WD-03-FP: 住户外出但开了自动浇花系统

漏水传感器触发后在短时间内（3分钟）恢复为false，而非持续触发超过10分钟

Evidence remains insufficient for a supported anomaly conclusion, so the workflow defaults to a conservative non-anomaly result.

Explanation: Supervisor gate enforced: abstain.

Explanation: Primary task profile: single-event-safety.

Explanation: The investigator's hypotheses drifted from the original query (security threat) to unrelated safety hazards (fire, CO). The on_topic flag should be false.

Explanation: Risk of false alarm is high: cooking activity with a transient sensor glitch is being treated as a potential fire—this could trigger unnecessary emergency response if taken at face value.

Gather the missing evidence before issuing a high-confidence anomaly verdict.

The investigator introduced a 'fire_risk' and 'carbon_monoxide' hypothesis without any direct evidence of fire, smoke, or gas alarms. The single 'None' reading from a kitchen temperature sensor is weak and potentially a transient network issue, not proof of hazard.

The temperature rise from 22.7°C to 25.2°C over 7 hours is gradual, moderate, and within normal habitable ranges; it does not indicate a safety threat without corroborating alarm or fault events.

判断刚刚发生的整个事件序列是否构成安全威胁

判断刚刚发生的整个事件序列是否构成安全威胁

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal household temperature rise due to morning routine and cooking activity. The gradual temperature increase from ~22.7°C at midnight to ~25.2°C at 07:05 is consistent with a warm day building up, followed by occupants waking up, turning on lights, using the bathroom, and starting cooking (kitchen cook surface turned on at 07:00:40).",
      "evidence": [
        "All four temperature sensors show a consistent, gradual rise from ~22.7°C (00:00) to ~25.2°C (07:05), which is a plausible daily temperature swing.",
        "Occupancy events begin at 06:18 in master_bedroom and kids_room, followed by lights and window actions (kids_room_light on, window opened), indicating normal waking activity.",
        "Kitchen cook surface turned on at 07:00:40, confirming cooking activity that can locally raise temperatures.",
        "No explicit fault or alarm events are present in the logs.",
        "Temperature values are within a comfortable range and never exceed likely safety thresholds (e.g., above 30°C)."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The temperature rise starts well before any occupancy or human activity (from 01:10), which is unusual for a typical night unless outdoor temperatures are rising or HVAC is active.",
        "The kitchen temperature sensor briefly reported 'None' at 07:01:10, which could indicate a transient sensor read issue or reset; this is a minor anomaly but no subsequent fault or recovery event is logged."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "Unattended cooking or fire risk: The kitchen cook surface was turned on at 07:00:40, and immediately after, the kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' at 07:01:10. This could indicate a sensor being overwhelmed or failing due to high heat or smoke, suggesting a potential fire or overheating event. The occupant in master_bathroom exited at 07:01:13 (occupancy went unoccupied), leaving the kitchen potentially unattended.",
      "threat_type": "fire_risk",
      "evidence": [
        "Kitchen cook surface turned on at 07:00:40.",
        "Kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' at 07:01:10, which is a transient failure or communication loss coinciding with the cook surface activation.",
        "Occupant left master_bathroom at 07:01:13, and no subsequent occupancy in kitchen is tracked; the kitchen may be unattended.",
        "Temperatures in living room, master bedroom, and kids room continued to rise steeply after 07:00 (e.g., 25.07, 25.09), consistent with heat buildup from cooking."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The temperature sensor 'None' could be a temporary network issue or sensor reset; no further sensor failures are logged.",
        "No smoke, smoke alarm, or explicit fire alarm events are present.",
        "The cook surface could be a normal cooking activity; unattended cooking is a risk but not confirmed without additional (e.g., smoke) events."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "Possible carbon monoxide or air quality hazard: The sustained temperature rise (~22.7°C to ~25.2°C) during early morning (00:00-07:05) without any HVAC or heater events could indicate a gas leak or combustion byproduct emission if the cook surface is gas-based. The kitchen sensor failure at 07:01:10 could be a sign of sensor failure due to toxic gases.",
      "threat_type": "carbon_monoxide",
      "evidence": [
        "Temperature rise from 00:00 to 07:05 is about 2.5°C in 7 hours; this is a faster-than-expected rise for passive heat unless a heat source is active.",
        "Kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' at 07:01:10, which could be a sensor failure due to gas or smoke exposure.",
        "No HVAC or heater system events are logged that could explain the temperature rise, implying the source is an active device (kitchen cook surface)."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "No explicit carbon monoxide or smoke alarm events are present.",
        "No gas sensor data available; the hypothesis is based only on temperature and sensor failure, which is speculative.",
        "The temperature rise could also be due to outdoor temperature or normal heat buildup from lighting and occupant activity."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "Kitchen cook surface turned on at 07:00:40",
    "Kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' at 07:01:10 immediately after cook surface activation",
    "Sustained temperature rise from ~22.7°C (midnight) to ~25.2°C (07:05) without HVAC events",
    "Occupants present in master_bedroom and kids_room from 06:18, but no kitchen occupancy tracked; kitchen potentially unattended"
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "Is there any smoke/CO alarm data or gas sensor data?",
    "Did the kitchen temperature sensor recover after 07:01? No subsequent kitchen temp readings are available.",
    "What type of cook surface (gas vs. electric) and is there any manual shutoff or flame failure detection?",
    "Are there any motion sensors or presence sensors in the kitchen that could confirm occupancy during cooking?",
    "What was the outdoor temperature during the same period to evaluate passive rise."
  ]
}
```

The query asks whether the event sequence constitutes a security threat—yet the investigator discusses fire and CO risks, which are safety/health hazards, not security threats. This is off-topic.

The investigator labeled the kitchen as 'potentially unattended' but kitchen occupancy was never tracked (no kitchen occupancy sensor), so there is no evidence of absence.

The investigator's 'most discriminative evidence' relies on a single sensor anomaly and a normal cooking event, which are insufficient to classify as a safety threat.

Missing direct evidence: no smoke, fire, or CO alarms; no HVAC fault events; no explicit fault events on temperature sensors beyond one 'None' event. The 'None' at 07:01:10 is not labeled as a fault in logs; it may be a protocol-level transient or reset.

The investigator should have flagged that the temperature scaling rule was used correctly—but then over-interpreted the 'None' as hazard evidence.

Recommend abstain: current evidence is too weak and speculative for a safety threat conclusion. Additional evidence (e.g., from smoke/CO sensors or HVAC logs) would be needed to elevate this to a real threat.

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## 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": 399,
    "master_bedroom": 520,
    "kids_room": 519,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 217,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 54,
    "entrance": 229,
    "second_bathroom": 3
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1086,
    "OnOff": 26,
    "StateValue":

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## 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": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [],
    "target_devices": [],
    "target_question": "判断刚刚发生的整个事件序列是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["living_room", "master_bedroom", "kids_room", "kitchen"],
  "focus_devices": ["living_room_temp_sensor", "master_bedroom_temp_sensor", "kids_room_temp_sensor", "kitchen_temp_sensor"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C00", "C01", "C03", "C05"],
  "suspected_patterns": ["temperature_rise_trend", "morning_activity_start"],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00 provides baseline temperatures at midnight (~22.6-22.8°C) and shows no occupancy, establishing normal night conditions.",
    "C01 captures the start of temperature rise around 01:10-01:25 (23.0-23.1°C), indicating a gradual increase.",
    "C03 shows sustained temperatures above 24°C around 04:00, confirming a significant upward trend.",
    "C05 includes the first occupancy events at 06:18 and temperatures approaching 25°C, along with kids_room light/window actions indicating human activity, which is relevant for evaluating if the rise is related to normal activity or a fault."
  ]
}

## Investigator
```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal household temperature rise due to morning routine and cooking activity. The gradual temperature increase from ~22.7°C at midnight to ~25.2°C at 07:05 is consistent with a warm day building up, followed by occupants waking up, turning on lights, using the bathroom, and starting cooking (kitchen cook surface turned on at 07:00:40).",
      "evidence": [
        "All four temperature sensors show a consistent, grad


FG-03-FP: 烟雾报警器自检触发CO检测

Repetitive entrance occupancy events at precise 5-minute intervals coupled with manual door unlocks suggest possible tailgating or unauthorized entry, indicating an intrusion threat.

