied state as abnormal without daytime data. The correct conclusion given the available evidence is that all living_room sensors are working normally."
  ],
  "key_evidence": [
    "living_room_temp_sensor readings range from 22.69°C to 24.44°C over 5 hours, a smooth increase consistent with natural indoor warming.",
    "living_room_temp_sensor values are within ±0.3°C of other rooms at all timestamps, showing no divergence or drift.",
    "No explicit fault events, alarms, stuck values, or impossible state transitions for any living_room sensor.",
    "All occupancy sensors (8 rooms) report unoccupied from 00:00 to 05:00, consistent with a sleep period.",
    "Temperature readings continue to update every 5 minutes across all rooms, proving system power and communication are functional."
  ],
  "recommended_actions": [
    "Continue monitoring living_room sensors during daytime hours to confirm occupancy sensor responsiveness when occupants wake up.",
    "If occupancy remains unoccupied during expected daytime activity (e.g., after 07:00), then investigate for a possible sensor fault or absence of occupants.",
    "No immediate maintenance or replacement is required based on the current 5-hour window."
  ]
}
```

living_room_temp_sensor readings range from 22.69°C to 24.44°C over 5 hours, a smooth increase consistent with natural indoor warming.

living_room_temp_sensor values are within ±0.3°C of other rooms at all timestamps, showing no divergence or drift.

No explicit fault events, alarms, stuck values, or impossible state transitions for any living_room sensor.

All occupancy sensors (8 rooms) report unoccupied from 00:00 to 05:00, consistent with a sleep period.

Temperature readings continue to update every 5 minutes across all rooms, proving system power and communication are functional.

Continue monitoring living_room sensors during daytime hours to confirm occupancy sensor responsiveness when occupants wake up.

No immediate maintenance or replacement is required based on the current 5-hour window.

判断 living_room 区域的传感器是否工作正常，如果异常说明可能的故障类型。

gradual temperature rise consistent with daily cycle

occupancy transitions match expected human activity

All living_room sensors are operating normally during the early morning sleep period. The temperature sensor shows gradual, small variations consistent with a natural diurnal rise and closely tracks the readings from other rooms (master_bedroom, kids_room, kitchen). The occupancy sensor correctly reports unoccupied in all rooms from 00:00 to 05:00, matching expected sleep behavior.

living_room_temp_sensor readings range from 22.69°C to 24.44°C over 5 hours, a smooth increase of about 1.75°C, consistent with natural indoor warming.

living_room_temp_sensor values are within ±0.3°C of master_bedroom, kids_room, and kitchen readings at all timestamps, showing no divergence.

living_room_occupancy reports unoccupied (0) at every poll (00:00, 00:30, 01:00, 01:30, 02:00, 02:30, 03:00, 03:30, 04:00, 04:30, 05:00), consistent with all other rooms being unoccupied during typical sleeping hours.

No explicit fault events, alarm events, stuck values, or impossible state transitions are present for any living_room sensor.

The temperature sensor never repeats an exact raw value in consecutive readings; each value varies by 1-20 units, confirming it is not stuck.

Data only covers 00:00-05:00, a period when the house is expected to be asleep. Daytime behavior (occupancy transitions, larger temperature swings) is not observed, so full health cannot be confirmed from this window alone.

No cross-reference to later logs (e.g., after 05:00) to verify occupancy sensor responsiveness when occupants wake up.

Persistent unoccupied state across all rooms including living_room from 00:00 to 05:00 could indicate a system-wide occupancy sensor fault (e.g., all sensors stuck on unoccupied) or a behavior anomaly such as a prolonged power outage preventing occupancy detection, though temperature readings continuing normally suggest power is not lost.

Every occupancy sensor in all 8 rooms reports unoccupied (0) at every poll across the entire 5-hour window — no single transition to occupied occurs, even in bedrooms where occupants would normally be present.

The 'room_activity' counts in Structured Signals show zero activity for second_bathroom (1 event) and very low for master_bathroom (60), but 0 for all others, which is inconsistent with a household of multiple occupants.

If occupants were asleep, at least some beds should trigger occupancy (e.g., master_bedroom, kids_room), but none do, suggesting either sensors are faulty or occupants are not present.

No explicit fault or alarm events from any occupancy sensor to confirm a device malfunction.

The entire time window (00:00-05:00) is a typical overnight sleep period. It is plausible that all occupants are asleep in beds that do not have occupancy sensors, or the sensors are mounted in rooms where sleep movement does not trigger a state change.

Temperature readings continue to update normally, indicating the smart home system is powered and communicating. A system-wide sensor fault would likely also affect temperature polling or produce error logs, which are absent.

Without daytime data showing occupancy transitions, the universal unoccupied state cannot be conclusively labeled a fault — it may simply reflect an empty house or sleeping pattern.

No direct evidence of sensor stuck behavior exists (e.g., repeating identical values across polls); each occupancy report is a legitimate 0.

living_room_temp_sensor follows a gradual, rising trend (22.69°C to 24.44°C) tightly correlated with other room sensors, confirming it is not stuck or miscalibrated.

No explicit fault/alarm events for any living_room device in the 5-hour window.

All occupancy sensors across the house remain unoccupied for the entire 5-hour period, which is ambiguous — could be normal sleep or a system-wide fault.

Occupancy sensor data after 05:00 (e.g., when occupants typically wake up) is needed to confirm sensor responsiveness and rule out a stuck-on-unoccupied fault.

Temperature sensor data beyond 05:00 to verify it continues to follow other rooms' trends (e.g., daytime heating/cooling cycles).

Historical baseline data for this household's typical overnight occupancy patterns (e.g., do occupancy sensors normally trigger during sleep?).

Any explicit alarm/fault events from the smart home system logs that would indicate sensor self-diagnostics or communication errors.

Context on sensor placement: are occupancy sensors present in bedrooms where sleep movement would be detected?

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "high",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C04", "C05"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "The current analysis only covers 00:00-05:00, which is a typical sleep period. Daytime occupancy transitions must be observed to rule out a stuck-unoccupied fault.",
    "Check C04-C05 for the first occupancy transition (someone waking up) to verify the occupancy sensor responds correctly.",
    "Verify the living_room occupancy sensor transitions independently from other room sensors to confirm it is not a system-wide fault.",
    "Check if temperature readings continue to track other rooms throughout the day, especially during expected activity periods.",
    "Ensure no alarm/fault events are logged for living_room sensors in the later chunks."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "The temperature sensor behavior is fully normal and well-correlated.",
    "The universal unoccupied state across all rooms for 5 hours is ambiguous and cannot be concluded as a fault without daytime data.",
    "The anomaly hypothesis A1 is speculative without post-05:00 occupancy transitions — strong risk of false alarm if ruled abnormal too early.",
    "Requested chunks C04 (05:00-06:00) and C05 (06:00-07:00) will show morning wake-up patterns and likely resolve the occupancy ambiguity."
  ]
}
```

Check C04-C05 for the first occupancy transition (someone waking up) to verify the occupancy sensor responds correctly.

Verify the living_room occupancy sensor transitions independently from other room sensors to confirm it is not a system-wide fault.

Check if temperature readings continue to track other rooms throughout the day, especially during expected activity periods.

Ensure no alarm/fault events are logged for living_room sensors in the later chunks.

The temperature sensor behavior is fully normal and well-correlated.

The universal unoccupied state across all rooms for 5 hours is ambiguous and cannot be concluded as a fault without daytime data.

