深夜窗户传感器从 Closed 变 Open
随后该房间运动传感器触发，但住户在卧室睡觉
运动信号沿非住户房间传播

触发入侵警报，通知住户，记录事件

```json
{
  "is_anomaly": false,
  "confidence": "medium",
  "threat_type": "none",
  "threat_description": "The 12-hour activity log shows a person at home cooking lunch and dinner, ventilating the kitchen via window after each session, and staying in the living room for the entire afternoon and evening; no sensor faults or unsafe conditions are confirmed.",
  "reasoning": [
    "The kitchen temperature rise from 25.35°C to a peak of 29.18°C during 12:15-12:30 is fully consistent with active cooking; the subsequent drop after the cook surface turned off and window was opened (12:51:30) is a normal ventilation pattern, not an unsafe event.",
    "The second cooking session (17:54-18:25) showed only a minimal temperature rise (peak ~23.33°C) and the window was again opened immediately after, further supporting routine ventilation rather than an emergency.",
    "No smoke_co_alarm events appear in any of the reviewed chunks (C00-C06), directly contradicting any fire risk or carbon monoxide concern.",
    "The living room occupancy sensor reporting only 'occupied' (raw=1) for over 8 hours (11:58-19:55) is plausibly explained by the occupant staying in the living room continuously (e.g., watching TV, working from home); this is a common stationary-occupant pattern, and no direct fault evidence (alarm, diagnostic code, impossible transition) exists to support a stuck-sensor conclusion per Matter notes requirements.",
    "The gradual temperature decline across all rooms from ~25.3°C to ~22.5°C over 8 hours is consistent with natural evening cooling or a thermostat schedule (e.g., AC setpoint change), and all temperature values show small, realistic variations (0.1-0.3°C per interval) with no stuck or erratic readings.",
    "The entrance and bathroom occupancy sensors reporting only 'unoccupied' does not indicate a lock malfunction or sensor fault, as the occupant may never have entered those rooms during the monitored period; a single door lock state change is normal if the occupant never left home.",
    "The investigator's anomaly hypothesis A1 (stuck occupancy sensor) is refuted by the lack of direct fault evidence and the plausible behavioral explanation; hypothesis A2 (fire risk) is refuted by the absence of any smoke/CO alarms and the normal ventilation practice; hypothesis A3 (lock malfunction) is refuted by the plausible stationary-occupant scenario."
  ],
  "key_evidence": [
    "Kitchen cook surface turned on at 12:15:30 and off at 12:51:00; kitchen temperature peaked at 29.18°C (12:25) and then dropped to 27.84°C within 4 minutes of window opening (12:51:30).",
    "No smoke_co_alarm events in any reviewed chunk (C00-C06).",
    "Living room occupancy reported 'occupied' on every 3-5 minute poll from 11:58 to 19:55, with no 'unoccupied' events—consistent with a stationary occupant.",
    "All temperature sensors show smooth, small variations (0.1-0.3°C per step) with no stuck or abnormal values.",
    "Kitchen window contact reported 'false' (opened) twice, each within 30 seconds of the cook surface turning off, indicating intentional post-cooking ventilation."
  ],
  "recommended_actions": [
    "If concerned about the living room occupancy sensor's behavior, verify its hold-time configuration or manually test whether it correctly transitions to 'unoccupied' after the occupant leaves.",
    "Review remaining chunks (C07-C10) for any eventual 'unoccupied' events from living_room_occupancy or later entrance/door events to further confirm the stationary-occupant hypothesis.",
    "In a real deployment, confirm the BooleanState convention for window contact: 'false' might mean 'closed' rather than 'opened', which would change the inference; if 'false' means 'closed', then the window was never recorded as opened, and the temperature drop requires another explanation (e.g., AC activation)."
  ]
}
```

Explanation: No smoke_co_alarm events appear in any of the reviewed chunks (C00-C06), directly contradicting any fire risk or carbon monoxide concern.

Kitchen cook surface turned on at 12:15:30 and off at 12:51:00; kitchen temperature peaked at 29.18°C (12:25) and then dropped to 27.84°C within 4 minutes of window opening (12:51:30).

No smoke_co_alarm events in any reviewed chunk (C00-C06).

Living room occupancy reported 'occupied' on every 3-5 minute poll from 11:58 to 19:55, with no 'unoccupied' events—consistent with a stationary occupant.

All temperature sensors show smooth, small variations (0.1-0.3°C per step) with no stuck or abnormal values.

Kitchen window contact reported 'false' (opened) twice, each within 30 seconds of the cook surface turning off, indicating intentional post-cooking ventilation.

If concerned about the living room occupancy sensor's behavior, verify its hold-time configuration or manually test whether it correctly transitions to 'unoccupied' after the occupant leaves.

Review remaining chunks (C07-C10) for any eventual 'unoccupied' events from living_room_occupancy or later entrance/door events to further confirm the stationary-occupant hypothesis.