Explanation: Entrance occupancy events occur at nearly exact 5-minute intervals from 07:04 to at least 10:10, a highly regular pattern inconsistent with typical human behavior and indicative of either deliberate repeated door operations or a sensor fault.

Explanation: Door lock events at 07:04 and 08:40 show manual unlock operations followed by auto-lock, correlating with some entrance occupancy timestamps, supporting that real door operations are occurring rather than just a sensor glitch.

Explanation: Persistent multi-room occupancy (kitchen, bedroom, living room) throughout the period suggests multiple occupants are present, increasing the likelihood that the entrance activity is legitimate but anomalous in its regularity; however, the extreme periodicity tilts toward intrusion or tailgating.

Explanation: No explicit fault codes or stuck values for the entrance occupancy sensor are present, making sensor fault less likely; the pattern is better explained by repeated actual entries.

Explanation: The supervisor did not recommend abstention and the investigator's anomaly hypothesis A1 (intrusion/tailgating) is plausible and not refuted by available evidence.

Door lock manual unlock operations at 07:04 and 08:40 paired with auto-lock and contact events (open/close sequence) indicate real door use coinciding with occupancy reports

Persistent occupancy in kitchen, bedroom, and later living room from 06:21 onward, indicating multiple occupants or sustained activity

Verify the identity of individuals entering the premises via any available camera or entry log.

Inspect the entrance occupancy sensor for possible malfunction or tampering.

Consider increasing door lock security (e.g., enable two-factor authentication for manual unlock events).

Alert the homeowner or security service about the unusual pattern of repetitive door events.

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

enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code

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

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

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

kitchen living_room bedroom entrance bathroom

判断是否构成安全威胁并说明理由

gradual temperature rise across multiple rooms from early morning onward

persistent occupancy in multiple rooms simultaneously starting around 06:20

entrance occupancy occurring every few minutes indicating repeated openings/closings

temperatures peaking around 25.5°C then declining in late afternoon

C07 provides the peak temperature period and confirms persistent occupancy pattern, necessary to assess if temperatures are anomalous or indicative of a device fault.