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The living room temperature and occupancy sensors are operating normally. The temperature readings show a gradual, consistent rise from 22.69°C to 23.52°C over a 2.5-hour period during the early morning, which is a typical diurnal pattern. The occupancy sensor consistently reports 'unoccupied' during these late-night/early-morning hours, which is expected for a residential living room.",
      "evidence": [
        "living_room_temp_sensor reading rises smoothly from 2269 at 00:00 to 2352 at 02:30, a change of +0.83°C over 2.5 hours.",
        "All other room temperature sensors (master_bedroom, kids_room, kitchen) show similar gradual increases, correlating with living_room readings.",
        "living_room_occupancy consistently reports 0 (unoccupied) at every check (00:00, 00:30, 01:00, 01:30, 02:00, 02:30), which is normal for 00:00-02:30.",
        "No direct fault evidence found: no stuck values, no extreme jumps, no non-recovery patterns, no explicit alarm/fault events."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "Only the first 2.5 hours of the day are examined; faults could develop later but are not apparent in these chunks.",
        "The analysis relies on comparison with other rooms behaving similarly; if those sensors also had a systematic bias, the cross-correlation could be misleading."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "A potential behavioral or safety anomaly of prolonged, uncharacteristic inactivity: All rooms, including the living room, show zero occupancy for the entire 2.5-hour period from midnight to 2:30 AM. While this is partially normal for late-night hours, the structured signal 'room_activity' indicates unusually low total occupancy events for living_room (403) and second_bathroom (1) compared to other rooms. This could indicate an unexpected house-wide vacancy or a person sequestered in a single room (e.g., second_bathroom with only 1 event).",
      "threat_type": "behavioral_anomaly",
      "evidence": [
        "living_room_occupancy remains at 0 for all 6 reported timestamps in C00 and C01, despite being a common area.",
        "Structured signal 'room_activity' shows living_room = 403, which is relatively low compared to master_bedroom (520) and kids_room (521).",
        "second_bathroom has only 1 activity event, suggesting near-complete disuse, which could be normal or suspicious depending on household habits.",
        "All seven rooms with occupancy sensors report 'unoccupied' at every 30-minute interval, which is a consistent pattern across the entire house."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "At 00:00-02:30, it is fully expected that all residents are asleep, making universal 'unoccupied' entirely normal.",
        "The 'room_activity' metric (403) may simply reflect a lower sampling rate or a sensor that reports less frequently, not necessarily a real behavioral anomaly.",
        "No specific fault codes or impossible transitions are observed; this pattern is fully consistent with a quiet late-night period."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "living_room_temp_sensor exhibits a gradual, smooth temperature increase from 22.69°C to 23.52°C over 2.5 hours, consistent with natural ambient warming and correlating with other room sensors.",
    "living_room_occupancy consistently reports 0 across all six checks, matching the expected late-night/early-morning behavior for a residential living room.",
    "No explicit fault events (stuck values, alarm flags, impossible transitions, or actuator failures) are present in the focused chunks."
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "Data from after 02:30 AM is not available; daytime occupancy transitions would help confirm normal sensor behavior.",
    "The sensor model or calibration history for living_room_temp_sensor is unknown.",
    "Historical baseline for typical living room occupancy at this time is not provided.",
    "The exact meaning of 'room_activity' counts (403 vs 520) is ambiguous without a baseline for a normal day."
  ]
}
```

living_room_temp_sensor reading rises smoothly from 2269 at 00:00 to 2352 at 02:30, a change of +0.83°C over 2.5 hours.

No direct fault evidence found: no stuck values, no extreme jumps, no non-recovery patterns, no explicit alarm/fault events.

Only the first 2.5 hours of the day are examined; faults could develop later but are not apparent in these chunks.

living_room_occupancy remains at 0 for all 6 reported timestamps in C00 and C01, despite being a common area.

At 00:00-02:30, it is fully expected that all residents are asleep, making universal 'unoccupied' entirely normal.

No specific fault codes or impossible transitions are observed; this pattern is fully consistent with a quiet late-night period.

No explicit fault events (stuck values, alarm flags, impossible transitions, or actuator failures) are present in the focused chunks.

Data from after 02:30 AM is not available; daytime occupancy transitions would help confirm normal sensor behavior.

The sensor model or calibration history for living_room_temp_sensor is unknown.

Historical baseline for typical living room occupancy at this time is not provided.

The exact meaning of 'room_activity' counts (403 vs 520) is ambiguous without a baseline for a normal day.

No explicit fault events, alarm events, stuck values, or impossible state transitions are present for any living_room sensor.

No explicit fault or alarm events from any occupancy sensor to confirm a device malfunction.

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "medium",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C02", "C03"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "Verify whether the temperature sensor exhibits stuck values or unusual patterns (e.g., repeated exact readings) beyond the early morning hours.",
    "Check later chunks (C02, C03) for the first occupancy transition to confirm the occupancy sensor is responsive and not stuck on unoccupied.",
    "Include cross-room occupancy transitions to confirm the entire house wasn't simply asleep during the evaluated window.",
    "Check for any explicit fault/alarm events from living_room devices (e.g., smoke/CO alarm, contact sensor anomalies) that could indicate a sensor fault.",
    "If using room_activity counts, define the metric source and validate against known baselines before interpreting as behavioral anomaly."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "The temperature readings are properly interpreted as centi-degrees; no false alarm risk from scaler confusion.",
    "Both hypotheses (N1 normal and A1 behavioral anomaly) are plausible given only the first 2.5 hours, but neither is conclusive for device health.",
    "A1 incorrectly flags universal unoccupied as an anomaly without considering that all occupants are likely sleeping during 00:00-02:30 — this increases false alarm risk if used to conclude sensor fault.",
    "The evidence is currently insufficient to confirm normal health or fault; later chunks showing daytime occupancy changes and temperature patterns would resolve this ambiguity.",
    "Need to check whether living_room_temp_sensor continues to follow other rooms' trends (normal) or diverges (possible fault) in later hours."
  ]
}
```

Include cross-room occupancy transitions to confirm the entire house wasn't simply asleep during the evaluated window.

The temperature readings are properly interpreted as centi-degrees; no false alarm risk from scaler confusion.

## Query
请检查以下设备状态历史，判断 living_room 区域的传感器 是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

## 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": 403,
    "master_bedroom": 520,
    "kids_room": 521,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 224,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 60,
    "entrance": 227,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1160,
    "Occupancy": 1098,
    "On

## Query
请检查以下设备状态历史，判断 living_room 区域的传感器 是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

## 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": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["living_room"],
    "target_devices": ["living_room_temp_sensor", "living_room_occupancy", "living_room_smoke_co_alarm", "living_room_air_conditioner", "living_room_dimmable_light", "living_room_onoff_light", "living_room_window_covering", "living_room_contact_sensor"],
    "target_question": "判断 living_room 区域的传感器是否工作正常，如果异常说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["living_room"],
  "focus_devices": ["living_room_temp_sensor", "living_room_occupancy"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C00", "C01"],
  "suspected_patterns": ["normal operation", "gradual temperature rise consistent with daily cycle", "occupancy transitions match expected human activity"],
  "why_these_chunks": ["The earliest chunks C00 and C01 are selected to capture the baseline behavior of living room sensors at the start of the log period. C00 shows initial unoccupied state and low temperature (22.69°C), while C01 shows the first temperature readings that follow a natural diurnal increase. Checking these two chunks is sufficient to verify no immediate faults like stuck values, extreme jumps, or impossible transitions. If no anomaly is found here, the sensor is likely working normally throughout the day."]
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "All living_room sensors are operating normally during the early morning sleep period. The temperature sensor shows gradual, small variations consistent with a natural diurnal rise and closely tracks the readings from other rooms (master_bedroom, kids_room, kitchen). The


The water_leak_detector in the bathroom produced no events across the entire 23-hour log period, strongly suggesting a device failure or offline state.

Explanation: The query asks to check if sensors in the bathroom are working normally. The focused chunks and full log show no events from the water_leak_detector at any time.

Explanation: A device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence; here the complete absence of any event for over 23 hours, while all other sensors (including those in the same room) are actively reporting, constitutes strong indirect evidence of device failure or offline status.

Explanation: The normal hypothesis (N1) that the sensor is simply silent because no leak occurred is insufficient because Matter devices typically emit at least an initial attribute report or periodic health check; the total silence across all chunks (C00, C05, C09, C15) and the full log supports anomaly hypothesis A1.

Explanation: The supervisor confirms evidence sufficiency and low false-alarm risk, and recommends allowing a final verdict, not abstaining.

Explanation: The bathroom_occupancy sensor alone shows a plausible normal pattern (occupied only once for ~9 minutes), but that does not explain the complete absence of the water_leak_detector. Hence the overall assessment for the bathroom sensor set is anomalous due to the leak detector.

Explanation: Given that no explicit fault event is present, the confidence is medium rather than high, and the threat type is safety_device_failure.

water_leak_detector has zero log entries in the entire event set spanning 00:00 to 23:05, while all other sensors produce regular events.

Structured Signals show no leak-related attributes (LeakDetected, BooleanState, Fault) were ever recorded.

All focused chunks (C00, C05, C09, C15) and the full log contain no water_leak_detector data.

Physically inspect the water_leak_detector device: check power, battery, and network connectivity.

Verify device commissioning: attempt to re-pair or restart the water_leak_detector to ensure it is online and reporting.

Monitor for any subsequent leak events or diagnostic fault codes to confirm the device is operational.