厨房温度异常升高（从25.35°C升至27.36°C）但随后骤降，需排查灶具或烟雾报警器关联事件

温度传感器值在14:10-14:20之间出现极低值2462-2466，接近基准阈值，需排除传感器故障或空调异常

整体24小时温度趋势下降（从25.36°C降至22.52°C），可能对应空调设定变化或季节气候

入户门锁仅有1次状态翻转，结合较低的玄关活动次数，可能有人长期在家或锁异常

C00: 包含起始时间戳11:55，提供温度基线（约25.3°C）和初始环境状态，是分析趋势的起点。

C01: 13:00-14:05时段厨房温度升到27.36°C，明显高于其他房间（约25°C），存在异常升温嫌疑，需结合后续是否持续或恢复。

C02: 14:08-15:20时段厨房温度骤降到24.71°C，与上一时段形成强烈反差，需检查是否有灶具、烟雾报警器或窗户事件导致降温。

C05: 17:40-18:43期间厨房出现cook_surface设备事件（首次在预览中出现），可能与之前的温度异常相关，需详细查看灶具操作和温度联动。

入户门锁仅有1次状态翻转，结合较低的玄关活动次数，可能有人长期在家或锁异常

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "A person was at home, mostly in the living room, cooked lunch (12:15-12:51) and dinner (17:54-18:25), and aired out the kitchen by opening a window after each cooking session. The gradual temperature decline across the house (from ~25.3°C to ~22.5°C) is consistent with natural evening cooling or a thermostat schedule being adjusted.",
      "evidence": [
        "Kitchen cook surface turned on at 12:15:30 and off at 12:51:00, with kitchen temperature rising from 25.35°C to a peak of 29.18°C at 12:25-12:30.",
        "Kitchen window contact reported opened (StateValue=false) at 12:51:30, immediately after cook surface turned off; kitchen temperature then dropped from 29.12°C to 27.84°C by 12:55:00.",
        "Second cooking session: cook surface on at 17:54:30, off at 18:25:00; window opened again at 18:25:30; kitchen temperature stayed low (peaked only slightly).",
        "Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' (raw=1) every 3-5 minutes from 11:58 through 19:55, consistent with someone present in that room throughout the afternoon and evening.",
        "All temperature readings show small, consistent variations across all sensors (0.1-0.3°C per interval), no frozen/stuck values, no alarms.",
        "No smoke_co_alarm events detected in any reviewed chunk (C00-C06)."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "Living room occupancy never reports 'unoccupied' for over 8 hours; while normal for a stationary person, the sensor could have a long hold time or there could be a missed transition if the person left briefly.",
        "No kitchen occupancy sensor exists, so we cannot directly verify if the person was present during cooking, but the sequence of lights, cook surface, and window actions strongly suggests active cooking rather than unattended operation."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "The living room occupancy sensor may have a stuck or slow-to-release state, reporting 'occupied' (raw=1) continuously for 8+ hours without any single 'unoccupied' report. This could be a sensor fault or a behavioral signal of abnormal inactivity (e.g., person remaining in one spot for an unusually long time).",
      "threat_type": "sensor_stuck",
      "evidence": [
        "From 11:58 to 19:55 (nearly 8 hours), living_room_occupancy reports only 'occupied' (raw=1) on every poll, with no 'unoccupied' event.",
        "Other occupancy sensors (master_bedroom, second_bedroom, entrance, bathroom) all consistently report 'unoccupied' on every poll, showing no movement into other rooms at all.",
        "The structured signal shows 291 activity events for living_room, which if all are 'occupied' reports, suggests the sensor never toggled — a pattern that could indicate a stuck sensor if a person normally moves between rooms.",
        "No explicit fault event (e.g., alarm, diagnostic code) from the occupancy sensor is present in the logs, so direct device-fault evidence is missing."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "It is fully plausible that the occupant spent the entire afternoon and evening in the living room (e.g., watching TV, working from home), which would generate this exact pattern without any fault.",
        "The structured signal count (291) may include repeated polled values; the focused chunks show ~1 event every 3-5 minutes, consistent with the sensor's reporting interval, not necessarily a stuck value.",
        "Other rooms could have been occupied without triggering their occupancy sensors if the sensors have narrow detection zones or long hold times."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "The kitchen window was opened immediately after both cooking sessions (12:51:30 and 18:25:30), suggesting a need to vent smoke, steam, or odors. While the temperature spike from cooking was modest (max 29.18°C), the opening of the window in conjunction with cooking could indicate insufficient ventilation, minor smoke, or a burning smell — a low-grade safety concern.",
      "threat_type": "fire_risk",
      "evidence": [
        "At 12:51:00, the cook surface turned off; 30 seconds later at 12:51:30, the kitchen window contact reported opened (StateValue=false).",
        "Similarly at 18:25:00 cook surface off, at 18:25:30 window opened again.",
        "Kitchen light was turned on at 12:15:00 and again at 17:54:00, timing with cooking, suggesting active usage.",
        "No smoke or CO alarm events are detected in any reviewed chunk, indicating that if smoke occurred, it was minor enough not to trigger detectors."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "Opening a window after cooking is a normal, safe practice for ventilation and odor removal — not necessarily indicative of a dangerous event.",
        "The temperature rise (max 29.18°C) is well within safe cooking heat ranges; no extreme overheating or fire evidence.",
        "No smoke_co_alarm events appear in any chunk (C00-C06), directly contradicting a significant fire or smoke event.",
        "The window contact reports 'false' (presumably opened) both times; without a 'true' (closed) event, the window might have stayed open briefly and then closed without reporting — this is ambiguous."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A3",
      "description": "Entrance occupancy and door lock activity are suspiciously low. The entrance occupancy reports 'unoccupied' on every poll (no 'occupied' events at all in C00-C06), and the door lock has only 1 state flip in the entire 12-hour period (per structured signals). This could indicate either no one entered/exited the home (consistent with staying home) or a potential lock/sensor fault.",
      "threat_type": "lock_malfunction",
      "evidence": [
        "Entrance occupancy: all instances in C00-C06 show raw=0 (unoccupied), never raw=1.",
        "Door lock flip count from structured signals: only 1 state change in 12 hours.",
        "Combined with low entrance and bathroom occupancy, suggests either a completely stationary occupant or that entrance events are being missed."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "If the occupant never left home, zero entrance events and a single lock flip (e.g., locking after entering) would be normal.",
        "No explicit lock fault events (alarm, DiagnosticLaundry, etc.) appear in the logs.",
        "Bathroom occupancy also shows only 'unoccupied' — could indicate the occupant never used that bathroom, or the sensor failed — but without any 'occupied' events, it is ambiguous."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "Living_room_occupancy never reports 'unoccupied' from 11:58 to 19:55: either a person stayed in the living room constantly, or the sensor is stuck.",
    "Kitchen window opened within 30 seconds of cook surface turning off (twice), suggesting intentional ventilation after cooking.",
    "No smoke_co_alarm events found in any chunk.",
    "Entrance and bathroom occupancy never report 'occupied'.",
    "Temperature values show small, realistic variations across all sensors — no stuck or erratic temperature readings."
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "Are there any living_room_occupancy 'unoccupied' events in the remaining chunks (C07-C10), especially after 19:55?",
    "Are there any door lock state changes (lock/unlock events) in later chunks that would indicate entry/exit?",
    "Are there any smoke_co_alarm events in the full 12-hour log (we only reviewed C00-C06)?",
    "What is the exact meaning of 'StateValue=false' for the window contact — does 'false' mean opened or closed? A definition is needed to confirm the window state.",