判断是否构成安全威胁并说明理由

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal morning routine with family members waking up, preparing breakfast, and going about their day. The temperature rise is due to cooking and body heat, and the entrance occupancy is from normal comings and goings.",
      "evidence": [
        "Temperatures rise gradually from ~24.9°C to ~25.5°C over four hours, a modest increase consistent with a household becoming active.",
        "Kitchen occupancy is persistent starting at 06:21, typical for breakfast preparation.",
        "Bedroom occupancy is also persistent starting at 06:22, indicating someone is awake and moving around.",
        "The kitchen cook surface is off at 06:36, suggesting cooking may have finished but heat lingers.",
        "Entrance occupancy events occur regularly every ~5 minutes, which could be someone stepping out or letting pets in/out.",
        "Lock events at 07:04 (unlock then auto-lock) and 08:40 (unlock) are consistent with normal door use.",
        "No explicit fault codes, alarms, or stuck values appear in the logs."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The persistence of entrance occupancy every 5 minutes for hours is unusual; a normal pattern would have more variation in interval.",
        "Simultaneous occupancy of kitchen, bedroom, and sometimes living room is sustained for a long period, which could indicate multiple people but also might indicate a sensor issue.",
        "The gradual 0.6°C rise is within normal bounds but combined with other patterns is worth noting."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "Possible tailgating or unauthorized entry through the entrance, indicated by repetitive entrance occupancy events (every ~5 minutes) and associated door lock operations, suggesting someone is propping the door or multiple entries/exits are occurring in an unusual pattern.",
      "threat_type": "intrusion / tailgating",
      "evidence": [
        "Entrance occupancy events occur at regular ~5-minute intervals from 07:04 to at least 10:10, which is a highly repetitive pattern not typical of normal household activity.",
        "At 07:04, the front door is manually unlocked, then contact opens (false) and closes (true), then auto-locks; this sequence is repeated at 08:40 (manual unlock again).",
        "The repetitive nature suggests either a sensor glitch (see A2) or deliberate repeated door operations, which could enable tailgating or unauthorized access.",
        "Structured signals show 942 occupancy events overall and 4 lock state flips, indicating the door was cycled multiple times."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "No visual evidence of unauthorized persons; the lock auto-locks after each operation, which is a security measure that should prevent simple tailgating.",
        "The repetitive pattern could be caused by a faulty occupancy sensor (see A2) rather than actual intrusion.",
        "Normal behavior (e.g., kids playing, deliveries) could explain frequent door use, though the periodicity is still suspicious."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "Possible occupancy sensor fault in the entrance, causing false reports of occupancy every ~5 minutes. The regular cadence suggests a stuck or repeating sensor rather than actual human presence.",
      "threat_type": "sensor_stuck",
      "evidence": [
        "Entrance occupancy events occur at exactly 5-minute intervals (07:04, 07:09, 07:14, 07:19, 07:24, etc.) with high precision, which is a classic sign of a stuck sensor repeating a false state.",
        "No corresponding 'unoccupied' events are logged for the entrance between these events, suggesting the sensor may be toggling incorrectly.",
        "Structured signals show 942 occupancy events total, which is very high; while this includes all rooms, the entrance alone shows a mechanical pattern.",
        "The regular pattern is inconsistent with actual human movement, which would have variable intervals."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "No explicit fault codes or alarm events for the entrance occupancy sensor are present.",
        "The door contact and lock events correlate with some entrance occupancy events (e.g., 07:04 and 08:40), suggesting real activity at those times, so the sensor is not completely stuck.",
        "A sensor fault would typically show repeated identical values, but here the occupancy=1 events are spaced by 5 minutes, which could also be a polling interval issue rather than a true fault."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A3",
      "description": "Possible unattended cooking or fire risk, given persistent kitchen occupancy, a temperature rise in the kitchen to 25.5°C, the cook surface being off, and a smoke/CO alarm self-testing and detecting CO state=1 temporarily, which could indicate smoldering or a gas issue.",
      "threat_type": "fire_risk / carbon_monoxide",
      "evidence": [
        "Kitchen occupancy is nearly continuous from 06:21 onward, but at 06:36 the kitchen cook surface is off, suggesting cooking may have stopped but the heat source might be off.",
        "Kitchen temperature rises from 24.9°C at 06:20 to 25.57°C at 10:05, a steady increase of about 0.7°C over 4 hours, which could indicate a heat source (e.g., oven left on, though cook surface is off, or a gas burner).",
        "At 07:13, the kitchen smoke/CO alarm performs a self-test and briefly reports COState=1 (carbon monoxide detected) before resetting to 0 and completing the test. This could indicate a real CO event or test anomaly.",
        "No other CO or smoke events follow, but the temporary CO state is a red flag.",
        "Sustained multi-room occupancy (kitchen, bedroom, living room) could mean no one is attending to a potential hazard in the kitchen."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The cook surface is off, which suggests no active cooking; the temperature rise is modest and could be from body heat or solar gain.",
        "The COState=1 occurs during a scheduled self-test and clears immediately, indicating it may be a test-induced reading or calibration event, not real CO.",
        "No explicit smoke alarm, fire alarm, or subsequent CO alarms occur, reducing the likelihood of an active fire or CO leak.",
        "Normal cooking (e.g., coffee maker, toaster) could explain the temperature rise without being a safety threat."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "Regular 5-minute entrance occupancy events from 07:04 onward, suggesting either repetitive intrusion or sensor fault.",
    "Kitchen smoke/CO alarm shows COState=1 during self-test at 07:13, which could indicate real CO or test artifact.",
    "Persistent multi-room occupancy (kitchen, bedroom, living room) over several hours, with entrance occupancy also continuous, creating an unusual pattern of simultaneous activity.",
    "Gradual temperature rise of ~0.6-0.7°C in all measured rooms over 4 hours, consistent with active occupancy or heating but not extreme.",
    "Door lock flips (4 events) with manual unlock and auto-lock sequences, providing a narrative of door operations that correlate with some entrance occupancy events."
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "Historical baseline data for occupancy patterns in this home at this time of day.",
    "Historical baseline data for temperature variations during morning hours.",
    "Whether any occupants are home (e.g., could be children, elderly, or pets) and their expected schedules.",
    "The exact model and firmware of the entrance occupancy sensor to assess known fault patterns.",
    "Whether the smoke/CO alarm self-test at 07:13 is scheduled or user-initiated; logs show TestInProgress=True then False, but no trigger source is logged.",
    "Audio or camera feeds from the entrance to confirm if actual persons are entering/exiting every 5 minutes.",
    "HVAC system status (e.g., thermostat settings, AC/heater operation) to explain temperature rise.",
    "Time of sunrise/solar exposure for the home, which could explain temperature changes.",
    "The specific operation source of the manual lock operations (keypad, key, etc.) to assess if they are authorized."
  ]
}
```

Kitchen occupancy is persistent starting at 06:21, typical for breakfast preparation.

Bedroom occupancy is also persistent starting at 06:22, indicating someone is awake and moving around.

The kitchen cook surface is off at 06:36, suggesting cooking may have finished but heat lingers.

Entrance occupancy events occur regularly every ~5 minutes, which could be someone stepping out or letting pets in/out.

Lock events at 07:04 (unlock then auto-lock) and 08:40 (unlock) are consistent with normal door use.

No explicit fault codes, alarms, or stuck values appear in the logs.

The gradual 0.6°C rise is within normal bounds but combined with other patterns is worth noting.

The repetitive pattern could be caused by a faulty occupancy sensor (see A2) rather than actual intrusion.

The regular pattern is inconsistent with actual human movement, which would have variable intervals.

No explicit fault codes or alarm events for the entrance occupancy sensor are present.

No other CO or smoke events follow, but the temporary CO state is a red flag.

Normal cooking (e.g., coffee maker, toaster) could explain the temperature rise without being a safety threat.

Regular 5-minute entrance occupancy events from 07:04 onward, suggesting either repetitive intrusion or sensor fault.

Kitchen smoke/CO alarm shows COState=1 during self-test at 07:13, which could indicate real CO or test artifact.

Historical baseline data for occupancy patterns in this home at this time of day.

Historical baseline data for temperature variations during morning hours.

Whether any occupants are home (e.g., could be children, elderly, or pets) and their expected schedules.

The exact model and firmware of the entrance occupancy sensor to assess known fault patterns.

Audio or camera feeds from the entrance to confirm if actual persons are entering/exiting every 5 minutes.

HVAC system status (e.g., thermostat settings, AC/heater operation) to explain temperature rise.

Time of sunrise/solar exposure for the home, which could explain temperature changes.

The specific operation source of the manual lock operations (keypad, key, etc.) to assess if they are authorized.

No historical baseline for occupancy patterns to confirm anomaly.

No HVAC or thermostat data to rule out temperature rise due to heating.

No explicit check on whether the repetitive entrance occupancy is a sensor fault vs. actual events; door contact and lock events correlate only with some occupancy timestamps.

The investigator correctly interprets scaled temperature values (centi-degrees Celsius) and does not flag impossible temperatures.

The analysis stays on-topic for security threat assessment.

Hypotheses are balanced but the repetitive entrance occupancy pattern is well-identified as either intrusion or sensor fault.

The CO alarm self-test is correctly flagged as ambiguous but not over-weighted.

Recommendation to allow final verdict is reasonable given sufficient cross-device temporal evidence and clear anomalies; however, missing baseline data slightly elevates false-alarm risk to medium.

Kitchen occupancy is persistent starting at 06:21, typical for breakfast preparation.

Bedroom occupancy is also persistent starting at 06:22, indicating someone is awake and moving around.

The kitchen cook surface is off at 06:36, suggesting cooking may have finished but heat lingers.

Entrance occupancy events occur regularly every ~5 minutes, which could be someone stepping out or letting pets in/out.

Lock events at 07:04 (unlock then auto-lock) and 08:40 (unlock) are consistent with normal door use.

No explicit fault codes, alarms, or stuck values appear in the logs.

The regular pattern is inconsistent with actual human movement, which would have variable intervals.

No other CO or smoke events follow, but the temporary CO state is a red flag.

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 495,
    "bedroom": 529,