bathroom区域传感器是否工作正常

occupancy传感器长时间无状态变化或响应异常 leak传感器在日志中无任何事件记录

bathroom区域传感器是否工作正常

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "bathroom区域两个传感器均工作正常。bathroom_occupancy传感器在清晨全屋无人的基线时段报告unoccupied，在上午检测到有人进入（occupied at 09:10）并在离开后切换回unoccupied，之后在其余时间段均保持unoccupied，符合白天家中有人但浴室使用频率低的场景。water_leak_detector在整个日志中无事件，说明该传感器工作正常且没有检测到漏水，处于待机状态，没有事件正是其正常工作的体现。",
      "evidence": [
        "C00中bathroom_occupancy在00:00、00:30、01:00和01:30均报告unoccupied，与全屋其他occupancy传感器一致，基线正常。",
        "C05中bathroom_occupancy在09:10切换为occupied（raw=1），09:19:22切回unoccupied（raw=0），表明它能够正确响应人员进入和离开。",
        "C09和C15中bathroom_occupancy在14:19:22、15:19:22、21:49:22、22:19:22、22:49:22均报告unoccupied，与其他房间（living_room_occupancy、bedroom_occupancy）处于occupied状态一致——家里有人但没人使用浴室，符合常识。",
        "全日志中没有water_leak_detector的任何事件，这意味着它未被触发，正常工作。",
        "room_activity数据中bathroom仅有55次事件（远低于living_room的482和bedroom的493），反映其低频使用，与传感器状态一致。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "无法排除bathroom_occupancy在白天长时间occupied期间（09:10-09:19）仅持续9分钟，若存在其他使用场景可能漏报，但日志中没有其他事件序列支持此怀疑。",
        "water_leak_detector无事件可能因该传感器故障而从未上报，但正常假设更简洁。"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "water_leak_detector可能存在设备故障（safety_device_failure），因为它完全没有产生任何事件，即使日志覆盖了超过23小时的时段（从00:00到23:05），包括厨房烹饪（有温度异常及开窗）等一系列活动，且其他传感器都在持续上报。一个功能正常的漏水检测器理应至少在某个时刻有过初始状态或周期性健康检查报告，但这里完全没有。",
      "threat_type": "safety_device_failure",
      "evidence": [
        "整个日志范围（2026-06-07T00:00:00至23:05:00）内，没有一条water_leak_detector的日志条目，无论是LeakDetected状态、Fault事件还是自检/心跳消息。",
        "其他所有传感器（living_room/bedroom/kitchen的温度、occupancy、light、开关、窗帘等）都产生了大量日志（total events: 1340），而water_leak_detector完全缺席。",
        "Structured Signals中attribute_frequency中没有出现任何与leak相关的属性（如LeakDetected, Active, Fault等），该传感器可能未被初始化或完全离线。",
        "Focus chunks（C00, C05, C09, C15）覆盖了不同时段，均无water_leak_detector的痕迹。",
        "Triaged Output中已明确怀疑'water_leak_detector在整个日志中完全无事件，可能为故障或未触发'。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "正常假设下，如果未发生漏水则传感器确实不会产生报警事件，但即使无漏水，多数Matter设备仍会周期性上报属性或至少有一次初始状态报告（如BooleanState=false）。",
        "缺少设备初始化日志（如PowerUp或Boot），无法确定传感器是否已正确加入网络。"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "bathroom_occupancy传感器可能出现偶发性行为异常（可能的传感器故障或通信偶发中断），因为在长达数小时的时间段内，该传感器仅在极短的时间窗口内检测到occupied状态，而其余时间始终报告unoccupied，即使在其他房间的人频繁进出（如bedroom_occupancy从09:13到15:28几乎每2-3分钟触发一次）且浴室理应被使用的情况下（如早上之后，家庭活动活跃期）。虽然正常假设成立，但不能排除传感器在大部分时间处于失效或灵敏度下降状态，导致仅能捕捉到部分事件。",
      "threat_type": "sensor_malfunction",
      "evidence": [
        "从日志分析，bathroom_occupancy在00:00至09:10之间以及09:19:22之后（直到23:05）共超14小时的时间内始终为unoccupied，仅在一个约9分钟的窗口（09:10-09:19）被触发为occupied。",
        "与此同时，其他房间（如bedroom_occupancy）从09:13至15:28有极高频率的occupancy事件（每2-5分钟一次），表明人在家活跃，而bathroom却完全没有反映任何其他使用。",
        "在C09中（14:10-15:28），bedroom_occupancy持续occupied且living_room_occupancy也occupied，但bathroom_occupancy只在14:19:22出现过一次unoccupied事件，期间无任何occupied出现。",
        "C15中（21:49-23:05）类似——bathroom_occupancy只有unoccupied报告，而其他房间均为occupied。",
        "room_activity数据显示bathroom总事件仅为55次，远低于其他房间，但相比occupancy_events总数442，浴室占用事件占比异常低。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "正常生活场景下，浴室的使用频率完全可能非常低（用户可能整日未使用，或仅在09:10-09:19使用过一次），因此数据并不必然异常。",
        "所有浴室occupancy事件（occupied→unoccupied切换）都出现在09:10前后，且切换行为正确，说明传感器并非完全失效。",
        "无温度异常等环境线索支撑传感器故障假设。"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "water_leak_detector在覆盖超过23小时的完整日志中没有任何一条日志条目，包括初始化、状态上报或错误事件。",
    "bathroom_occupancy在00:00-09:10（9+小时）和09:19-23:05（13+小时）内仅报告unoccupied，只有约9分钟的例外，而其他房间传感器在高频活动。",
    "Structured Signals显示attribute_frequency中没有与leak相关的属性（如LeakDetected或BooleanState）被记录过。"
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "water_leak_detector的初始化状态或加入网络事件日志，以确认设备是否正常注册。",
    "bathroom_occupancy的硬件自检或故障状态消息，以判断是否有内部传感器故障。",
    "关于bathroom是否有其他传感器（如湿度、温度或门锁）的数据，以交叉验证实际使用情况。",
    "用户对bathroom实际使用模式的说明（例如是否整天无人使用浴室）。",
    "water_leak_detector是否配置为仅触发报警（而不是周期性上报状态），如果是则无事件可能正常。"
  ]
}
```

无温度异常等环境线索支撑传感器故障假设。

用户对bathroom实际使用模式的说明（例如是否整天无人使用浴室）。

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": true,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "low",
  "recommended_action": "allow_final_verdict",
  "needs_more_chunks": [],
  "missing_checks": [
    "The investigator should explicitly rule out the possibility that the water_leak_detector is a silent, event-only device that does not produce periodic reports, as this could make the absence of events normal."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "The investigation is on-topic and correctly focuses on the bathroom sensors.",
    "The investigator correctly interprets Matter-scaled values (e.g., temperature in centi-degrees) and BooleanState semantics, avoiding false-alarm risks from naive reading.",
    "Evidence is sufficient to support both normal and anomaly hypotheses; the analysis is balanced and acknowledges weaknesses in both scenarios.",
    "The absence of water_leak_detector events is the strongest anomaly signal, but the investigator correctly notes that a silent/no-event design could be normal. This nuance reduces false-alarm risk.",
    "The suggestion to check for missing information (e.g., initialization logs, user pattern data) is reasonable but not required for a final verdict given the available evidence.",
    "Flag: The investigator could be more explicit in distinguishing between a device-fault (requiring direct fault evidence) and a behavior/safety concern (which relies on temporal coherence). However, the analysis already leans toward the stricter device-fault standard for the water_leak_detector, which is appropriate.",
    "No missing chunks are necessary; the focused chunks (C00, C05, C09, C15) are sufficient to cover the relevant time periods."
  ]
}
```

无温度异常等环境线索支撑传感器故障假设。

用户对bathroom实际使用模式的说明（例如是否整天无人使用浴室）。

## Query
请检查以下设备状态历史，判断 bathroom 区域的传感器 是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

## 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": 482,
    "bedroom": 493,
    "kitchen": 308,
    "bathroom": 55,
    "entrance": 3
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "Occupancy": 442,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 3,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "LockState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 1,
  "occupancy_events": 442,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-07T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-07T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [
      "living_room_temp_s

## Query
请检查以下设备状态历史，判断 bathroom 区域的传感器 是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

## 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": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["bathroom"],
    "target_devices": ["water_leak_detector", "occupancy_sensor"],
    "target_question": "bathroom区域传感器是否工作正常"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["bathroom"],
  "focus_devices": ["bathroom_occupancy", "water_leak_detector"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C00", "C05", "C09", "C15"],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "occupancy传感器长时间无状态变化或响应异常",
    "leak传感器在日志中无任何事件记录"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00展示了bathroom区域初始时段的occupancy状态（unoccupied），可作为基线",
    "C05中bathroom_occupancy出现了occupied到unoccupied的切换，表明传感器尚能工作",
    "C09和C15显示了较晚时段bathroom_occupancy仍然只有unoccupied事件，未见到明显的occupancy切换模式，可能存在问题",
    "water_leak_detector在整个日志中完全无事件，可能为故障或未触发"
  ]
}