    "Has the bathroom occupancy sensor ever reported 'occupied' in the full log? No such event in our chunks.",
    "Are there any air conditioner events in later chunks that would explain the temperature decline (AC turning on)?",
    "What is the exact reporting interval and hold-time configuration for the living_room occupancy sensor? Could it be a normally-closed type that stays 'occupied' for hours?",
    "Are there any other window_covering or door events that could explain entrance/low occupancy?",
    "How is 'room_activity' for living_room defined in the structured signals — are all 'occupied' poll responses counted, or only transitions?"
  ]
}
```

Kitchen cook surface turned on at 12:15:30 and off at 12:51:00, with kitchen temperature rising from 25.35°C to a peak of 29.18°C at 12:25-12:30.

Kitchen window contact reported opened (StateValue=false) at 12:51:30, immediately after cook surface turned off; kitchen temperature then dropped from 29.12°C to 27.84°C by 12:55:00.

Second cooking session: cook surface on at 17:54:30, off at 18:25:00; window opened again at 18:25:30; kitchen temperature stayed low (peaked only slightly).

Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' (raw=1) every 3-5 minutes from 11:58 through 19:55, consistent with someone present in that room throughout the afternoon and evening.

All temperature readings show small, consistent variations across all sensors (0.1-0.3°C per interval), no frozen/stuck values, no alarms.

No smoke_co_alarm events detected in any reviewed chunk (C00-C06).

From 11:58 to 19:55 (nearly 8 hours), living_room_occupancy reports only 'occupied' (raw=1) on every poll, with no 'unoccupied' event.

Other occupancy sensors (master_bedroom, second_bedroom, entrance, bathroom) all consistently report 'unoccupied' on every poll, showing no movement into other rooms at all.

No explicit fault event (e.g., alarm, diagnostic code) from the occupancy sensor is present in the logs, so direct device-fault evidence is missing.

Other rooms could have been occupied without triggering their occupancy sensors if the sensors have narrow detection zones or long hold times.

At 12:51:00, the cook surface turned off; 30 seconds later at 12:51:30, the kitchen window contact reported opened (StateValue=false).

Similarly at 18:25:00 cook surface off, at 18:25:30 window opened again.

Kitchen light was turned on at 12:15:00 and again at 17:54:00, timing with cooking, suggesting active usage.

No smoke or CO alarm events are detected in any reviewed chunk, indicating that if smoke occurred, it was minor enough not to trigger detectors.

Opening a window after cooking is a normal, safe practice for ventilation and odor removal — not necessarily indicative of a dangerous event.

The temperature rise (max 29.18°C) is well within safe cooking heat ranges; no extreme overheating or fire evidence.

No smoke_co_alarm events appear in any chunk (C00-C06), directly contradicting a significant fire or smoke event.

Entrance occupancy: all instances in C00-C06 show raw=0 (unoccupied), never raw=1.

Door lock flip count from structured signals: only 1 state change in 12 hours.

Combined with low entrance and bathroom occupancy, suggests either a completely stationary occupant or that entrance events are being missed.

If the occupant never left home, zero entrance events and a single lock flip (e.g., locking after entering) would be normal.

No explicit lock fault events (alarm, DiagnosticLaundry, etc.) appear in the logs.

Bathroom occupancy also shows only 'unoccupied' — could indicate the occupant never used that bathroom, or the sensor failed — but without any 'occupied' events, it is ambiguous.

Living_room_occupancy never reports 'unoccupied' from 11:58 to 19:55: either a person stayed in the living room constantly, or the sensor is stuck.

Kitchen window opened within 30 seconds of cook surface turning off (twice), suggesting intentional ventilation after cooking.

No smoke_co_alarm events found in any chunk.

Entrance and bathroom occupancy never report 'occupied'.

Temperature values show small, realistic variations across all sensors — no stuck or erratic temperature readings.

Are there any living_room_occupancy 'unoccupied' events in the remaining chunks (C07-C10), especially after 19:55?

Are there any door lock state changes (lock/unlock events) in later chunks that would indicate entry/exit?

Are there any smoke_co_alarm events in the full 12-hour log (we only reviewed C00-C06)?

What is the exact meaning of 'StateValue=false' for the window contact — does 'false' mean opened or closed? A definition is needed to confirm the window state.

Has the bathroom occupancy sensor ever reported 'occupied' in the full log? No such event in our chunks.

Are there any air conditioner events in later chunks that would explain the temperature decline (AC turning on)?

What is the exact reporting interval and hold-time configuration for the living_room occupancy sensor? Could it be a normally-closed type that stays 'occupied' for hours?

Are there any other window_covering or door events that could explain entrance/low occupancy?

How is 'room_activity' for living_room defined in the structured signals — are all 'occupied' poll responses counted, or only transitions?

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "medium",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C07", "C08", "C09", "C10"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "The investigator interpreted BooleanState.StateValue=false as 'opened' without confirming the protocol convention — this could invert the window/door state logic and lead to false conclusions about ventilation.",
    "The investigator did not check later chunks (C07-C10) for any eventual 'unoccupied' events from living_room_occupancy or 'occupied' events from entrance/bathroom, which could confirm or refute the stuck-sensor hypothesis.",
    "No review of remaining chunks for smoke_co_alarm events, air conditioner on/off events, or door lock state changes that could explain the temperature trend or occupancy pattern.",
    "The investigator's hypothesis A1 (stuck sensor) lacks direct fault evidence such as alarm events, diagnostic codes, or impossible state sequences — as required by the matter notes for a device-fault conclusion.",
    "The investigator did not consider that 'cook surface off → window opened' with 30s delay could be an automated scenario or person walking to window, not necessarily indicative of smoke or fire risk.",
    "Missing analysis of whether the gradual temperature decline (~3°C over 8 hours) could be explained by natural cooling, HVAC schedule, or seasonal changes — currently it's just noted as consistent with evening cooling."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "The investigator correctly identifies that living_room_occupancy showing only 'occupied' for 8+ hours could be normal stationary behavior, so the anomaly score for that should be moderate, not high. The missing unoccupied events could also be due to sensor hold-time configuration.",
    "The investigator's A2 (fire risk) overstates the window-opening event as suspicious without concrete smoke/CO alarm evidence — the absence of alarms strongly weakens this hypothesis and raises false-alarm risk. The investigator already notes this weakness but still lists it as an anomaly hypothesis.",
    "The temperature values are not stuck or extreme — peak 29.18°C during cooking is within normal range for a kitchen with active cooking. The investigator correctly notes no temperature faults.",
    "The analysis should explicitly check for missing window contact 'StateValue=true' events (closed) after the opened events — if no close event is recorded, the window may still be open, or the sensor may have failed to report closure, which could be a data fidelity issue.",
    "Recommend refining the investigation to check remaining chunks (C07-C10) for occupancy transitions, smoke/CO alarms, AC events, and door lock changes before making a final verdict. The current evidence on occupancy is highly ambiguous without the full 12-hour timeline."
  ]
}
```