    "kitchen": 538,
    "bathroom": 63,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 942,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 21,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "TestInProgress": 2,
    "COState": 2,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 942,
  "temperature_patterns": [],
  "value_format_hints": {
    "temperature": "MeasuredValue is shown as Celsius with the raw integer preserved in parentheses.",
    "occupancy": "0=unoccupied, 1=occupied",
    "lock_state": "enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code"
  }
}

## Chunk Index
[
  {
    "chunk_id": "C00",
    "start_ts": "2026-06-23T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-23T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "behavior-sequence",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["kitchen", "living_room", "bedroom", "entrance", "bathroom"],
    "target_devices": ["kitchen_temp_sensor", "living_room_temp_sensor", "bedroom_temp_sensor", "kitchen_occupancy", "living_room_occupancy", "bedroom_occupancy", "entrance_occupancy", "bathroom_occupancy"],
    "target_question": "判断是否构成安全威胁并说明理由"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["kitchen", "living_room", "bedroom", "entrance"],
  "focus_devices": ["kitchen_temp_sensor", "kitchen_occupancy", "living_room_temp_sensor", "entrance_occupancy", "bedroom_temp_sensor"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C04", "C05", "C06", "C07"],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "gradual temperature rise across multiple rooms from early morning onward",
    "persistent occupancy in multiple rooms simultaneously starting around 06:20",
    "entrance occupancy occurring every few minutes indicating repeated openings/closings",
    "temperatures peaking around 25.5°C then declining in late afternoon"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 shows the start of significant temperature increase and simultaneous occupancy across kitchen, bedroom, and entrance, marking a shift from nighttime inactivity.",
    "C05 captures continued temperature rise and high-frequency entrance occupancy, which could indicate unusual door activity.",
    "C06 shows peak temperatures (~25.5°C) and sustained multi-room occupancy, suggesting possible prolonged cooking or HVAC issue.",
    "C07 provides the peak temperature period and confirms persistent occupancy pattern, necessary to assess if temperatures are anomalous or indicative of


触发安全警报，临时禁用 Keypad 输入，通知住户

The cook surface was used for a normal 30-minute cooking session with no evidence of fire, smoke, or CO alarm events, and the brief 'None' readings from the kitchen temperature sensor are consistent with transient network glitches that self-recovered.

Explanation: The cook surface was on for 30 minutes (06:41:33 to 07:12:00), which is a typical duration for cooking.

Explanation: The kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' twice (06:42:03 and 07:13:00), but each time it recovered within minutes to normal readings around 25°C, consistent with transient communication issues, not a fire.

Explanation: All kitchen temperature readings during and after cooking remained between 24.74°C and 25.33°C, showing no dangerous temperature spike.

Explanation: No smoke alarm, CO alarm, fault code, or diagnostic event appears anywhere in the entire log (C00–C10), strongly indicating no combustion event occurred.

Explanation: The window was opened at 07:12:30 after cooking ended, which is normal ventilation behavior.

Explanation: Master bedroom occupancy was continuous throughout the cooking period (occupied from 05:59 to 08:40), indicating someone was home and could monitor cooking; however, no kitchen occupancy sensor exists to confirm direct supervision.

Explanation: The front door events at 07:49 show a person left and returned (entrance occupancy and door lock/unlock), consistent with a normal morning routine after cooking.

Explanation: All temperature sensors across the house show a gradual rise from ~22.6°C to ~25.5°C from midnight to morning, consistent with normal diurnal warming, not a fire.

Explanation: Investigators' anomaly hypotheses (A1: unattended cooking fire, A2: safety device failure) are refuted by: (a) no alarm events even in later chunks C07–C10, (b) sensor recovery showing no sustained failure, (c) normal temperature profile across all sensors.

Cook surface on at 06:41:33, off at 07:12:00 (~30 minutes).

Kitchen temperature sensor readings remain between 24.74°C and 25.33°C throughout, with no spike.

No smoke or CO alarm events in any chunk (C00–C10).

Two brief 'None' readings from kitchen temp sensor both self-recovered within minutes.

Window opened at 07:12:30 after cooking ended.

Master bedroom occupied throughout cooking period (05:59 to 08:40).

No safety response needed; this is a normal cooking event.

Monitor kitchen temperature sensor for recurrent 'None' readings to rule out intermittent hardware issues.

Consider installing a kitchen occupancy sensor to provide better supervision context in future analyses.

判断厨房灶具开启后是否构成安全威胁

cook surface turned on without subsequent alarm

判断厨房灶具开启后是否构成安全威胁

Cook surface on at 06:41:33, off at 07:12:00 (~30 minutes).

All MeasuredValue readings across the kitchen and other rooms remain between 22.6°C and 25.5°C — no dangerous temperature spike.

No smoke alarm, CO alarm, or fault/diagnostic event appears in any chunk (C00–C06).

Kitchen window contact opened (07:12:30) shortly after cooking ended, consistent with venting steam or odors.

Occupancy in master bedroom was occupied during most of the cooking period, indicating someone was home and could monitor cooking.

The two 'None' readings from the kitchen temperature sensor are unexplained — they could indicate a sensor fault that might mask a real temperature rise.

No direct observation of a person in the kitchen (no kitchen occupancy sensor in the log) — cooking could have been unattended.

The temperature did not rise during cooking, which could be normal for light cooking (e.g., boiling water) or could indicate the sensor was not reporting correctly.

The cook surface was left unattended during a 30-minute cooking episode, raising a fire risk. The kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' at 06:42:03 (shortly after the cook surface turned on) and again at 07:13:00 (just after the cook surface turned off but before the window opened). These 'None' events could indicate sensor failure or obstruction (e.g., thick smoke, extreme heat, or physical disconnection), which would be consistent with an unattended cooking fire starting and being manually extinguished before the smoke alarm triggered, or a smoldering fire that did not yet set off an alarm.

Cook surface turned on at 06:41:33 and off at 07:12:00 — no explicit evidence of a person operating it (no kitchen occupancy sensor).

Kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' at 06:42:03, right after the cook surface turned on, and again at 07:13:00, after the cook surface turned off.

No kitchen occupancy sensor data exists to confirm someone was present during cooking.

The window opened at 07:12:30, consistent with someone clearing smoke or opening for ventilation after a fire event.

All other temperature sensors in the house show values only rising gradually (0.5–1°C over 7 hours), not a sudden kitchen spike, but the kitchen sensor's 'None' could mask a dangerous rise.

No smoke or CO alarm event appears in any chunk — a real fire would likely trigger such alarms before being extinguished.

The kitchen temperature sensor recovered to normal values after the 'None' readings, not stuck or permanently failed.

The temperature rise across the house is consistent with normal morning warm-up (from ~22.6°C to ~25.5°C), not a fire.

The 'None' could be a transient network issue, as both occurrences are short and the sensor recovered.

The smoke/CO alarm may have been disabled, failed, or never reported events due to a system configuration issue. Even though the log shows no alarm events, the sensor 'None' readings could be correlated with a real combustion event that was not detected or reported.

No smoke or CO alarm event exists anywhere in the log (C00–C06), despite a ~30-minute cooking session and two sensor 'None' events.

The kitchen sensor 'None' at 06:42:03 immediately after the cook surface turned on could indicate an environmental condition (heat, smoke) that should have triggered a safety device.

No alarm self-test, fault code, or diagnostic event from the smoke/CO alarm appears in any chunk.

Absence of alarm events is also consistent with no fire or dangerous smoke/CO being produced.

The kitchen temperature sensor recovered and showed normal readings, arguing against a catastrophic event.

We have no direct evidence that the smoke/CO alarm is installed or configured — it may simply not be in the system.

Kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' at 06:42:03, immediately after the cook surface turned on at 06:41:33.

Cook surface on for 30 minutes (06:41:33 to 07:12:00) without any direct evidence of a person in the kitchen.

No smoke/CO alarm events anywhere in the entire log (C00–C06).

Kitchen temperature sensor recovered to normal (25.07°C at 06:45:00) and showed no dangerous spike.

Window opened at 07:12:30, after cook surface turned off, consistent with normal ventilation.

Are there any smoke/CO alarm or fault events in chunks beyond C00–C06 (e.g., C07–C23)? The supervisor requested checking all chunks.

Is there a kitchen occupancy sensor that could confirm someone was present during cooking?

What is the typical cooking duration and temperature profile from historical logs to establish a baseline?

Is the kitchen temperature sensor's 'None' value caused by sensor failure, network issues, or actual environmental conditions?

Was the window opened for ventilation or for another reason? Are there outdoor air quality or ventilation events that correlate?

Was there any subsequent alarm or hazard indicator after 07:12:00? The log only covers up to 08:40:00, but the supervisor noted to check later chunks.

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "high",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C07", "C08", "C09", "C10"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "Check subsequent chunks (C07–C10) for any delayed smoke/CO alarm events, fault codes, or self-test events from the smoke_co_alarm device.",
    "Check if the kitchen_temp_sensor 'None' readings correlate with any network diagnostic or device fault events elsewhere in the log.",
    "Verify that the front_door_lock events and entrance occupancy at 07:49–08:40 indicate a person leaving/returning — this would confirm someone was home during cooking and could monitor it.",
    "Examine the master_bedroom occupancy pattern: if someone was in bed during the entire cooking period, that suggests unattended cooking was possible.",
    "Check for any window or ventilation events beyond the kitchen_window_contact that could explain temperature or air quality changes."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "The investigator correctly identified the timing and questioned the 'None' sensor readings, which is the core anomaly.",
    "However, the investigation is prematurely concluding from chunks C00–C06 only; chunks C07–C23 are available and need to be examined before a final safety verdict can be reached.",
    "The false-alarm risk is high because: (a) all recovered temperature readings are in a normal 22-25°C range, (b) there is no smoke/CO alarm evidence yet, and (c) the 'None' readings are brief and self-recovering — more data is needed to rule out transient network glitches before labeling them as fire evidence.",
    "The investigator's anomaly hypotheses (A1 and A2) are speculative without checking later chunks for alarm events or fault codes.",
    "A device-fault conclusion (A2) requires direct fault evidence that hasn't been found yet.",
    "Next round should check C07–C10 for any alarm or diagnostic events that would clarify the situation."
  ]
}
```