## Investigator
```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "bathroom区域两个传感器均工作正常。bathroom_occupancy传感器在清晨全屋无人的基线时段报告unoccupied，在上午检测到有人进入（occupied at 09:10）并在离开后切换回unoccupied，之后在其余时间段均保持unoccupied，符合白天家中有人但浴室使用频率低的场景。water_leak_detector在整个日志中无事件，说明该传感器工作正常且没有检测到漏水，处于待机状态，没有事件正是其正常工作的体现。",
      "evidence": [
        "C00中bathroom_occupancy在00:00、00:30、01:00和01:30均报告unoccupied，与全屋其他occupancy传感器一致，基线正常。",
        "C05中bathroom_occupancy在09:10切换为occupied（raw=1），09:19:22切回unoccupied（raw=0），表明它能够正确响应人员进入和离开。",
        "C09和C15中bathroom_occupancy在14:19:22、15:19:22、21:49:22、22:19:22、22:49:22均报告unoccupied，与其他房间（living_room_occupancy、bedroom_occupancy）处于occupied状态一致——家里有人但没人使用浴室，符合常识。",
        "全日志中没有water_leak_detector的任何事件，这意味着它未被触发，正常工作。",
        "room_activity数据中bathroom仅有55次事件（远低于living_room的482和bedroom的493），反映其低频使用，与传感器状态一致。"
      ],


状态 vs 实际位置不一致

The bedroom sensors appear to be functioning normally, as the occupancy sensor correctly detected the only expected entry and exit events, and the temperature sensor shows typical gradual fluctuations.

Explanation: The bedroom_occupancy sensor correctly transitioned to 'occupied' at 06:29:00 when the occupant entered the bedroom and turned on the light, and correctly transitioned to 'unoccupied' at 06:31:42 after the occupant left.

Explanation: After 06:31:42, the sensor consistently reports 'unoccupied' at regular 30-minute intervals, which is consistent with the occupant never re-entering the bedroom for the remainder of the day.

Explanation: Cross-device evidence (front door unlock at 18:05, living room occupancy from 18:05 onward, living room lights and AC activation) indicates the occupant spent the evening exclusively in the living room and kitchen, making bedroom re-entry unnecessary.

Explanation: The bedroom_temp_sensor shows normal, non-stuck temperature variations across the day (21.72°C to 24.59°C), ruling out a sensor drift or malfunction.

Explanation: No explicit fault or diagnostic events for bedroom_occupancy or any other bedroom sensor were observed, satisfying the Matter note requirement for direct device-fault evidence.

Explanation: The anomaly hypothesis A1 (sensor stuck) is refuted because the occupant had no reason to enter the bedroom after 06:31, and the lack of bedroom contact sensor or light events further supports that the room remained unoccupied.

bedroom_occupancy correctly reports occupied (06:29:00) and unoccupied (06:31:42) during the only known bedroom entry event.

bedroom_temp_sensor shows gradual temperature changes across all chunks, not stuck values.

After 18:05, the occupant is confirmed in living room (occupancy, lights, AC), with no bedroom activity.

No explicit fault/alarm events for any bedroom sensor.

No action needed for bedroom sensors; they are operating correctly.

Continue routine monitoring of bedroom_occupancy and bedroom_temp_sensor for any future anomalies.

判断 bedroom 区域的传感器是否工作正常，如果异常则说明可能的故障类型。

判断 bedroom 区域的传感器是否工作正常，如果异常则说明可能的故障类型。

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "All bedroom sensors are functioning normally. The bedroom_occupancy sensor correctly reports 'unoccupied' because no one actually entered the bedroom throughout the entire day. The bedroom_temp_sensor shows expected gradual temperature fluctuations (21.72°C to 24.05°C) correlating with ambient temperature changes, demonstrating normal operation. The 357 total activity events in the bedroom are consistent with periodic temperature reporting and one brief occupancy/light/window event sequence at 06:29-06:31, after which the occupant left the bedroom.",
      "evidence": [
        "bedroom_temp_sensor shows normal, gradual temperature changes across all chunks: 21.72°C at 00:00, 22.12°C at 01:50, 23.63°C at 05:35, 24.05°C at 06:40, 24.59°C at 09:55, 24.16°C at 12:30, 22.52°C at 17:00, 21.86°C at 19:40, 21.63°C at 21:00 — no stuck or flat values.",
        "At 06:29:00, bedroom_occupancy correctly transitions from unoccupied to occupied (raw=1) when the occupant enters and turns on the light (C03).",
        "At 06:31:42, bedroom_occupancy correctly transitions back to unoccupied (raw=0) after the occupant leaves (C03).",
        "At 07:01:42, bedroom_occupancy reports another unoccupied event, consistent with no re-entry (C03).",
        "No bedroom-related events (light on/off, contact sensor changes, window commands after 06:29-06:31, or front door unlock leading to bedroom entry) occur after 07:01:42. The front door unlocking at 18:05 (C09) triggers living room occupancy, not bedroom occupancy.",
        "The bedroom_window command at 18:00 (DownOrClose) is automated or scheduled, not human-triggered entry — no human action accompanies it until 18:05 when living room becomes occupied.",
        "Bathroom_occupancy has at least one 'occupied' event during the day (06:31-07:14), ruling out a system-wide occupancy issue.",
        "kitchen_temp_sensor reported None at 19:41 — but this is a separate, unrelated device issue, not bedroom-related."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The lack of bedroom occupancy after 07:01:42 is equally consistent with a sensor stuck in 'unoccupied' state — without cross-verification from a bedroom contact sensor or light events, we cannot prove no one entered.",
        "The 357 bedroom activity count could be entirely from temperature reports and a single occupancy event window — not indicative of any sensor misbehavior.",
        "We have no evidence that anyone was expected to enter the bedroom after 07:01:42 — the living room is the primary active area from 18:05 onward."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "bedroom_occupancy sensor is stuck in 'unoccupied' state (sensor_stuck). Despite 222 occupancy events across all chunks, the sensor never reports 'occupied' again after 06:31:42, even when the front door unlocks at 18:05 and the occupant clearly enters the home, suggesting they might have entered the bedroom but the sensor failed to detect them. Cross-device behavior (living room lights, AC) suggests human presence from 18:05 onward, and no bedroom light or contact events occur to confirm absence — the lack of events does not prove the sensor is working.",
      "threat_type": "sensor_stuck",
      "evidence": [
        "bedroom_occupancy reports unoccupied (raw=0) at all 222 timestamps — only one occupied event at 06:29 and one unoccupied transition at 06:31:42, then 0 occupied ever again.",
        "From 18:05 onward, the front door is manually unlocked, entrance light turns on, living room occupancy becomes occupied, lights and AC activate — strong evidence of an active occupant at home, yet bedroom_occupancy never flips to occupied even briefly.",
        "The bedroom_window command at 18:00:00 (C09) is a remote command, not manual entry. But at 18:05, the occupant is home, and bedroom_occupancy still shows unoccupied at consistent 30-minute intervals (16:31, 17:01, 18:01, 20:01, 20:31) — no detection of any entry.",
        "Occupancy_events = 222 but all 222 are unoccupied after 06:31 — this is a strong statistical signature of a stuck condition per Matter notes protocol (no transition despite reasonable expectation of at least one entry during an 18-hour window when someone is home).",
        "No explicit fault/diagnostic events for bedroom_occupancy across any chunk — but per Matter notes, direct fault evidence is required for a device-fault conclusion. The evidence here is behavioral/statistical, not a diagnostic code.",
        "The supervisor notes medium false alarm risk, but the 222 all-unoccupied readings after 06:31 with consistent 30-min reporting intervals is a plausible stuck-sensor pattern."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The occupant may never have re-entered the bedroom after 06:31 — they could be entirely in the living room/kitchen after 18:05, which would make the sensor's 'unoccupied' readings correct.",
        "No bedroom light, contact sensor, or any other bedroom device triggered after 06:31 — this absence could simply mean the room was truly empty.",
        "The front door unlocking at 18:05 leads to living room occupancy, not bedroom — the occupant may have spent the entire evening in the living room and kitchen.",
        "The sensor shows one correct occupied→unoccupied transition at 06:31, then all unoccupied — this could be normal if nobody entered.",
        "No raw fault code or diagnostic event for bedroom_occupancy — per Matter notes, a device-fault conclusion requires direct fault evidence, which is absent here."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "Possible fall or health concern in the bedroom after the occupant briefly entered at 06:29 and left at 06:31. The occupant may have fallen or become incapacitated in the bedroom and no one checked on them; the lack of any further human-triggered events (light, contact, or window) from the bedroom after 07:01:42 suggests the bedroom access may have stopped — but this is speculative without medical context.",
      "threat_type": "possible_fall",
      "evidence": [
        "The occupant entered the bedroom at 06:29, turned on the light, opened the window, stayed for about 2 minutes, then turned off light (unregistered) and left — bedroom_occupancy → unoccupied at 06:31:42.",
        "The occupant is active in the bathroom from 06:31 to 07:14, then kitchen light turns on — no further bedroom access.",
        "If the occupant fell or had a health issue in the bedroom before 06:29, they would have been found during the 06:29 entry — but the brief entry suggests no emergency.",
        "No bedroom activity after 07:01:42 could mean the occupant avoided the room entirely — not a health concern."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "No evidence of any bedroom entry attempt failure — the 06:29 entry was normal and brief.",
        "No alarm or emergency event in any chunk.",
        "The hypothesis is highly speculative without medical context; no bedroom or other device indicates distress."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "bedroom_occupancy reports unoccupied (raw=0) at 222 out of 222 occupancy events after 06:31:42 — zero transitions to occupied after that point.",
    "At 06:29:00, bedroom_occupancy correctly transitioned to occupied, then to unoccupied at 06:31:42 — sensor functioned correctly that one time.",
    "From 18:05 onward, a person is home (front door unlocked, lights on, living room occupied), yet bedroom_occupancy remains unoccupied with consistent 30-min intervals — no detection.",
    "bedroom_temp_sensor shows normal, non-stuck temperature fluctuations throughout the 24-hour period.",
    "No explicit fault/diagnostic event for bedroom_occupancy in any chunk."
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "No bedroom contact sensor events exist to confirm or deny if the bedroom door was opened after 18:05 — only window and occupancy data.",
    "No bedroom light events after 06:29:02 — cannot cross-verify if the light was manually or automatically turned on later.",
    "No bedroom occupancy events at higher frequency (e.g., 5-minute intervals) to see if the sensor 'blips' to occupied — it reports only at 30-minute intervals.",
    "No explicit diagnostic or alarm event for bedroom_occupancy sensor failure.",
    "We lack knowledge of the occupant's expected schedule — whether they should have entered the bedroom after returning home at 18:05.",
    "The kitchen_temp_sensor None at 19:41 is unexplained but unrelated to bedroom sensors."
  ]
}
```

At 06:31:42, bedroom_occupancy correctly transitions back to unoccupied (raw=0) after the occupant leaves (C03).

At 07:01:42, bedroom_occupancy reports another unoccupied event, consistent with no re-entry (C03).

Bathroom_occupancy has at least one 'occupied' event during the day (06:31-07:14), ruling out a system-wide occupancy issue.

kitchen_temp_sensor reported None at 19:41 — but this is a separate, unrelated device issue, not bedroom-related.

No bedroom light, contact sensor, or any other bedroom device triggered after 06:31 — this absence could simply mean the room was truly empty.

The sensor shows one correct occupied→unoccupied transition at 06:31, then all unoccupied — this could be normal if nobody entered.

The occupant is active in the bathroom from 06:31 to 07:14, then kitchen light turns on — no further bedroom access.

No bedroom activity after 07:01:42 could mean the occupant avoided the room entirely — not a health concern.

No evidence of any bedroom entry attempt failure — the 06:29 entry was normal and brief.

No alarm or emergency event in any chunk.

The hypothesis is highly speculative without medical context; no bedroom or other device indicates distress.

bedroom_occupancy reports unoccupied (raw=0) at 222 out of 222 occupancy events after 06:31:42 — zero transitions to occupied after that point.

At 06:29:00, bedroom_occupancy correctly transitioned to occupied, then to unoccupied at 06:31:42 — sensor functioned correctly that one time.

bedroom_temp_sensor shows normal, non-stuck temperature fluctuations throughout the 24-hour period.

No explicit fault/diagnostic event for bedroom_occupancy in any chunk.

No bedroom contact sensor events exist to confirm or deny if the bedroom door was opened after 18:05 — only window and occupancy data.

No bedroom light events after 06:29:02 — cannot cross-verify if the light was manually or automatically turned on later.

No explicit diagnostic or alarm event for bedroom_occupancy sensor failure.

We lack knowledge of the occupant's expected schedule — whether they should have entered the bedroom after returning home at 18:05.

The kitchen_temp_sensor None at 19:41 is unexplained but unrelated to bedroom sensors.

Cross-verify bedroom_occupancy stuck hypothesis with any bedroom contact sensor events (if present in C09 or later chunks), not just window/light events.

Check whether the bedroom_occupancy reporting interval is exactly 30 minutes—if so, a stuck sensor would still show periodic reports, but the lack of any 'occupied' after 06:31 cannot be ruled out as normal without expected schedule.

Verify front_door_contact BooleanState transitions after 18:05 to see if door remained open/closed, which would confirm occupant stayed in living area.

Check bedroom_light OnOff status after 06:29—if it remained 'on' or was turned on later automatically, that would affect occupancy inference.

Examine any diagnostic or alarm events for bedroom_occupancy across all chunks—explicit fault evidence is required for device-fault conclusion per Matter notes.

Investigator correctly distinguishes between normal and anomaly hypotheses, but the anomaly hypothesis A1 (bedroom_occupancy stuck) lacks direct fault evidence (no diagnostic code or alarm event)—this is a behavioral pattern, not a proven device fault.