No review of remaining chunks for smoke_co_alarm events, air conditioner on/off events, or door lock state changes that could explain the temperature trend or occupancy pattern.

The temperature values are not stuck or extreme — peak 29.18°C during cooking is within normal range for a kitchen with active cooking. The investigator correctly notes no temperature faults.

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal cooking activity in the kitchen with expected temperature fluctuations. A person was cooking around midday (12:15-12:51) and again in the evening (17:54-18:25). The kitchen temperature rose during cooking (from ~25.3°C to a peak of ~29.2°C) and fell afterward when cooking stopped and the window was opened (12:51:30 kitchen_window_contact = false). The temperature then recovered to ambient levels across rooms.",
      "evidence": [
        "kitchen_cook_surface turned on at 12:15:30, and kitchen temperature began rising from 25.35°C to 29.18°C.",
        "kitchen_cook_surface turned off at 12:51:00, and at 12:51:30 kitchen_window_contact opened (false).",
        "Kitchen temperature cooled from 29.18°C to 27.84°C within 5 minutes of window opening.",
        "Second cooking session at 17:54:30, kitchen_cook_surface on; temperature remained stable around 23.2-23.3°C, suggesting mild cooking or adequate ventilation.",
        "Living room occupancy sensor shows continuous 'occupied' state from 11:55 to at least 18:43, indicating a person was present throughout the afternoon.",
        "Temperature across all rooms gradually declined from ~25.3°C to ~23.0°C over 12 hours, consistent with ambient cooling in the evening or air conditioning use."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The kitchen temperature drop after the first cooking session is rapid (from 29.18°C to 27.84°C in 5 minutes), which may be faster than natural passive cooling but is plausibly explained by opening a window.",
        "The living room occupancy never shows 'unoccupied' during the entire 12-hour period, which could be a stuck sensor, but it is also consistent with a person staying in the room the whole time."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "N2",
      "description": "Gradual ambient temperature decrease consistent with evening cooling or air conditioning use. All room temperatures show a synchronized downward trend from ~25.3°C at 11:55 to ~23.0°C by 18:40. This is a typical diurnal pattern or the result of an air conditioner running.",
      "evidence": [
        "At 11:55, living_room_temp was 25.36°C; at 18:40, it was 23.04°C.",
        "All rooms show similar cooling rates: kitchen from 25.35°C to 22.94°C, master bedroom from 25.32°C to 22.95°C, second bedroom from 25.28°C to 22.95°C.",
        "The decline is steady and does not show sudden jumps except the kitchen cooking heat spike which then returned to ambient.",
        "No explicit 'air_conditioner OnOff event is present in the raw chunks, but the uniform cooling is a natural physical pattern consistent with either air conditioning or outside temperature drop."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "Absence of air conditioner events in the logs means the cause of cooling is not directly confirmed, but could be due to the system not logging those events or the AC being on before the log window.",
        "The temperature in the living room stays at or above the other rooms at all times, which is consistent with occupancy (person generating body heat)."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "Unattended cooking with potential fire risk. The kitchen cook surface was turned on at 12:15:30 and off at 12:51:00. During this period, kitchen temperature rose to 29.18°C. However, the living room occupancy sensor shows continuous occupancy during the entire cooking period (and all day). There are no smoke/CO alarm events in the logs, but the temperature spike is notable (29.18°C while other rooms stayed at ~25°C). The risk is that cooking was left unattended if the occupant was in the living room and not actively monitoring the kitchen. The fact that the window was opened at 12:51:30 (after cooking stopped) may indicate someone noticed heat/smoke or was simply airing out the kitchen.",
      "threat_type": "unattended_cooking",
      "evidence": [
        "Kitchen_cook_surface on from 12:15:30 to 12:51:00, and kitchen temperature rose from 25.35°C to a peak of 29.18°C.",
        "Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' during this period (12:13, 12:18, 12:23, 12:28, 12:33, etc.), suggesting the person was not necessarily in the kitchen for the full 35-minute cooking duration.",
        "Kitchen window opened (BooleanState = false) at 12:51:30, immediately after cook surface turned off, possibly to clear smoke or heat.",
        "No kitchen occupancy sensor event is present in the logs, so it is unknown if the person was in the kitchen during the cooking.",
        "Second cooking session at 17:54:30 to 18:25:00 also shows a slight temperature rise and again no kitchen occupancy events."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "No smoke alarm or CO alarm events were triggered, suggesting the cooking did not produce dangerous levels of smoke.",
        "The temperature rise to 29.18°C is within normal range for cooking (approx. 4°C above ambient).",
        "The person might have been in the kitchen the whole time (no kitchen occupancy sensor to say otherwise).",
        "The system recovered normally: temperature returned to ambient after cooking ended and window opened."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "Possible living room occupancy sensor stuck in 'occupied' state. The living room occupancy sensor reports 'occupied' at every single log interval (approximately every 3-5 minutes from 11:58 to at least 18:43). There is never a single 'unoccupied' event. This is highly improbable for a 12-hour period, even if a person was home all day, since they would leave the room to use the bathroom, cook, etc. The structured signals show 240 occupancy events total across all sensors, but the living room alone accounts for 291 room_activity counts according to structured signals (which is inconsistent with 240 events, but even 240 events all from living room means it was reporting every cycle).",