The investigator correctly identified the timing and questioned the 'None' sensor readings, which is the core anomaly.

The investigator's anomaly hypotheses (A1 and A2) are speculative without checking later chunks for alarm events or fault codes.

A device-fault conclusion (A2) requires direct fault evidence that hasn't been found yet.

Next round should check C07–C10 for any alarm or diagnostic events that would clarify the situation.

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "A normal cooking session in the kitchen where the cook surface was turned on and then off, with no safety incidents.",
      "evidence": [
        "Kitchen cook surface turned on at 06:41:33 and off at 07:12:00, a duration of about 30 minutes, typical for cooking.",
        "Kitchen temperature sensor showed stable, non-elevated temperatures (e.g., 25.07 C at 06:45, 25.03 C at 06:55, 25.17 C at 07:05) throughout the cooking period, with only minor fluctuations consistent with normal room heating.",
        "No smoke or CO alarm events were recorded anywhere in the logs, indicating no hazardous smoke or gas release.",
        "Kitchen window contact was opened (StateValue = false) at 07:12:30, shortly after cook surface turned off, suggesting ventilation was used as a normal precaution.",
        "All room temperatures remained within a narrow 24.87-25.33 C range, with no rapid or dangerous rise.",
        "Master bedroom occupancy was consistently 'occupied' during this period (06:44-07:44), indicating a person was present in the home."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' at 06:42:03 and 07:13:00, which could be a transient communication issue but is unexplained in context of normal operation.",
        "No direct evidence that anyone was in the kitchen or monitoring the cook surface during the 30-minute on period.",
        "The absence of smoke/CO events relies on absence of evidence; a sensor could have failed."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "Unattended cooking with a potential fire risk: the cook surface was on for approximately 30 minutes without clear evidence of monitoring, and the kitchen temperature sensor briefly dropped out, suggesting a possible malfunction or unsafe condition.",
      "threat_type": "fire_risk",
      "evidence": [
        "Kitchen cook surface turned on at 06:41:33 and off at 07:12:00, with no explicit human presence in kitchen during that time (no occupancy sensor data for kitchen).",
        "Kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' at 06:42:03 and 07:13:00, which could indicate a sensor fault or anomalous reading during or just after cooking, potentially masking a dangerous temperature rise.",
        "The kitchen temperature sensor's 'None' reports are temporally linked to the cook surface state changes (on at 06:41:33, off at 07:12:00), suggesting possible heat-induced sensor disruption or interference.",
        "No smoke/CO alarm was triggered, but this absence could indicate an alarm fault or a slow-developing fire that did not yet trigger sensors, rather than a safe condition.",
        "The kitchen window was not opened until 07:12:30, after the cook surface was turned off, meaning any cooking fumes or heat accumulated indoors during the 30-minute period."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "Kitchen temperatures did not show an abnormal rise; all recorded temperatures were stable (~25 C), which is inconsistent with a dangerous fire or overheating hazard.",
        "The 'None' temperature reports could simply be transient network or sensor glitches rather than actual heat-related damage.",
        "No explicit fault alarms or emergency signals were recorded; the cook surface was turned off normally, suggesting the cooking session concluded safely.",
        "Master bedroom occupancy at 06:44 and onward suggests an adult was present, but this does not confirm they were monitoring the kitchen."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "Possible sensor malfunction or communication issue in the kitchen temperature sensor: it reported 'None' at two critical moments during the cooking event, which may indicate a device fault rather than an actual safety threat, but the pattern is suspicious.",
      "threat_type": "sensor_malfunction",
      "evidence": [
        "Kitchen_temp_sensor reported 'None' at 06:42:03 (immediately after cook surface turned on) and again at 07:13:00 (immediately after cook surface turned off).",
        "This pattern suggests the sensor may have been affected by heat or electromagnetic interference from the cook surface, or had a transient fault coincident with major appliance use.",
        "No other temperature sensor in any room reported 'None' during this period, making this a device-specific, not general, issue.",
        "The sensor recovered quickly (by the next 5-minute interval), which is consistent with a transient glitch rather than a permanent fault."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "Transient sensor glitches can occur in any IoT system; two isolated 'None' reports over 65 minutes does not constitute strong evidence of a fault.",
        "The sensor functioned normally before and after the events, with consistent readings around 25 C.",
        "No explicit alarm, fault code, or diagnostic event (e.g., 'battery_low', 'sensor_error', 'communication_timeout') was recorded.",
        "According to rules, device-fault conclusions require direct fault evidence; this pattern alone may be insufficient to confirm a sensor malfunction."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "Kitchen_cook_surface on at 06:41:33 and off at 07:12:00, with no subsequent smoke or CO alarm events.",
    "Kitchen_temp_sensor reported 'None' at 06:42:03 and 07:13:00, both closely tied to cook surface state changes.",
    "Kitchen temperature readings remained stable (~25.1-25.3 C) throughout the cooking period, showing no significant heat rise.",
    "Kitchen window contact opened (StateValue = false) at 07:12:30, after cook surface was turned off.",
    "Master bedroom was consistently occupied (06:44-07:44), suggesting a resident was home but not necessarily in the kitchen."
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "Presence or absence of any smoke/CO alarm sensor events outside the focused chunk (e.g., entire log).",
    "Exact reason for 'None' values from kitchen_temp_sensor (e.g., power cycle, network drop, sensor damage).",
    "Whether any person was in the kitchen during the cooking session (no occupancy sensor in kitchen).",
    "Historical data on kitchen cook surface usage and typical duration to establish normal behavior baselines.",
    "Explicit fault codes or diagnostic events from kitchen_temp_sensor or smoke_co_alarm."
  ]
}
```

A normal cooking session in the kitchen where the cook surface was turned on and then off, with no safety incidents.

Kitchen cook surface turned on at 06:41:33 and off at 07:12:00, a duration of about 30 minutes, typical for cooking.

No smoke or CO alarm events were recorded anywhere in the logs, indicating no hazardous smoke or gas release.

All room temperatures remained within a narrow 24.87-25.33 C range, with no rapid or dangerous rise.

No direct evidence that anyone was in the kitchen or monitoring the cook surface during the 30-minute on period.

The absence of smoke/CO events relies on absence of evidence; a sensor could have failed.

The 'None' temperature reports could simply be transient network or sensor glitches rather than actual heat-related damage.

No other temperature sensor in any room reported 'None' during this period, making this a device-specific, not general, issue.

The sensor functioned normally before and after the events, with consistent readings around 25 C.

No explicit alarm, fault code, or diagnostic event (e.g., 'battery_low', 'sensor_error', 'communication_timeout') was recorded.

Kitchen_cook_surface on at 06:41:33 and off at 07:12:00, with no subsequent smoke or CO alarm events.

Kitchen_temp_sensor reported 'None' at 06:42:03 and 07:13:00, both closely tied to cook surface state changes.

Kitchen temperature readings remained stable (~25.1-25.3 C) throughout the cooking period, showing no significant heat rise.

Kitchen window contact opened (StateValue = false) at 07:12:30, after cook surface was turned off.

Master bedroom was consistently occupied (06:44-07:44), suggesting a resident was home but not necessarily in the kitchen.

Presence or absence of any smoke/CO alarm sensor events outside the focused chunk (e.g., entire log).

Exact reason for 'None' values from kitchen_temp_sensor (e.g., power cycle, network drop, sensor damage).

Whether any person was in the kitchen during the cooking session (no occupancy sensor in kitchen).

Historical data on kitchen cook surface usage and typical duration to establish normal behavior baselines.

Explicit fault codes or diagnostic events from kitchen_temp_sensor or smoke_co_alarm.

Cook surface on at 06:41:33, off at 07:12:00 (~30 minutes).

All MeasuredValue readings across the kitchen and other rooms remain between 22.6°C and 25.5°C — no dangerous temperature spike.

No smoke alarm, CO alarm, or fault/diagnostic event appears in any chunk (C00–C06).

Kitchen window contact opened (07:12:30) shortly after cooking ended, consistent with venting steam or odors.

Occupancy in master bedroom was occupied during most of the cooking period, indicating someone was home and could monitor cooking.

No direct observation of a person in the kitchen (no kitchen occupancy sensor in the log) — cooking could have been unattended.

No kitchen occupancy sensor data exists to confirm someone was present during cooking.

The window opened at 07:12:30, consistent with someone clearing smoke or opening for ventilation after a fire event.

No smoke or CO alarm event appears in any chunk — a real fire would likely trigger such alarms before being extinguished.

The kitchen temperature sensor recovered to normal values after the 'None' readings, not stuck or permanently failed.

The temperature rise across the house is consistent with normal morning warm-up (from ~22.6°C to ~25.5°C), not a fire.

The 'None' could be a transient network issue, as both occurrences are short and the sensor recovered.

No smoke or CO alarm event exists anywhere in the log (C00–C06), despite a ~30-minute cooking session and two sensor 'None' events.

No alarm self-test, fault code, or diagnostic event from the smoke/CO alarm appears in any chunk.

Absence of alarm events is also consistent with no fire or dangerous smoke/CO being produced.

The kitchen temperature sensor recovered and showed normal readings, arguing against a catastrophic event.

We have no direct evidence that the smoke/CO alarm is installed or configured — it may simply not be in the system.

Check if there are any smoke/CO alarm events, fault codes, or diagnostic events in the entire log (all chunks), not just C05.

Check if the kitchen temperature sensor's 'None' values co-occur with other sensor faults or network issues across all chunks.

Check historical cook surface usage patterns and typical cooking durations across all chunks to establish baselines.

Check if there is any occupancy data for the kitchen or any other evidence of a person being present in the kitchen during cooking.

Verify that the cook surface off event at 07:12:00 is not followed by any alarm or hazard indicator in later chunks.

Check if the window contact open at 07:12:30 correlates with any outdoor air quality or ventilation events.

The investigator correctly identifies the protocol scaling for TemperatureMeasurement and does not misinterpret 'None' as literal temperature.

The analysis remains on-topic regarding the kitchen cook surface safety threat, but the evidence is still ambiguous; no strong anomaly is seen in temperatures, yet the sensor 'None' values remain unexplained.

False-alarm risk is medium because the stable temperature readings suggest no immediate danger, but the missing information about sensor faults and smoke/CO alarms could hide a real issue.

A broader search across all chunks is recommended to check for any smoke/CO alarms, fault events, or historical patterns that could clarify whether this is normal cooking or a hidden risk.

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

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

## Layout
Layout: 两室一厅 (2BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅落地灯<onoff_light>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bedroom: 次卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 404,
    "master_bedroom": 520,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "bathroom": 48,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 645,
    "OnOff": 15,
    "StateValue": 7,
    "LockState": 5,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 5,
  "occupancy_events": 645,
  "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
[

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## 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": "single-event-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["kitchen"],
    "target_devices": ["cook_surface", "smoke_co_alarm"],
    "target_question": "判断厨房灶具开启后是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["kitchen"],
  "focus_devices": ["kitchen_cook_surface", "kitchen_temp_sensor", "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C05"],
  "suspected_patterns": ["cook surface turned on without subsequent alarm"],
  "why_these_chunks": ["C05 contains the exact moment when the cook surface turns on (06:41:33) and the kitchen temperature sensor briefly reports None, which is the only direct evidence of a potential cooking-related safety event in the entire log. Other chunks show only routine temperature drifts and occupancy patterns."]
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The cook surface was turned on for a normal cooking session (06:41:33 to 07:12:00), the kitchen light was used, and the brief 'None' readings from the kitchen temperature sensor are likely transient sensor communication glitches (e.g., radio interference, power dip) that quickly recovered. All temperature readings remained in a normal range (around 25°C) throughout and after cooking, with no smoke or CO alarm events anywhere in the log. The window was opened after cooking, which is typical ventilation behavior.",
      "evidence": [
        "Cook surface on at 06:41:33, off at 07:12:00 (~30 minutes).",
        "Kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' only twice (06:42:03 and 07:13:00) and recovered to normal values each time within minutes.",
        "All MeasuredValue readings


漏水传感器持续触发超过10分钟
全屋无人（所有 occupancy = 0，门锁为 Locked）
无人处理导致损失持续扩大

紧急通知住户，如有智能水阀立即关闭