The lack of bedroom occupancy events after 06:31 could simply be due to the occupant never re-entering the bedroom; cross-device data (living room occupancy, front door unlock) indicates the occupant spent all evening in the living room/kitchen, which is consistent with normal sensor operation.

Investigator's reliance on 222 all-unoccupied readings is overinterpreted—without a known occupant schedule or bedroom contact sensor data, this is not a strong anomaly.

The 222 count includes many periodic reports from early morning hours (00:00-06:00) when occupancy is expected to be unoccupied, inflating the count and weakening the statistical argument.

False alarm risk is high because the conclusion that the sensor is stuck is speculative and could be explained by normal absence from the room.

Missing information includes possible expected usage patterns (e.g., occupant may rarely enter bedroom during evening).

Recommend refining investigation to check for any bedroom contact sensor events (if any exist) that would cross-verify door opening, and to look at bedroom_light state after 06:29, which could confirm if lights were turned off automatically or manually—if light stayed on or turned on again without occupancy detection, that would support the stuck hypothesis.

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "卧室区域所有传感器工作正常。温度传感器读数在21.5°C至23.6°C之间自然波动，与昼夜和相邻房间温度变化相符。占用传感器仅在白天（如18:00后）因无人活动而保持为unoccupied，这是合理的，因为卧室在白天可能无人。窗户在18:00执行关闭命令并正常响应（OperationalStatus = 0b000010，位置从未知变至5000）。接触传感器在此期间无开门事件，与无人场景一致。",
      "evidence": [
        "卧室温度传感器在C00中数值从21.72°C缓慢上升至22.12°C（2172→2212），变化幅度约0.4°C/2小时，自然变化。",
        "在C09中，温度从22.84°C下降至22.16°C（2284→2216），与傍晚降温一致。",
        "在C11中，温度在21.53°C至21.86°C之间小幅波动，无卡死。",
        "卧室占用传感器在所有时段每30分钟上报unoccupied（0），无异常状态跳变。",
        "窗户在18:00:00收到DownOrClose命令后，OperationalStatus正确更新为0b000010，且CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths=5000，执行成功。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "占用传感器在白天持续unoccupied，缺乏与温度下降或时间相关的占用信号，但可能反映真实无人状态。无需占用变化来佐证。"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "卧室占用传感器可能处于‘无状态变化’的间歇性故障，或正常场景。但基于所有聚焦块中卧室占用始终为unoccupied，且信号总数多达222次，但从未翻转为occupied，这表明传感器要么从未被触发，要么存在行为异常：例如，夜晚（如18:00之后）无人进入卧室，尽管前门在18:05被打开且起居室占用变为了occupied。卧室在18:00窗户关闭后应有某人进出，但占用传感器始终报告unoccupied，这可能代表了传感器灵敏度故障（如传感器盲区、PIR元件失效）。此外，与厨房温度传感器在19:41出现None值（可能是间歇性连接异常）不同，卧室温度传感器无None，但占用信号完全失踪。",
      "threat_type": "sensor_stuck",
      "evidence": [
        "卧室占用传感器在17:00至21:00期间每5-30分钟上报一次，共222条信号但从未翻转为occupied（1）。",
        "在18:05前门被打开，起居室占用变为了occupied，但卧室占用未变化。",
        "在20:01和20:31的占用报告为unoccupied，而20:00后厨房洗碗机运行、起居室一直为occupied，卧室仍显示unoccupied。",
        "卧室温度传感器持续正常变化，证明其非完全离线，但占用通道可能硬件层面卡死在unoccupied。",
        "厨房温度传感器在19:41出现一次None，提示传感器通信不稳定，但卧室占用未报告任何错误。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "占用传感器可能确实未检测到任何人进入卧室（可能无人进入），因此持续unoccupied。",
        "窗口接触和照明事件中未见卧室相关的接触或照明命令，因此无人进卧室的假设仍合理。",
        "Matter笔记提醒不能仅凭单一孤立值做判断，但222次占用事件无一次为occupied的统计极低概率，强烈暗示传感器异常。"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "卧室占用传感器在222次事件中从未报告occupied，且其他区域（起居室）在同时段明显有人活动，暗示传感器可能卡在unoccupied。",
    "卧室温度传感器（如22.00°C至22.99°C）及窗户执行命令（DownOrClose后状态正确更新）均证明该区域物理设备可操作。",
    "厨房温度传感器在19:41出现None，提示可能存在间歇性传感器通信故障，但卧室未见None。",
    "卧室占用信号完全缺失occupied状态变化，与行为推断不符（无人进入卧室可能正常，但概率较低）。"
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "缺少卧室占用传感器自身的故障诊断或SelfTest事件记录（Matter中可能无显式FaultCode）。",
    "缺少对卧室灯的自动化规则或场景，无法判断是否期望人进入后开灯。",
    "缺少对占用传感器触发阈值的详细校准配置信息。",
    "未提供卧室门是否为contact sensor以及其开关事件，不能判断是否有人物理开门但未触发占用。"
  ]
}
```

卧室温度传感器在C00中数值从21.72°C缓慢上升至22.12°C（2172→2212），变化幅度约0.4°C/2小时，自然变化。

在C09中，温度从22.84°C下降至22.16°C（2284→2216），与傍晚降温一致。

在C11中，温度在21.53°C至21.86°C之间小幅波动，无卡死。

卧室占用传感器在所有时段每30分钟上报unoccupied（0），无异常状态跳变。

占用传感器在白天持续unoccupied，缺乏与温度下降或时间相关的占用信号，但可能反映真实无人状态。无需占用变化来佐证。

卧室占用传感器在17:00至21:00期间每5-30分钟上报一次，共222条信号但从未翻转为occupied（1）。

在18:05前门被打开，起居室占用变为了occupied，但卧室占用未变化。

在20:01和20:31的占用报告为unoccupied，而20:00后厨房洗碗机运行、起居室一直为occupied，卧室仍显示unoccupied。

卧室温度传感器持续正常变化，证明其非完全离线，但占用通道可能硬件层面卡死在unoccupied。

厨房温度传感器在19:41出现一次None，提示传感器通信不稳定，但卧室占用未报告任何错误。

占用传感器可能确实未检测到任何人进入卧室（可能无人进入），因此持续unoccupied。

窗口接触和照明事件中未见卧室相关的接触或照明命令，因此无人进卧室的假设仍合理。

Matter笔记提醒不能仅凭单一孤立值做判断，但222次占用事件无一次为occupied的统计极低概率，强烈暗示传感器异常。

卧室占用传感器在222次事件中从未报告occupied，且其他区域（起居室）在同时段明显有人活动，暗示传感器可能卡在unoccupied。

卧室温度传感器（如22.00°C至22.99°C）及窗户执行命令（DownOrClose后状态正确更新）均证明该区域物理设备可操作。

厨房温度传感器在19:41出现None，提示可能存在间歇性传感器通信故障，但卧室未见None。

卧室占用信号完全缺失occupied状态变化，与行为推断不符（无人进入卧室可能正常，但概率较低）。

缺少卧室占用传感器自身的故障诊断或SelfTest事件记录（Matter中可能无显式FaultCode）。

缺少对卧室灯的自动化规则或场景，无法判断是否期望人进入后开灯。

缺少对占用传感器触发阈值的详细校准配置信息。

未提供卧室门是否为contact sensor以及其开关事件，不能判断是否有人物理开门但未触发占用。

At 06:29:00, bedroom_occupancy correctly transitions from unoccupied to occupied (raw=1) when the occupant enters and turns on the light (C03).

At 06:31:42, bedroom_occupancy correctly transitions back to unoccupied (raw=0) after the occupant leaves (C03).

At 07:01:42, bedroom_occupancy reports another unoccupied event, consistent with no re-entry (C03).

Bathroom_occupancy has at least one 'occupied' event during the day (06:31-07:14), ruling out a system-wide occupancy issue.

kitchen_temp_sensor reported None at 19:41 — but this is a separate, unrelated device issue, not bedroom-related.

The occupant is active in the bathroom from 06:31 to 07:14, then kitchen light turns on — no further bedroom access.

No bedroom activity after 07:01:42 could mean the occupant avoided the room entirely — not a health concern.

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": true,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "medium",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C03", "C05", "C06", "C08", "C10", "C13", "C14"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "Check whether any bedroom-related events (light, contact, door) occurred in unexamined chunks that would indicate human presence was expected.",
    "Check the full 24-hour span of bedroom_occupancy across all chunks to confirm whether any 'occupied' transition ever occurred.",
    "Verify if bedroom_occupancy events appear at consistent intervals (e.g., every 5-30 minutes) or have gaps that suggest an intermittent failure.",
    "Check for any explicit fault/diagnostic events for bedroom_occupancy across the entire log set.",
    "Cross-check if C09's window command and lock/light events (18:00-18:05) might imply a person entering the bedroom, which the occupancy sensor failed to detect.",
    "Verify if other occupancy sensors (e.g., bathroom) have at least one 'occupied' event during the day to rule out a system-wide occupancy reporting issue."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "The investigator's N1 hypothesis correctly notes bedroom occupancy being unoccupied is plausible if nobody entered, but the risk is medium because cross-device behavior (front door unlock, living room occupied) suggests someone arrived home at 18:05, yet bedroom occupancy remained unoccupied and no bedroom-side events (light/contact) confirm absence.",
    "The investigator's A1 hypothesis raises a legitimate sensor-stuck concern via 222 unoccupied readings, but lacks direct fault evidence (e.g., diagnostic events) per Matter notes; the evidence is statistical/behavioral, not a definitive fault flag.",
    "The temperature sensor shows expected fluctuations and no stuck values, but raw values like 21.72 C are properly scaled, no misread.",
    "The kitchen temp sensor None at 19:41 is a separate issue, not directly related to bedroom sensors.",
    "More chunks (C03, C05, C06, C08, C10, C13, C14) should be examined to see if bedroom_occupancy ever reports 'occupied' elsewhere or if bedroom-related events (light, contact) occur to confirm occupancy opportunity was missed.",
    "Current verdict is premature; recommend refining with additional chunk analysis before final allow_final_verdict."
  ]
}
```

Check whether any bedroom-related events (light, contact, door) occurred in unexamined chunks that would indicate human presence was expected.