      "threat_type": "sensor_stuck",
      "evidence": [
        "Living_room_occupancy logs show 'occupied' at every single timestamp in the focused chunks: 11:58, 12:03, 12:08, 12:13, 12:18, 12:23, 12:28, 12:33, 12:38, 12:43, 12:48, 12:53, 12:58, 13:03, 13:08, 13:13, 13:18, 13:23, 13:28, 13:33, 13:38, 13:43, 13:48, 13:53, 13:58, 14:03, 14:08, 14:13, 14:18, 14:23, 14:28, 14:33, 14:38, 14:43, 14:48, 14:53, 14:58, 15:03, 15:08, 15:13, 15:18, 17:43, 17:48, 17:53, 17:58, 18:03, 18:08, 18:13, 18:18, 18:23, 18:28, 18:33, 18:38, 18:43.",
        "No 'unoccupied' event is ever reported for living room in the available logs, even though the person must have moved to cook (kitchen cook surface on/off), use the bathroom (bathroom occupancy logs show 'unoccupied' at periodic intervals, but never 'occupied' in the focused chunks), or go to bedrooms.",
        "Structured signals report 240 occupancy events total; even if all were from living room, that is an abnormally high frequency (every 3 minutes for 12 hours = ~240 events), but the sensor never flipping to unoccupied is the anomaly.",
        "Other occupancy sensors show periodic 'unoccupied' reports but no 'occupied' events, suggesting either no one was in those rooms or those sensors are not triggering."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "It is possible the person stayed in the living room all day and only moved briefly to the kitchen (which lacks an occupancy sensor), thus the living room sensor would not flip to unoccupied.",
        "The door lock only flipped once, entrance occupancy is very low (27 events), and bathroom occupancy shows only 24 events (likely periodic 'unoccupied' check-ins), which could be consistent with a single occupant staying in the living room.",
        "A stuck sensor would show the exact same raw value repeated; the logs show 'occupied (raw=1)' consistently, which is technically that value, but that is also the normal state for an occupied room."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A3",
      "description": "Possible carbon monoxide or lack of ventilation risk during first cooking session. The kitchen temperature rose to 29.18°C, and immediately after cooking stopped, the kitchen window was opened. The absence of a smoke/CO alarm event could mean levels were not critical, but the window opening suggests an attempt to clear air. There is also no kitchen occupancy sensor to confirm the person was present during cooking, which raises the risk of prolonged exposure to CO if gas cooking was used without ventilation. The second cooking session also had the window opened at 18:25:30.",
      "threat_type": "carbon_monoxide",
      "evidence": [
        "Kitchen window contact opened (BooleanState = false) at 12:51:30, immediately after the cook surface turned off at 12:51:00.",
        "Kitchen window contact opened again at 18:25:30, after the second cooking session ended.",
        "No smoke_co_alarm event is present in the logs, but that could mean the alarm was not triggered or the log does not include it.",
        "The temperature rise during first cooking (from 25.35°C to 29.18°C) indicates sustained heat generation.",
        "Structured signals list 'smoke_co_alarm' as a target device, but no events appear in the focused chunks, which could be an absence of log or absence of trigger."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "No explicit CO alarm event exists, meaning any risk is speculative.",
        "Window opening could have been for natural ventilation unrelated to CO (e.g., to let out cooking odors).",
        "The temperature ranges are moderate (29.18°C) and not indicative of a dangerous fire.",
        "Without a kitchen occupancy sensor, it is unknown if the occupant was present to monitor the cooking."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "Continuous living room occupancy with no unoccupied events for over 7 hours (11:58 to 18:43), despite observable cooking and door lock activity.",
    "Kitchen temperature spike to 29.18°C during cooking, followed by immediate window opening upon cook surface shutdown.",
    "Only 1 lock state flip (door lock) and 24 bathroom occupancy events (all unoccupied, no occupied) combined with 291 living room activity events, suggesting either a single occupant staying in living room or sensor anomalies.",
    "Second cooking session at 17:54-18:25 with minimal temperature change (23.2-23.3°C), followed by dishwasher start at 18:25:08."
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "Kitchen occupancy sensor status (only living room, master bedroom, second bedroom, entrance, bathroom have occupancy sensors in logs).",
    "Smoke/CO alarm logs from the full 12-hour period (not present in focused chunks C00-C05).",
    "Explicit air conditioner events or setpoint changes to explain the ambient temperature decline.",
    "Bathroom or entrance occupancy sensor 'occupied' events (only 'unoccupied' appears, meaning either never triggered or not logging).",
    "The full set of lock events beyond the single state flip (to understand if the door was locked/unlocked once or multiple times).",
    "User presence confirmation: no user activity sensor data or door/window events beyond kitchen window."
  ]
}
```

kitchen_cook_surface turned on at 12:15:30, and kitchen temperature began rising from 25.35°C to 29.18°C.

kitchen_cook_surface turned off at 12:51:00, and at 12:51:30 kitchen_window_contact opened (false).

Kitchen temperature cooled from 29.18°C to 27.84°C within 5 minutes of window opening.

Second cooking session at 17:54:30, kitchen_cook_surface on; temperature remained stable around 23.2-23.3°C, suggesting mild cooking or adequate ventilation.