```json
{
  "is_anomaly": false,
  "confidence": "medium",
  "threat_type": "none",
  "threat_description": "The kitchen temperature spike is consistent with normal cooking activity, no smoke or CO alarm triggered, and the sensor recovered normally, ruling out a fire or safety threat.",
  "reasoning": [
    "The kitchen temperature rises from ~25.5°C to ~29.5°C between 11:00 and 11:40, while the living room remains at ~25.3°C, a ~4°C delta consistent with active cooking (e.g., boiling water, oven use). The cook surface turns on at 11:52 (after the peak) and off at 12:49, confirming a cooking session.",
    "No smoke or CO alarm events appear in any of the available chunks (C04, C05, C07, C08, C09, C10), which is critical evidence against a fire or hazardous condition. If a fire had occurred, the smoke/CO alarm would be expected to trigger.",
    "The kitchen temperature sensor reports None at 09:32 and 11:53, but recovers within minutes each time (to valid readings at 09:35 and 11:55 respectively). These transient None readings are not direct evidence of thermal damage or permanent fault, and the sensor continues normal operation after 12:50 with valid values.",
    "The window contact shows false at 12:49:30, meaning the window was closed throughout the event. While this prevented ventilation, it does not independently indicate a fire; it is consistent with normal cooking where windows remain closed.",
    "The temperature peak of 29.45°C is moderate (well below typical fire thresholds of >60°C) and the temperature steadily declines after the cook surface turns off, returning to the ambient range (~25°C) by 12:55. This is a normal recovery pattern for cooking.",
    "Although the initial temperature rise (11:00 to 11:52) is not directly linked to a logged heat source, the cook surface could have been on before its logged activation (e.g., due to a delayed log entry or a different burner/oven not in the logs). The lack of any alarm data makes an unlogged fire scenario unlikely.",
    "The investigator's anomaly hypothesis A1 (fire_risk) is refuted by the absence of smoke/CO alarms, moderate temperature magnitude, and full sensor recovery. Hypothesis A2 (sensor_malfunction) is unsupported because the None readings are transient and the sensor continues normal operation afterward."
  ],
  "key_evidence": [
    "Kitchen temperature rises from 25.54°C at 10:55 to 29.45°C at 11:40, while living room stays at ~25.3°C, showing a ~4°C increase consistent with cooking.",
    "Cook surface turns on at 11:52 and off at 12:49, confirming active cooking during the temperature spike.",
    "No smoke or CO alarm events are logged in any chunk, ruling out a fire or hazardous condition.",
    "After cook surface turns off, kitchen temperature steadily declines from 28.87°C (11:45) to 24.98°C (12:55), returning to normal ambient range.",
    "Kitchen temperature sensor recovers from transient None readings (09:32 and 11:53) within minutes and continues normal operation afterwards."
  ],
  "recommended_actions": [
    "Continue monitoring the kitchen temperature sensor for any future transient None readings to rule out intermittent hardware issues.",
    "Ensure the kitchen smoke/CO alarm is functional and its logs are accessible for future event verification.",
    "Consider logging heat sources like the oven to clarify unlogged temperature increases in future incidents."
  ]
}
```

Cook surface turns on at 11:52 and off at 12:49, confirming active cooking during the temperature spike.

No smoke or CO alarm events are logged in any chunk, ruling out a fire or hazardous condition.

After cook surface turns off, kitchen temperature steadily declines from 28.87°C (11:45) to 24.98°C (12:55), returning to normal ambient range.

Kitchen temperature sensor recovers from transient None readings (09:32 and 11:53) within minutes and continues normal operation afterwards.

Continue monitoring the kitchen temperature sensor for any future transient None readings to rule out intermittent hardware issues.

Ensure the kitchen smoke/CO alarm is functional and its logs are accessible for future event verification.

Consider logging heat sources like the oven to clarify unlogged temperature increases in future incidents.

temperature sensor reports None after spike

Kitchen temperature rises from 25.54°C at 10:55 to 29.45°C at 11:40, consistent with active cooking.

Cook surface is turned on at 11:52 (after the peak) and off at 12:49, indicating a cooking session.

No smoke or CO alarm events appear in any chunk (C04, C05, C07, C08, C09, C10), indicating no hazardous condition.

The None readings at 09:32 and 11:53 are transient and the sensor recovers quickly (reports valid values at next interval).

Temperature spike (delta of ~4°C above ambient living room of 25.3°C) is steeper than typical stovetop cooking, which might suggest a high-heat or unattended scenario.

The cook surface turned on after the temperature had already reached 28.87°C at 11:45, which is unusual if cooking was already in progress earlier (the rise starts at 11:00). This could mean the spike was caused by something else (e.g., oven) or a delayed log.

No kitchen occupancy events are ever recorded (missing data), so it's unknown if anyone was actually present to monitor cooking.

The kitchen temperature spike (25.54°C at 10:55 to 29.45°C at 11:40) and subsequent sensor issues indicate a possible fire or overheating event, where the cook surface was activated after the peak, and the sensor briefly reports None at 11:53.

Kitchen temperature rises sharply from 26.08°C at 11:00 to 29.45°C at 11:40, while living room stays ~25.3°C, a 4°C anomaly unique to kitchen.

At 11:45, kitchen_temp_sensor reports 28.87°C, a slight drop but still significantly elevated, and then at 11:53 it reports None (possible thermal damage or sensor fault due to heat).

Cook surface is turned on at 11:52 (after peak), not before, so the heat source for the initial spike is unclear — could be an oven or unattended burner already on.

Window contact shows false at 12:49:30, meaning window was closed, preventing ventilation of heat or smoke.

The spike recovers to normal (~25°C) by 12:55, but the initial cause (pre-11:52 cooking) is not explained by the cook surface log alone.

No smoke/CO alarm data is available in any chunk (C04, C05, C07, C08, C09, C10) — if a fire had occurred, the alarm would likely have triggered.

The temperature spike is of moderate magnitude (max 29.45°C), which is not extreme for cooking (e.g., boiling water) and well below typical fire threshold (e.g., >60°C).

The sensor recovers fully and continues reporting normal values after 12:00, inconsistent with thermal damage that would cause permanent failure.

The None reading at 09:32 (before cooking) suggests the sensor may have pre-existing transient issues, making the 11:53 None less diagnostic of a fire.

The kitchen temperature sensor exhibits intermittent communication or hardware faults (two None readings), and the kitchen occupancy sensor never reports any data — potentially a systemic device health issue or tampering.

kitchen_temp_sensor reports None at 2026-06-14T09:32:00 and 2026-06-14T11:53:00, while other sensors in kitchen (cook surface, light) report consistently.

kitchen occupancy sensor never reports any event across all chunks (C04, C05, C07, C08, C09, C10), despite 383 occupancy events overall in the house.

The first None occurs at 09:32, before any cooking activity, suggesting a pre-existing sensor fault or power issue.

After the second None at 11:53, the sensor recovers within 2 minutes (11:55 reports 28.08°C), yet at 12:50 reports None again, and then immediately back to 25.20°C — pattern of intermittent failures.

No explicit fault codes or alarm events are logged for the temperature sensor or occupancy sensor.

The None readings could be transient network delays or sensor communication glitches, not necessarily hardware damage.

The temperature sensor's behavior (spike and recovery) is more consistent with a real physical temperature change than a stuck or drifted sensor.

Kitchen temperature rises ~4°C above other rooms (from 25.54°C to 29.45°C) between 10:55 and 11:40, while living room stays at 25.3°C.

Cook surface turns on at 11:52, after the temperature peak, suggesting the initial heat source (before 11:52) is unlogged (e.g., oven or pre-existing burner).

Kitchen_temp_sensor reports None at 11:53, immediately after the cook surface turns on, and at 12:50, but recovers each time.

No smoke/CO alarm events appear in any chunk — if a fire had occurred, alarms would be expected.

Kitchen occupancy sensor never reports any data — either absent, faulty, or tampered.

No logs from kitchen_smoke_co_alarm in any chunk — critical to rule out fire or CO hazard.

No kitchen occupancy events — cannot verify if someone was present during the spike or cooking.

No logs showing oven or other heat sources in kitchen (only cook surface recorded) — the initial temperature rise (before 11:52) has no documented heat source.

No verification of whether the 09:32 None was a persistent sensor fault (e.g., in C08 gap between 09:32 and 09:35 the sensor recovered quickly, but no fault log).

No data on kitchen window after 12:49:30 — cannot confirm if window was opened for ventilation during the spike.

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "medium",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C06", "C11", "C12", "C13", "C14"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "No explicit logs from kitchen_smoke_co_alarm in any chunk — critical to rule out fire or CO hazard.",
    "No kitchen occupancy sensor data in any focused chunk — missing confirmation of presence during cooking.",
    "No verification of whether the oven or any other heat source was on before 11:52 (initial temperature rise starts at 11:00 without logged heat source).",
    "No logs showing whether the kitchen window was opened after 12:49:30 for ventilation.",
    "Temperature spike (max 29.45°C) is moderate — not extreme enough to strongly indicate fire without alarm confirmation."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "Investigator correctly identifies the temperature spike and cook surface activation timing, but missing smoke/CO alarm data makes fire-risk conclusion speculative.",
    "The two None readings on kitchen_temp_sensor are transient and recover quickly — weak as evidence of thermal damage.",
    "Investigator on-topic and hypothesis structure is sound, but evidence remains ambiguous without additional chunks covering pre-11:00 kitchen events and alarm status.",
    "Further investigation into chunk C06 (10:35-11:45 gap is covered, but check if any alarm events appear before 11:00) and chunks covering after 12:50 for alarm status is recommended.",
    "False-alarm risk is medium because a normal cooking explanation (e.g., boiling water) is plausible, and no alarm triggered."
  ]
}
```