Check the full 24-hour span of bedroom_occupancy across all chunks to confirm whether any 'occupied' transition ever occurred.

Verify if bedroom_occupancy events appear at consistent intervals (e.g., every 5-30 minutes) or have gaps that suggest an intermittent failure.

Check for any explicit fault/diagnostic events for bedroom_occupancy across the entire log set.

The temperature sensor shows expected fluctuations and no stuck values, but raw values like 21.72 C are properly scaled, no misread.

The kitchen temp sensor None at 19:41 is a separate issue, not directly related to bedroom sensors.

Current verdict is premature; recommend refining with additional chunk analysis before final allow_final_verdict.

## Query
请检查以下设备状态历史，判断 bedroom 区域的传感器 是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

## 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": 401,
    "bedroom": 357,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 59,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 222,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 3,
    "OperationalStatus": 3,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 222,
  "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": "2026-06-19T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-19T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4

## Query
请检查以下设备状态历史，判断 bedroom 区域的传感器 是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

## 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": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["bedroom"],
    "target_devices": ["bedroom_temp_sensor", "bedroom_occupancy", "bedroom_light", "bedroom_window", "bedroom_contact_sensor"],
    "target_question": "判断 bedroom 区域的传感器是否工作正常，如果异常则说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["bedroom"],
  "focus_devices": ["bedroom_temp_sensor", "bedroom_occupancy", "bedroom_light", "bedroom_window", "bedroom_contact_sensor"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C00", "C02", "C09", "C11"],
  "suspected_patterns": ["temperature_stuck_or_near_constant", "occupancy_no_transition", "missing_expected_events"],
  "why_these_chunks": ["C00 and C02 cover early quiet period for baseline temperature and occupancy from bedroom temp_sensor and occupancy_sensor; C09 includes bedroom_window events for contact_sensor check; C11 includes kitchen_temp_sensor None anomaly which may hint broader sensor issues but also provides bedroom data. These chunks collectively allow checking for stuck values, missed transitions, and fault evidence per Matter notes; further chunks may be needed if fault is not confirmed."]
}

## Investigator
```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "All bedroom sensors are functioning normally. The bedroom_occupancy sensor correctly reports 'unoccupied' because no one actually entered the bedroom throughout the entire day. The bedroom_temp_sensor shows expected gradual temperature fluctuations (21.72°C to 24.05°C) correlating with ambient temperature changes, demonstrating normal operation. The 357 total activity events in the bedroom are consistent


温度传感器读数漂移（drift）

温度读数持续单向偏移，不符合正常日间温度曲线 其他传感器或空调自带温度显示不一致（如果可以交叉验证）

The living_room temperature sensor is operating normally; the few empty log lines are isolated glitches and do not indicate a device fault.

Explanation: The sensor reports consistent 5-minute temperature readings across all observed chunks, with plausible diurnal variation from ~22.7°C at midnight to ~25.5°C in late morning and then cooling, matching other sensors.

Explanation: Only four empty event lines appear (08:00, 09:00, 10:00, 14:00), each immediately followed by a valid reading at the next 5-minute interval, and no fault codes or diagnostic errors accompany them.

Explanation: The supervisor notes that the empty-line pattern does not repeat at 11:00, 12:00, or 13:00, breaking the hypothesis of a systematic hourly issue and weakening the anomaly hypothesis A1.

Explanation: The Matter notes require direct fault evidence (stuck values, alarms, impossible transitions) to conclude a device fault; no such evidence exists here, so the normal explanation is better supported.

All non-empty living_room temperature readings show expected diurnal variation (22.7°C to 25.5°C) and correlate with bedroom and kitchen sensors.

Empty log lines occur only at 08:00, 09:00, 10:00, and 14:00, each followed by a normal reading 5 minutes later; no explicit fault or alarm events exist.

The supervisor confirmed that the empty-line pattern does not persist at 11:00, 12:00, or 13:00, reducing the likelihood of a recurring issue.

Monitor the sensor over a longer period to see if future empty lines follow a pattern or are truly isolated.

Check device diagnostic logs (battery, signal strength) if available to rule out intermittent connectivity issues.

Is the living_room temperature sensor working normally based on the history?

temperature variation across whole day appears normal

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The living_room temperature sensor is operating normally, showing consistent and plausible temperature variation throughout the day. The three empty event lines are likely isolated logging or data-transmission glitches, not indicative of a device fault.",
      "evidence": [
        "The sensor reports regular 5-minute temperature updates across all observed chunks (C00, C04, C05, C06, C07), with values gradually warming from ~22.7°C at midnight (C00) to a peak of ~25.5°C in late morning (C05), then gradually cooling through the afternoon (C07). This diurnal pattern is physically plausible.",
        "Of many logged events (866 temperature measurements total across all devices), only three empty lines appear for the living_room sensor (08:00, 09:00, 10:00, and 14:00), all occurring at the start of a new hour and immediately followed by a normal reading 5 minutes later. No other faults, stuck values, or error alarms are present.",
        "Other sensors in the same household (bedroom, kitchen) show comparable temperature values and trends throughout the day, providing cross-validation that the living_room readings are not anomalous.",
        "No explicit fault or alarm events from the living_room_temp_sensor appear in any of the provided chunks."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The three empty event lines at similar timestamps (00 minutes of select hours) suggest a possible recurring pattern (e.g., hourly data flush or sensor reconnection), which could be a subtle firmware or connectivity issue rather than a true glitch.",
        "Only four empty events exist; the pattern might be more frequent or include data gaps that are not visible in these chunks. The logs do not show what happens at 10:00 in C07, so the pattern may continue beyond the provided data.",
        "Without explicit battery, link quality, or device health diagnostics, the root cause of the empty lines cannot be fully excluded as a fault—though the evidence strongly suggests a logging artifact rather than sensor failure."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "The living_room temperature sensor may be experiencing an intermittent data-transmission or logging issue, possibly related to a sensor reboot or connectivity drop at the start of certain hours (08:00, 09:00, 10:00, and 14:00). This does not rise to the level of a device fault, but it is a recurring anomaly.",
      "threat_type": "sensor_malfunction",
      "evidence": [
        "Three empty event lines for the living room temperature sensor at timestamps: 2026-06-01T08:00:00 (in C04), 2026-06-01T09:00:00 (in C05), 2026-06-01T10:00:00 (in C05), and 2026-06-01T14:00:00 (in C07). At exactly these same timestamps, other sensors (bedroom, kitchen) also log their measurements, yet the living_room sensor’s temp line has no value.",
        "These empty events occur only on the hour (08:00, 09:00, 10:00, 14:00) and always at the start of the block. The immediately following 5-minute reading (e.g., 08:05, 09:05, 10:05, 14:05) is always present and normal, indicating the sensor recovers quickly.",
        "Other device types at the same timestamps (e.g., living_room_occupancy at 08:00:00 and 09:00:00) also log correctly, suggesting the issue is specific to the temperature sensor's data pipeline, not a global hub issue."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "No direct fault code, alarm, or error event from the living_room_temp_sensor is associated with these empty lines, so the evidence remains circumstantial.",
        "The sensor recovers on its own immediately after each event (next 5-minute reading is valid). This pattern is more consistent with a logging artifact or transient data drop than a sensor hardware failure.",
        "The sensor never shows stuck values, drift, or off-scale readings; all non-empty temperatures are within physically reasonable ranges and track neighboring sensors closely. This suggests the sensor itself is functioning correctly even when the data is missing."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "Three empty event lines for living_room_temp_sensor at 08:00:00, 09:00:00, 10:00:00, and 14:00:00, each followed by a normal reading at the next 5-minute interval.",
    "All non-empty temperature readings from the living_room sensor show consistent diurnal variation (22.7°C to 25.5°C) that correlates with other sensors.",
    "No explicit fault, alarm, or diagnostic error events from the living_room temperature sensor in any provided chunk."
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "Battery status, link quality, or device health diagnostic events for the living_room temperature sensor.",
    "A longer time range (e.g., full 24 hours) to see if the empty-event pattern repeats at other hour marks (e.g., 11:00, 12:00, etc.) or is confined to the observed times.",
    "Explicit log entries or meta-data explaining the empty lines (e.g., whether they represent a missing packet, an empty measurement, or a replay gap).",
    "Information about the sensor's firmware version or if it is known to have an hourly reboot/connectivity behavior."
  ]
}
```

No explicit fault or alarm events from the living_room_temp_sensor appear in any of the provided chunks.

No explicit fault, alarm, or diagnostic error events from the living_room temperature sensor in any provided chunk.

Battery status, link quality, or device health diagnostic events for the living_room temperature sensor.

Information about the sensor's firmware version or if it is known to have an hourly reboot/connectivity behavior.