Living room occupancy sensor shows continuous 'occupied' state from 11:55 to at least 18:43, indicating a person was present throughout the afternoon.

Temperature across all rooms gradually declined from ~25.3°C to ~23.0°C over 12 hours, consistent with ambient cooling in the evening or air conditioning use.

The living room occupancy never shows 'unoccupied' during the entire 12-hour period, which could be a stuck sensor, but it is also consistent with a person staying in the room the whole time.

At 11:55, living_room_temp was 25.36°C; at 18:40, it was 23.04°C.

All rooms show similar cooling rates: kitchen from 25.35°C to 22.94°C, master bedroom from 25.32°C to 22.95°C, second bedroom from 25.28°C to 22.95°C.

The decline is steady and does not show sudden jumps except the kitchen cooking heat spike which then returned to ambient.

No explicit 'air_conditioner OnOff event is present in the raw chunks, but the uniform cooling is a natural physical pattern consistent with either air conditioning or outside temperature drop.

The temperature in the living room stays at or above the other rooms at all times, which is consistent with occupancy (person generating body heat).

Kitchen_cook_surface on from 12:15:30 to 12:51:00, and kitchen temperature rose from 25.35°C to a peak of 29.18°C.

Kitchen window opened (BooleanState = false) at 12:51:30, immediately after cook surface turned off, possibly to clear smoke or heat.

No kitchen occupancy sensor event is present in the logs, so it is unknown if the person was in the kitchen during the cooking.

Second cooking session at 17:54:30 to 18:25:00 also shows a slight temperature rise and again no kitchen occupancy events.

No smoke alarm or CO alarm events were triggered, suggesting the cooking did not produce dangerous levels of smoke.

The temperature rise to 29.18°C is within normal range for cooking (approx. 4°C above ambient).

The person might have been in the kitchen the whole time (no kitchen occupancy sensor to say otherwise).

The system recovered normally: temperature returned to ambient after cooking ended and window opened.

Other occupancy sensors show periodic 'unoccupied' reports but no 'occupied' events, suggesting either no one was in those rooms or those sensors are not triggering.

It is possible the person stayed in the living room all day and only moved briefly to the kitchen (which lacks an occupancy sensor), thus the living room sensor would not flip to unoccupied.

A stuck sensor would show the exact same raw value repeated; the logs show 'occupied (raw=1)' consistently, which is technically that value, but that is also the normal state for an occupied room.

Kitchen window contact opened (BooleanState = false) at 12:51:30, immediately after the cook surface turned off at 12:51:00.

Kitchen window contact opened again at 18:25:30, after the second cooking session ended.

No smoke_co_alarm event is present in the logs, but that could mean the alarm was not triggered or the log does not include it.

The temperature rise during first cooking (from 25.35°C to 29.18°C) indicates sustained heat generation.

Structured signals list 'smoke_co_alarm' as a target device, but no events appear in the focused chunks, which could be an absence of log or absence of trigger.

No explicit CO alarm event exists, meaning any risk is speculative.

Window opening could have been for natural ventilation unrelated to CO (e.g., to let out cooking odors).

The temperature ranges are moderate (29.18°C) and not indicative of a dangerous fire.

Without a kitchen occupancy sensor, it is unknown if the occupant was present to monitor the cooking.

Continuous living room occupancy with no unoccupied events for over 7 hours (11:58 to 18:43), despite observable cooking and door lock activity.

Kitchen temperature spike to 29.18°C during cooking, followed by immediate window opening upon cook surface shutdown.

Second cooking session at 17:54-18:25 with minimal temperature change (23.2-23.3°C), followed by dishwasher start at 18:25:08.

Kitchen occupancy sensor status (only living room, master bedroom, second bedroom, entrance, bathroom have occupancy sensors in logs).

Smoke/CO alarm logs from the full 12-hour period (not present in focused chunks C00-C05).

Explicit air conditioner events or setpoint changes to explain the ambient temperature decline.

Bathroom or entrance occupancy sensor 'occupied' events (only 'unoccupied' appears, meaning either never triggered or not logging).

The full set of lock events beyond the single state flip (to understand if the door was locked/unlocked once or multiple times).

User presence confirmation: no user activity sensor data or door/window events beyond kitchen window.

Kitchen cook surface turned on at 12:15:30 and off at 12:51:00, with kitchen temperature rising from 25.35°C to a peak of 29.18°C at 12:25-12:30.

Kitchen window contact reported opened (StateValue=false) at 12:51:30, immediately after cook surface turned off; kitchen temperature then dropped from 29.12°C to 27.84°C by 12:55:00.

Second cooking session: cook surface on at 17:54:30, off at 18:25:00; window opened again at 18:25:30; kitchen temperature stayed low (peaked only slightly).

Living room occupancy remained 'occupied' (raw=1) every 3-5 minutes from 11:58 through 19:55, consistent with someone present in that room throughout the afternoon and evening.

All temperature readings show small, consistent variations across all sensors (0.1-0.3°C per interval), no frozen/stuck values, no alarms.

No smoke_co_alarm events detected in any reviewed chunk (C00-C06).

From 11:58 to 19:55 (nearly 8 hours), living_room_occupancy reports only 'occupied' (raw=1) on every poll, with no 'unoccupied' event.

Other occupancy sensors (master_bedroom, second_bedroom, entrance, bathroom) all consistently report 'unoccupied' on every poll, showing no movement into other rooms at all.

No explicit fault event (e.g., alarm, diagnostic code) from the occupancy sensor is present in the logs, so direct device-fault evidence is missing.