No explicit logs from kitchen_smoke_co_alarm in any chunk — critical to rule out fire or CO hazard.

No kitchen occupancy sensor data in any focused chunk — missing confirmation of presence during cooking.

No logs showing whether the kitchen window was opened after 12:49:30 for ventilation.

Temperature spike (max 29.45°C) is moderate — not extreme enough to strongly indicate fire without alarm confirmation.

The two None readings on kitchen_temp_sensor are transient and recover quickly — weak as evidence of thermal damage.

False-alarm risk is medium because a normal cooking explanation (e.g., boiling water) is plausible, and no alarm triggered.

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal cooking event with transient temperature rise: Someone turned on the cook surface at 11:52 to prepare a meal, causing a temporary temperature increase in the kitchen. The temperature naturally declined over the next hour as cooking finished, and the cook surface was turned off at 12:49. The occasional None readings are intermittent sensor communication glitches, not indicative of a real problem.",
      "evidence": [
        "Kitchen cook surface turned on at 11:52:30, consistent with cooking activity",
        "Kitchen temperature peaked at 28.87°C at 11:45 (before cook surface on), then gradually declined from 28.58°C at 11:50 to 25.52°C at 12:25, showing natural cooling after cooking ended",
        "Cook surface turned off at 12:49, and temperature returned to normal (25.20°C at 12:50)",
        "Kitchen temperature before 11:45 was around 25.5°C, consistent with other rooms (~25.3°C) - the starting elevated value at 11:45 may reflect residual heat from earlier activity"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The temperature sensor briefly reported None at 11:53 and 12:50, which is unexplained in a normal sensor scenario",
        "Temperature spike (28.87°C) is about 3.5°C above ambient, which is high for normal cooking unless a large burner was used",
        "The cook surface turned on after the temperature spike (11:52 vs 11:45), so the spike doesn't directly correspond to the cook surface usage time"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "Kitchen fire or overheating event: A sharp temperature rise in the kitchen (28.87°C at 11:45, well above other rooms ~25.3°C) followed by the cook surface being turned on and the temperature sensor going None, suggests possible overheating or a small fire that went unattended. The cook surface activation at 11:52 may have been a delayed response to the heat, but the temperature spike preceded it. The sensor's None readings at 11:53 (just after cook surface on) could indicate smoke/heat damage or the sensor being removed. The gradual cooling over the next hour without any alarm activation suggests a controlled burn, but the rapid temperature peak and subsequent sensor disappearance is a strong safety signal.",
      "threat_type": "fire_risk",
      "evidence": [
        "Kitchen temperature spiked to 28.87°C at 11:45, ~3.5°C above other rooms (living room 25.30°C at 11:50), indicating a localized heat source",
        "Cook surface turned on at 11:52:30, which is after the temperature spike, suggesting someone may have discovered the heat and turned on the surface (though the surface was off before the spike, so this is anomalous timing)",
        "Kitchen temperature sensor reported None at 11:53 (soon after cook surface on), possibly due to sensor reaching unsafe temperatures or physical disconnection",
        "No occupancy events in the kitchen during the entire event (kitchen occupancy never appears in logs), suggesting no one was present to monitor cooking",
        "Kitchen window contact (BooleanState) reported false at 12:49:30, indicating window was closed - no ventilation for smoke/heat",
        "Living room occupant (from 10:08 onward) stayed in living room while kitchen temperature spiked, with no kitchen occupancy events"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "Temperature never exceeded 30°C - not in fire danger range for a typical kitchen sensor; could be a pan of boiling water or oven preheat",
        "The None readings could be a transient sensor communication issue (same sensor also reported None at 09:32 in C07, which is consistent with a flaky sensor)",
        "Temperature declined naturally (28.87→28.58→28.08→27.72→...), suggesting a controlled cooling event like a stove burner or oven that was later turned off",
        "No smoke/CO alarm (kitchen_smoke_co_alarm) data present in logs; its absence of any event is notable if there truly was a fire"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "Kitchen temperature at 11:45 reading 28.87°C while other rooms read ~25.3°C, indicating a localized heat source",
    "Kitchen temperature sensor reports None at 11:53 (just after cook surface turn-on) and at 12:50",
    "Cook surface turned on at 11:52:30, after the temperature spike began, not before",
    "No kitchen occupancy events throughout entire sequence (neither occupied nor unoccupied reported), suggesting absence of monitoring in kitchen",
    "Kitchen window contact reported false (closed) at 12:49:30, no ventilation",
    "Living room occupant remained in living room during temperature spike, no movement to kitchen detected"
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "No data from kitchen_smoke_co_alarm sensor is present in logs - its absence or events would clarify fire/CO risk",
    "No explicit alarm or fault events from kitchen_temp_sensor (e.g., overtemp alarm), only None values",
    "No door/window contact for kitchen window beyond one reading; no window opening event to ventilate",
    "No record of kitchen occupancy ever being triggered, even at other times, making it unclear if sensor is present or working",
    "Type of kitchen_cook_surface (e.g., gas vs induction) and power level not recorded - would clarify heat generation potential"
  ]
}
```

Kitchen cook surface turned on at 11:52:30, consistent with cooking activity

Cook surface turned off at 12:49, and temperature returned to normal (25.20°C at 12:50)

The temperature sensor briefly reported None at 11:53 and 12:50, which is unexplained in a normal sensor scenario

Temperature spike (28.87°C) is about 3.5°C above ambient, which is high for normal cooking unless a large burner was used

Kitchen temperature spiked to 28.87°C at 11:45, ~3.5°C above other rooms (living room 25.30°C at 11:50), indicating a localized heat source

Kitchen window contact (BooleanState) reported false at 12:49:30, indicating window was closed - no ventilation for smoke/heat

Living room occupant (from 10:08 onward) stayed in living room while kitchen temperature spiked, with no kitchen occupancy events

Temperature never exceeded 30°C - not in fire danger range for a typical kitchen sensor; could be a pan of boiling water or oven preheat

No smoke/CO alarm (kitchen_smoke_co_alarm) data present in logs; its absence of any event is notable if there truly was a fire

Kitchen temperature at 11:45 reading 28.87°C while other rooms read ~25.3°C, indicating a localized heat source

Kitchen temperature sensor reports None at 11:53 (just after cook surface turn-on) and at 12:50

Cook surface turned on at 11:52:30, after the temperature spike began, not before