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "medium",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C01", "C02", "C03", "C08", "C09", "C10", "C11", "C12", "C13", "C14"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "The investigator correctly identifies empty event lines as the key anomaly but does not verify whether these empty lines also occur at 11:00 and 12:00 (the next hour boundaries) by checking C06 and C07 more carefully. C06 shows 11:00 has a normal reading, and C07 shows 12:00 and 13:00 also have normal readings, which breaks the proposed hourly pattern and weakens hypothesis A1.",
    "The investigator claims empty events occur at '08:00, 09:00, 10:00, and 14:00' but does not check whether any other devices (e.g., occupancy sensors) also have empty log lines at these timestamps to rule out a system-wide logging issue.",
    "The investigator did not explicitly examine the transition from C05 to C06 at 10:50 to see if the sensor resumes normal behavior without any recovery event, which is relevant for distinguishing a transient glitch from a persistent fault.",
    "The investigator should verify whether the empty lines correspond to missing 'MeasuredValue' fields or completely missing log entries, as this could indicate different root causes (e.g., sensor not responding vs. parser failure).",
    "No cross-check of battery or diagnostic events from the available chunk set (C00-C14) was performed, though the investigator noted this as missing information."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "The investigator's analysis stays on topic for the living_room temperature sensor health check and correctly identifies the empty event lines as the primary anomaly.",
    "However, the proposed pattern of 'empty events at exact hour marks' is partially contradicted by the data: 11:00 (C06) and 12:00/13:00 (C07) show normal readings. This inconsistency reduces the credibility of hypothesis A1 and suggests the investigator should refine the pattern description or consider alternative explanations.",
    "The investigator claims four empty events but only explicitly names three in the evidence list (08:00, 09:00, 10:00, then a separate mention of 14:00). The total count should be four, but the formatting is confusing.",
    "The investigator correctly notes that no explicit fault codes exist, which is critical given the Matter-spec requirement for direct fault evidence before concluding a device fault. The current evidence supports a 'behavioral anomaly' rather than a confirmed fault.",
    "Risk of false alarm is medium because the anomaly (empty lines) is clearly present, but its significance may be overestimated if it turns out to be a known logging artifact. The investigator's normal hypothesis (N1) already accounts for this, making the overall assessment balanced but incomplete.",
    "The recommendation to refine is appropriate: checking additional chunks (especially C01-C03 for early morning behavior and C08-C14 for afternoon/evening) could reveal whether the empty-line pattern repeats at other hour marks or is confined to the 08:00-10:00 and 14:00 times, which would help discriminate between a systematic issue and random glitches."
  ]
}
```

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The living_room temperature sensor is operating normally. Readings are consistent with the time of day and with other sensors in adjacent rooms, showing expected variation and no signs of a stuck value or drift.",
      "evidence": [
        "C00 shows stable readings around 22.7–23.2°C overnight, which is normal for a living room with no occupancy and consistent with bedroom (21.7–22.2°C) and kitchen (22.7–23.2°C) sensors.",
        "C05 shows a coherent rise to about 25.4–25.6°C by 09:00–10:50, reflecting normal daytime warming; the sensor tracks the same range as kitchen and bedroom sensors (e.g., 25.55°C vs 25.41°C and 24.49°C at 10:00).",
        "The two empty event lines at 09:00 and 10:00 (shown as 'living_room_temp_sensor | ') are isolated and followed immediately by valid temperature readings at 09:05 and 10:05, respectively—consistent with a transient logging anomaly or duplicate entry, not a persistent sensor fault.",
        "The structured signals confirm no temperature patterns flagged as abnormal and no lock state or occupancy anomalies that would indicate a broader system issue."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The empty event lines at 09:00 and 10:00 could be interpreted as a data integrity issue, but they do not indicate a device fault because the sensor continues reporting valid values immediately after."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "The living_room temperature sensor may be experiencing a sporadic data-transmission glitch, as evidenced by empty event entries. However, the sensor recovers quickly and maintains expected behavior, so this is not a device fault.",
      "threat_type": "none",
      "evidence": [
        "C05 contains two timestamps (09:00 and 10:00) where the living_room_temp_sensor has a log line with no attribute value, which is atypical for normal operation.",
        "These empty lines are immediately adjacent to valid readings (09:05 and 10:05), suggesting a momentary glitch rather than a sustained failure."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "Without concurrent error or alarm events (e.g., fault code, communication timeout), the empty lines are most likely log formatting or write errors from the data pipeline, not sensor hardware malfunction.",
        "The absence of stuck values, drift, or non-recovery rules out a device fault per the Matter notes."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "The two empty event lines at 09:00 and 10:00 are the only potential anomalies; their immediate recovery and the otherwise normal temperature pattern across the day support normal operation.",
    "Temperature variation across the living_room sensor is normal (22.65–25.56°C over 11 hours) and consistent with other room sensors."
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "No error or alarm events from the sensor or its parent cluster are present in the focused chunks.",
    "No timestamp gaps or repeated identical values are observed; the empty lines are the only transient irregularity.",
    "Additional diagnostic data (e.g., battery voltage, link quality, or device health reports) would confirm whether the empty lines are a logging artifact or a sensor issue."
  ]
}
```

The absence of stuck values, drift, or non-recovery rules out a device fault per the Matter notes.

Temperature variation across the living_room sensor is normal (22.65–25.56°C over 11 hours) and consistent with other room sensors.

No error or alarm events from the sensor or its parent cluster are present in the focused chunks.

No timestamp gaps or repeated identical values are observed; the empty lines are the only transient irregularity.

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "low",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C04", "C06", "C07"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "Check C04 for temperature behavior immediately before 08:57 to see if the 09:00 empty-event pattern emerges or is isolated.",
    "Check C06 and C07 to see if the empty-event pattern repeats later in the day for the living_room temp sensor, which would indicate a recurring data-transmission issue.",
    "No error/fault/alarm events from the living_room temp sensor are available in the focused chunks; verify that C03 and C05 do not contain any such events, and if not, search adjacent chunks for diagnostic signals (battery, link quality, or device health reports).",
    "Confirm that the empty event lines are truly empty (no attribute value) and not a log parsing artifact—look for any preceding/receding events that might clarify the cause."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "The investigator correctly distinguishes between normal operation and the two empty-event anomalies, correctly applying Matter notes that isolated empty lines without fault codes do not directly imply a device fault.",
    "The analysis remains on-topic and properly focuses on the living_room temperature sensor.",
    "The current two-chunk evidence (C00, C05) shows strong normal temperature variation with no stuck values or drift; however, the two empty-event lines are suspicious and warrant checking whether they recur in later chunks.",
    "Risk of false alarm is low because the investigator already labels the empty lines as likely logging glitches, not sensor faults, and the remaining data is fully normal.",
    "The conclusion is premature—more chunks are needed to rule out a recurring pattern or hidden fault. Refinement is recommended before final verdict."
  ]
}
```

Check C04 for temperature behavior immediately before 08:57 to see if the 09:00 empty-event pattern emerges or is isolated.

The analysis remains on-topic and properly focuses on the living_room temperature sensor.

## Query
请检查以下设备状态历史，判断 living_room 区域的传感器 是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

## 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": 407,
    "bedroom": 357,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 225,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "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":

## Query
请检查以下设备状态历史，判断 living_room 区域的传感器 是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

## 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": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["living_room"],
    "target_devices": ["living_room_temp_sensor"],
    "target_question": "Is the living_room temperature sensor working normally based on the history?"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["living_room"],
  "focus_devices": ["living_room_temp_sensor"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C00", "C05"],
  "suspected_patterns": ["temperature variation across whole day appears normal"],
  "why_these_chunks": ["C00 covers the start of the day showing baseline stable readings; C05 includes a suspicious empty event line for the living_room temp sensor which may indicate a fault; these two chunks provide evidence of normal operation and a potential anomaly."]
}

## Investigator
```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The living_room temperature sensor is operating normally, showing consistent and plausible temperature variation throughout the day. The three empty event lines are likely isolated logging or data-transmission glitches, not indicative of a device fault.",
      "evidence": [
        "The sensor reports regular 5-minute temperature updates across all observed chunks (C00, C04, C05, C06, C07), with values gradually warming from ~22.7°C at midnight (C00) to a peak of ~25.5°C in late morning (C05), then gradually cooling through the afternoon (C07). This diurnal pattern is physically plausible.",
        "Of many logged events (866 temperature measurements total across all devices), only three empty lines appear for the living_room sensor (08:00, 09:00, 10:00, and 14:00), all occu


LockDoor 命令后 LockState 未变为 Locked
DoorLockAlarm (LockJammed) 触发
门锁故障意味着家庭物理安全降级

通知住户门锁可能卡住/故障，建议手动检查

entrance区域的前门锁存在间歇性锁故障，表现为两次LockDoor命令失败并触发DoorLockAlarm报警，但之后恢复自动上锁。

Explanation: 在C12 21:36:00-21:36:15期间，前门锁连续收到两次LockDoor命令，但LockState始终停留在unlocked（raw=2），命令未生效。

Explanation: 在21:36:15，前门锁触发了DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)，这是明确的故障信号，表明锁存在机械或电子问题。

Explanation: 在22:06:51，前门锁自动上锁成功（LockState=locked），且21:36的失败与22:06的成功之间无其他干预事件，证明故障是间歇性的，而非永久损坏。

Explanation: front_door_contact在C04中正常检测到开门（false）和关门（true），在C12中保持true，无异常；entrance_light在C12中正常关闭，无故障。因此异常仅限于锁本身。

C12 21:36:00-21:36:15: 两次LockDoor命令失败，LockState保持2 (unlocked)

C12 21:36:15: DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0) 触发

C12 22:06:51: 自动上锁成功，表明间歇性恢复

检查前门锁的AlarmCode=0具体含义（常见为锁定故障、电机堵转或电池低电压），以便精确维修。

检查锁的电池电压和通信信号强度，排除临时供电或信号问题。

考虑更换或维修锁具硬件部件，如电机或传动机构。

继续监控锁的状态，确认间歇性故障的出现频率。

C12 22:06:51: 自动上锁成功，表明间歇性恢复

检查锁的电池电压和通信信号强度，排除临时供电或信号问题。

考虑更换或维修锁具硬件部件，如电机或传动机构。

继续监控锁的状态，确认间歇性故障的出现频率。

前门锁存在间歇性锁故障：在C12 21:36:00-21:36:15期间，两次LockDoor命令均未使锁进入locked状态（LockState仍为2/unlocked），并触发DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)，表明锁机械或电子部分故障导致无法上锁，但之后在22:06:51恢复自动上锁，符合间歇性故障特征。接触传感器和入口灯没有异常。

C12 21:36:00: Command: LockDoor → 无状态改变。

C12 21:36:05: LockState = 2 (unlocked)，命令未生效。

C12 21:36:10: 再次Command: LockDoor → 仍然无效。

C12 21:36:15: LockState = 2 (unlocked)，且触发DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)，明确故障信号。