It is fully plausible that the occupant spent the entire afternoon and evening in the living room (e.g., watching TV, working from home), which would generate this exact pattern without any fault.

Other rooms could have been occupied without triggering their occupancy sensors if the sensors have narrow detection zones or long hold times.

At 12:51:00, the cook surface turned off; 30 seconds later at 12:51:30, the kitchen window contact reported opened (StateValue=false).

Similarly at 18:25:00 cook surface off, at 18:25:30 window opened again.

Kitchen light was turned on at 12:15:00 and again at 17:54:00, timing with cooking, suggesting active usage.

No smoke or CO alarm events are detected in any reviewed chunk, indicating that if smoke occurred, it was minor enough not to trigger detectors.

Opening a window after cooking is a normal, safe practice for ventilation and odor removal — not necessarily indicative of a dangerous event.

The temperature rise (max 29.18°C) is well within safe cooking heat ranges; no extreme overheating or fire evidence.

No smoke_co_alarm events appear in any chunk (C00-C06), directly contradicting a significant fire or smoke event.

The window contact reports 'false' (presumably opened) both times; without a 'true' (closed) event, the window might have stayed open briefly and then closed without reporting — this is ambiguous.

Entrance occupancy: all instances in C00-C06 show raw=0 (unoccupied), never raw=1.

Door lock flip count from structured signals: only 1 state change in 12 hours.

Combined with low entrance and bathroom occupancy, suggests either a completely stationary occupant or that entrance events are being missed.

If the occupant never left home, zero entrance events and a single lock flip (e.g., locking after entering) would be normal.

No explicit lock fault events (alarm, DiagnosticLaundry, etc.) appear in the logs.

Bathroom occupancy also shows only 'unoccupied' — could indicate the occupant never used that bathroom, or the sensor failed — but without any 'occupied' events, it is ambiguous.

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "high",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C03", "C04", "C06", "C07", "C08", "C09", "C10"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "The investigator treats the continuous living_room occupancy as a 'sensor stuck' anomaly, but this could simply be a person staying in that room. There is no direct fault evidence (identical repeated raw value could be normal in an occupied room). Need logs from other times or an unoccupied event to confirm stuck condition.",
    "The investigator's anomaly A2 claims 291 living_room activity events based on structured signals, but the focused chunks only show about 60 occupancy entries. The structured signal count should be verified from full logs; the gap may be due to chunk selection, not sensor behavior.",
    "The investigator's anomaly A1 (unattended cooking) lacks direct evidence of absence from kitchen. No kitchen occupancy sensor exists, as noted in missing_information. The living room occupancy remaining 'occupied' does not prove the person was not in the kitchen—they could be moving between rooms quickly or the sensor has a long hold time.",
    "The investigator's anomaly A3 (carbon monoxide risk) is purely speculative with no CO alarm events and no evidence of gas cooking. The window opening could be normal ventilation for odors. This should not be flagged as 'carbon_monoxide' without supporting fire/CO sensor data.",
    "Temperature values are correctly interpreted (centi-degrees Celsius) in the investigator output—no scale misreading.",
    "The cooking temperature spike (29.18°C) is plausible and not extreme; the rapid drop after window opening is expected. No device-fault evidence is present for temperature sensors.",
    "Missing chunks C03, C04 (15:20-17:40) need to be reviewed to see if living_room occupancy ever flips to unoccupied during the afternoon gap.",
    "Chunks C06-C10 (after 18:43) should be examined for later occupancy changes, door lock events, and smoke/CO alarms to complete the picture.",
    "The door lock having only 1 state flip is noted but not investigated as a potential anomaly; more lock events may exist in other chunks.",
    "The bathroom occupancy showing only 'unoccupied' throughout could indicate a sensor fault, but without any 'occupied' events in the available chunks, this remains ambiguous.",
    "No smoke_co_alarm events appear in any focused chunk, but the device is listed as a target; this absence should be confirmed across all 11 chunks before concluding no alarm occurred."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "The investigator built a thorough analysis but over-interpreted the continuous living room occupancy as a likely stuck sensor without direct fault evidence. The 'unattended cooking' risk is overstated since no kitchen occupancy sensor exists to confirm absence. The carbon monoxide hypothesis is speculative and should be deprioritized.",
    "The primary weakness is insufficient temporal coverage: chunks 15:20-17:40 are missing, making it impossible to confirm whether the living room occupancy ever changed. Additional chunks are essential before a final verdict.",
    "The distinction between normal hypotheses (N1, N2) and anomaly hypotheses (A1-A3) is well-structured, but A2 and A3 need stronger grounding. A1 is more plausible but still lacks definitive evidence.",
    "Recommend requesting chunks C03 and C04 to cover the afternoon gap, and C06-C10 to see evening behavior including possible air conditioner events and occupancy changes.",
    "If after reviewing all chunks the living room occupancy still shows no unoccupied event for 12+ hours, a stuck sensor becomes more likely—but currently the evidence is ambiguous.",
    "The final verdict should lean toward normal cooking and occupancy patterns unless additional chunks reveal contradictory evidence."
  ]
}
```