No kitchen occupancy events throughout entire sequence (neither occupied nor unoccupied reported), suggesting absence of monitoring in kitchen

Kitchen window contact reported false (closed) at 12:49:30, no ventilation

Living room occupant remained in living room during temperature spike, no movement to kitchen detected

No data from kitchen_smoke_co_alarm sensor is present in logs - its absence or events would clarify fire/CO risk

No explicit alarm or fault events from kitchen_temp_sensor (e.g., overtemp alarm), only None values

No door/window contact for kitchen window beyond one reading; no window opening event to ventilate

No record of kitchen occupancy ever being triggered, even at other times, making it unclear if sensor is present or working

Type of kitchen_cook_surface (e.g., gas vs induction) and power level not recorded - would clarify heat generation potential

Kitchen temperature rises from 25.54°C at 10:55 to 29.45°C at 11:40, consistent with active cooking.

Cook surface is turned on at 11:52 (after the peak) and off at 12:49, indicating a cooking session.

No smoke or CO alarm events appear in any chunk (C04, C05, C07, C08, C09, C10), indicating no hazardous condition.

The None readings at 09:32 and 11:53 are transient and the sensor recovers quickly (reports valid values at next interval).

No kitchen occupancy events are ever recorded (missing data), so it's unknown if anyone was actually present to monitor cooking.

Kitchen temperature rises sharply from 26.08°C at 11:00 to 29.45°C at 11:40, while living room stays ~25.3°C, a 4°C anomaly unique to kitchen.

Window contact shows false at 12:49:30, meaning window was closed, preventing ventilation of heat or smoke.

The spike recovers to normal (~25°C) by 12:55, but the initial cause (pre-11:52 cooking) is not explained by the cook surface log alone.

No smoke/CO alarm data is available in any chunk (C04, C05, C07, C08, C09, C10) — if a fire had occurred, the alarm would likely have triggered.

The first None occurs at 09:32, before any cooking activity, suggesting a pre-existing sensor fault or power issue.

No explicit fault codes or alarm events are logged for the temperature sensor or occupancy sensor.

The None readings could be transient network delays or sensor communication glitches, not necessarily hardware damage.

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "medium",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C04", "C05", "C08", "C10"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "No smoke/CO alarm data in C09 or C07 — need chunk showing kitchen_smoke_co_alarm states before/during/after spike",
    "No occupancy events for kitchen at all — need to check if kitchen occupancy sensor ever reports data in any chunk",
    "The 'None' readings and spike timing (11:45 spike, 11:52 cook surface on) create ambiguity about causality — need to check if any cooking was already in progress before 11:45",
    "No verification of whether the 09:32 None reading was a transient or persistent sensor fault — check C08 for that gap",
    "Kitchen window contact shows only one reading (false) at 12:49:30 — need to check if window was ever open at any point for ventilation"
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "The investigator correctly identifies the spike as 28.87°C (not 2887°C), avoiding a false alarm from scaled value misreading.",
    "The investigation is on-topic for safety threat assessment and properly considers both normal cooking and fire risk hypotheses.",
    "Evidence is insufficient for a firm verdict because we lack smoke/CO alarm data, kitchen occupancy history, and any sensor fault logs.",
    "The None readings could be either a flaky sensor (seen at 09:32) or thermal damage — more chunks needed to disambiguate.",
    "The temporal anomaly (cook surface turns on after temperature spike) weakens the fire hypothesis but doesn't rule out a delayed response scenario."
  ]
}
```

No smoke/CO alarm data in C09 or C07 — need chunk showing kitchen_smoke_co_alarm states before/during/after spike

No occupancy events for kitchen at all — need to check if kitchen occupancy sensor ever reports data in any chunk

No verification of whether the 09:32 None reading was a transient or persistent sensor fault — check C08 for that gap

Kitchen window contact shows only one reading (false) at 12:49:30 — need to check if window was ever open at any point for ventilation

The investigator correctly identifies the spike as 28.87°C (not 2887°C), avoiding a false alarm from scaled value misreading.

The investigation is on-topic for safety threat assessment and properly considers both normal cooking and fire risk hypotheses.

Evidence is insufficient for a firm verdict because we lack smoke/CO alarm data, kitchen occupancy history, and any sensor fault logs.

The None readings could be either a flaky sensor (seen at 09:32) or thermal damage — more chunks needed to disambiguate.

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

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

## Layout
Layout: 两室一厅 (2BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅落地灯<onoff_light>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bedroom: 次卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 481,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "kitchen": 308,
    "bathroom": 57,
    "entrance": 51
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1158,
    "Occupancy": 383,
    "OnOff": 16,
    "StateValue": 7,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "LockState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 1,
  "occupancy_events": 383,
  "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
[
  {

## Query
以下是刚刚发生的事件。请判断这是否构成安全威胁，并说明理由。

## 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": "behavior-sequence",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["kitchen"],
    "target_devices": ["kitchen_temp_sensor", "kitchen_cook_surface", "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm"],
    "target_question": "是否构成安全威胁"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["kitchen"],
  "focus_devices": ["kitchen_temp_sensor", "kitchen_cook_surface", "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C07", "C09"],
  "suspected_patterns": ["kitchen temperature spike at ~11:45", "cook surface turned on during spike", "temperature sensor reports None after spike"],
  "why_these_chunks": ["Chunk C07 shows kitchen temperature normal before 09:32, then sensor goes None. Chunk C09 shows a sharp temperature rise (28.87°C at 11:45, much higher than other rooms ~25.3°C) and cook surface turning on with sensor again reporting None—indicating possible overheating or fire risk."]
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The kitchen temperature spike from ~11:00 to ~11:45 is due to routine cooking activity, with the cook surface turned on at 11:52 and off at 12:49, and the temperature sensor recovering normally afterward.",
      "evidence": [
        "Kitchen temperature rises from 25.54°C at 10:55 to 29.45°C at 11:40, consistent with active cooking.",
        "Cook surface is turned on at 11:52 (after the peak) and off at 12:49, indicating a cooking session.",
        "After cook surface turns off, kitchen temperature steadily declines from 28.87°C (11:45) to 24.98°C (12:55), returning to normal range (~25°C) by 13:00.",
        "No smoke or CO alarm events appear in any chunk (C04, C05, C07, C