C12 22:06:51: 锁自动上锁成功（LockState=locked），说明故障为间歇性。

无法确定AlarmCode=0的具体含义（可能为短路/卡死/电池低），缺乏锁维修历史。

间歇性故障可能为临时通信干扰，但触发明确alarm事件更支持硬件问题。

接触传感器和入口灯数据有限，无法完全排除其他entrance传感器有细微异常，但无直接故障证据。

C12 22:06:51: 前门锁自动上锁成功，证明故障为间歇性。

前门锁的AlarmCode=0具体含义（如锁定故障、撞击、系统错误、电池低等），有助于精确定位故障类型。

前门锁的电池状态、通信信号强度、或者历史维修记录。

entrance_light在C04中无任何事件，无法判断其全程行为是否正常（仅C12有一次关闭）。

front_door_contact仅在C04中有两次变化（open/close）和C12中一次true，缺少更频繁的开关事件以验证传感器响应及时性，但现有数据未显示异常。

间歇性故障可能为临时通信干扰，但触发明确alarm事件更支持硬件问题。

C12 22:06:51: 前门锁自动上锁成功，证明故障为间歇性。

前门锁的电池状态、通信信号强度、或者历史维修记录。

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": true,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "low",
  "recommended_action": "allow_final_verdict",
  "needs_more_chunks": [],
  "missing_checks": [
    "The investigator correctly identified the lock malfunction based on repeated failed LockDoor commands and a DoorLockAlarm event. This constitutes direct fault evidence per protocol standards.",
    "The temperature scaling is correctly interpreted (values like 2512 = 25.12°C), so no false alarm risk from misreading Matter-scaled values.",
    "The investigator properly noted that the contact sensor and light show no anomalies, keeping the focus on the lock issue.",
    "The distinction between intermittent hardware fault and temporary communication issue is appropriately noted as a weakness, but the alarm event strongly supports hardware failure."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "The investigation stays on-topic for the entrance sensor health assessment.",
    "Evidence is sufficient: two failed lock commands plus an explicit alarm event provide direct fault evidence for the lock device.",
    "The normal hypothesis (N1) is appropriately flagged as having weaknesses given the lock alarm events.",
    "The anomaly hypothesis (A1) is well-supported with clear evidence from C12.",
    "All requested information (missing details about AlarmCode=0 meaning, battery status, etc.) is reasonable additional context but not required for the current fault determination.",
    "No additional chunks are needed as the relevant events are all within the focused chunks."
  ]
}
```

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "entrance 区域的 front_door_contact 和 front_door_lock 传感器在给定时间范围内工作正常，展现了一致的、符合预期的开关门和上锁/解锁行为，未发现任何电气或通信层面的故障迹象。",
      "evidence": [
        "C04 中 front_door_contact 在解锁后有清晰的状态变化 (false->true)，与门被打开的动作时间上一致。",
        "C04 中 front_door_lock 在手动解锁后能正确响应自动上锁命令，状态从 unlocked 变为 locked。",
        "C12 中 front_door_contact 在晚上 22:06 报告 StateValue = true，显示门再次被打开，之后 front_door_lock 成功上锁。",
        "entrance_light 在 C12 中被正常关闭，表明该区域的照明控制也正常。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "front_door_lock 在 C12 中出现过两次 LockDoor 命令失败及一次报警 (AlarmCode=0)，这需要一个解释。",
        "整个日志中 front_door_contact 活动非常少（只有 2 次状态变化），对于一个人流量正常的住宅来说可能偏少。"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "front_door_lock 存在间歇性锁故障（lock_malfunction）。在 C12 中，21:36:00 和 21:36:10 两次发送了 LockDoor 命令，但锁的状态始终停留在 2 (unlocked)，并且立即触发了 DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)。这说明锁的机械结构或电子控制部分在 21:36 时未能响应命令，是一个明确的故障现象。虽然之后在 22:06:51 它又成功上锁，但这恰恰是间歇性故障的特征，不影响故障已发生的结论。",
      "threat_type": "lock_malfunction",
      "evidence": [
        "C12 中 [21:36:00] front_door_lock 收到 LockDoor 命令。",
        "C12 中 [21:36:05] front_door_lock.LockState 仍为 2 (unlocked)，命令未生效。",
        "C12 中 [21:36:10] front_door_lock 再次收到 LockDoor 命令。",
        "C12 中 [21:36:15] front_door_lock.LockState 仍为 2 (unlocked)，命令再次失败。",
        "C12 中 [21:36:15] front_door_lock 立即触发 DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)，这是一个明确的故障报警事件（Matter 规范中 AlarmCode 0 通常表示未指定的锁故障）。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "故障发生后约 30 分钟 (22:06:51)，锁又恢复正常，未能确定根本原因（如电池电量、机械卡顿、网络延迟）。"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "front_door_lock 在 21:36:00 和 21:36:10 两次收到 LockDoor 命令后，LockState 仍保持为 unlocked (2) 且触发了 DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)。这直接证明锁传感器和执行机构在那一刻出现了故障，而不仅仅是行为异常。"
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "front_door_lock 的电池电量或电源状态。",
    "DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0) 的具体错误码含义（如卡死、超时、电池低等）。",
    "entrance 区域是否有独立的人体移动或占用传感器，用于交叉验证 front_door_contact 的更新频率是否正常。",
    "front_door_lock 在 21:36 期间是否有额外的日志（如网络重连、事件队列积压等）。"
  ]
}
```

间歇性故障可能为临时通信干扰，但触发明确alarm事件更支持硬件问题。

C12 22:06:51: 前门锁自动上锁成功，证明故障为间歇性。

前门锁的电池状态、通信信号强度、或者历史维修记录。

间歇性故障可能为临时通信干扰，但触发明确alarm事件更支持硬件问题。

C12 22:06:51: 前门锁自动上锁成功，证明故障为间歇性。

前门锁的电池状态、通信信号强度、或者历史维修记录。

The investigator claims 'front_door_lock in C12 appeared twice on LockDoor Command failure and once on Alarm(AlarmCode=0)' – there are only two LockDoor commands in the log, and the alarm is triggered after the second. This description is accurate. But the investigator also claims 'front_door_contact only had 2 state changes, which may be too few for a normal residence' – this is a speculative weakness that does not constitute evidence of a sensor fault. Cross-check with the query: the question asks about the entrance-area sensors, not the lock. The lock failure is a different sensor category (lock vs. contact). The investigator should separately assess front_door_contact and entrance_light health, not lump them under the lock anomaly. Also, the missing information section correctly identifies lack of battery/power data and alarm code meaning, but the investigator did not request additional chunks that might contain lock diagnostics. No additional chunks are available beyond the specified list, so the investigator should be guided to make a final verdict with the evidence at hand. However, the evidence for lock fault is clear, but the question asks about 'sensors in the entrance area' – the light and contact sensor appear normal. The investigator should conclude that the lock has a fault (intermittent lock malfunction) but the other sensors are normal. The current output does not clearly separate these conclusions for each device, which could cause confusion.

The investigator correctly identified the lock malfunction based on repeated lock failure and alarm event. This meets the direct fault evidence standard for a device-fault conclusion on the lock.

The investigator's normal hypothesis N1 lists weaknesses that are not substantive evidence (e.g., low event count for contact sensor). This is speculative and could lead to false alarm if used to downgrade confidence in normal operation.

The investigator's output would benefit from a clearer per-device conclusion: front_door_lock is faulty (intermittent), front_door_contact is normal, entrance_light is normal. Currently, the distinction is blurred in the normal/anomaly hypotheses.

The query asks for determination of whether the entrance-area sensors are working normally. With the current evidence, the lock shows clear fault evidence; the contact sensor and light show no fault. The investigator should explicitly state that conclusion rather than leaving ambiguity.

## Query
请检查以下设备状态历史，判断 entrance 区域的传感器 是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

## 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": 400,
    "bedroom": 353,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 57,
    "entrance": 19
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 220,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "LockState": 6,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 6,
  "occupancy_events": 220,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

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

## Query
请检查以下设备状态历史，判断 entrance 区域的传感器 是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。

## 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": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["entrance"],
    "target_devices": ["front_door_contact", "front_door_lock", "entrance_light"],
    "target_question": "判断 entrance 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["entrance"],
  "focus_devices": ["front_door_contact", "front_door_lock", "entrance_light"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C04", "C12"],
  "suspected_patterns": [],
  "why_these_chunks": ["C04 contains the first appearance of entrance devices with door lock/unlock and contact sensor events, which are needed to assess normal operation. C12 shows later entrance events to check for consistency or any stuck/abnormal behavior."]
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "entrance区域传感器全部正常工作：前门接触传感器在C04中正常检测到开门（true→false）和关门（false→true），在C12中正常显示关门状态（true）；入口灯在C12中正常关闭；前门锁在C04中正常解锁并自动上锁，在C12中虽有两次命令失败但最终在22:06:51正常自动上锁，可能为临时通信或操作冲突问题。",
      "evidence": [
        "C04 07:17:23-07:17:27: 前门锁手动解锁、开门（接触传感器变化）、关门后自动上锁，序列完整。",
        "C12 22:06:08: entrance_light正常关闭（OnOff=off），无异常状态。",
        "C12 22:06:50: front_door_contact显示true（门关闭），状态合理。",
        "C12 22:06:51: 前门锁最终自动上锁成功（LockState=locked）。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "C12中前门锁两次LockDoor命令失败并触发DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)，表明锁存在间歇性故障，不符合完全正常假设。",
        "接触传感器仅有一次状态变化（从无到true），但未提供足够上下文判断是否遗漏开门事件。"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "前门锁存在间歇性锁故障：在C12 21:36:00-21:36:15期间，两次LockDoor命令均未使锁进入locked状态（LockState仍为2/unlocked），并触发DoorLockAlarm(AlarmCode=0)，表明锁机械或电子部分故障导致无法上锁，但之后在22:06:5