Temperature values are correctly interpreted (centi-degrees Celsius) in the investigator output—no scale misreading.

The cooking temperature spike (29.18°C) is plausible and not extreme; the rapid drop after window opening is expected. No device-fault evidence is present for temperature sensors.

Missing chunks C03, C04 (15:20-17:40) need to be reviewed to see if living_room occupancy ever flips to unoccupied during the afternoon gap.

Chunks C06-C10 (after 18:43) should be examined for later occupancy changes, door lock events, and smoke/CO alarms to complete the picture.

The door lock having only 1 state flip is noted but not investigated as a potential anomaly; more lock events may exist in other chunks.

The bathroom occupancy showing only 'unoccupied' throughout could indicate a sensor fault, but without any 'occupied' events in the available chunks, this remains ambiguous.

No smoke_co_alarm events appear in any focused chunk, but the device is listed as a target; this absence should be confirmed across all 11 chunks before concluding no alarm occurred.

Recommend requesting chunks C03 and C04 to cover the afternoon gap, and C06-C10 to see evening behavior including possible air conditioner events and occupancy changes.

If after reviewing all chunks the living room occupancy still shows no unoccupied event for 12+ hours, a stuck sensor becomes more likely—but currently the evidence is ambiguous.

The final verdict should lean toward normal cooking and occupancy patterns unless additional chunks reveal contradictory evidence.

No review of remaining chunks for smoke_co_alarm events, air conditioner on/off events, or door lock state changes that could explain the temperature trend or occupancy pattern.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 291,
    "master_bedroom": 169,
    "second_bedroom": 169,
    "kitchen": 159,
    "entrance": 27,
    "bathroom": 24
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 584,
    "Occupancy": 240,
    "OnOff": 9,
    "StateValue": 3,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "LockState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 1,
  "occupancy_events": 240,
  "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": "2026-06-07T11:

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "behavior-sequence",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["living_room", "master_bedroom", "second_bedroom", "kitchen", "entrance", "bathroom"],
    "target_devices": ["temperature_sensor", "occupancy_sensor", "contact_sensor", "door_lock", "cook_surface", "smoke_co_alarm", "onoff_light", "dimmable_light", "air_conditioner", "window_covering", "dishwasher", "laundry_washer", "water_leak_detector"],
    "target_question": "是否存在异常行为模式"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["living_room", "master_bedroom", "second_bedroom", "kitchen", "entrance", "bathroom"],
  "focus_devices": ["living_room_temp_sensor", "kitchen_temp_sensor", "master_bedroom_temp_sensor", "second_bedroom_temp_sensor", "living_room_occupancy", "kitchen_cook_surface", "smoke_co_alarm", "door_lock", "water_leak_detector", "laundry_washer", "dishwasher"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C00", "C01", "C02", "C05"],
  "suspected_patterns": ["厨房温度异常升高（从25.35°C升至27.36°C）但随后骤降，需排查灶具或烟雾报警器关联事件", "温度传感器值在14:10-14:20之间出现极低值2462-2466，接近基准阈值，需排除传感器故障或空调异常", "整体24小时温度趋势下降（从25.36°C降至22.52°C），可能对应空调设定变化或季节气候", "入户门锁仅有1次状态翻转，结合较低的玄关活动次数，可能有人长期在家或锁异常"],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: 包含起始时间戳11:55，提供温度基线（约25.3°C）和初始环境状态，是分析趋势的起点。",
    "C01: 13:00-14:05时段厨房温度升到27.36°C，明显高于其他房间（约25°C），存在异常升温嫌疑，需结合后续是否持续或恢复。",
    "C02: 14:08-15:20时段厨房温度骤降到24.71°C，与上一时段形成强烈反差，需检查是否有灶具、烟雾报警器或窗户事件导致降温。",
    "C05: 17:40-18:43期间厨房出现cook_surface设备事件（首次在预览中出现），可能与之前的温度异常相关，需详细查看灶具操作和温度联动。"
  ]
}

## Investigator
```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "A person was at home, mostly in the living room, cooked lunch (12:15-12:51) and dinner (