玄关运动 + 门锁解锁失败

密码错误（小孩可能记不准密码）

跟 INS-02 的区别：这里不是暴力破解，只有1-2次尝试，且家中有其他房间的活动（说明有人在家）

Multiple occupancy sensors in the living areas report persistent 'occupied' without any unoccupied events for over 12 hours, forming a regular 5-minute polling pattern that is inconsistent with realistic family movement, and only two sensors show brief 30-minute state refreshes.

Explanation: Across all seven examined chunks (C00–C03, C06, C08, C16) spanning 11:55 to 23:55, occupancy sensors in master_bedroom, kids_room, entrance, dining_room, and (from C08 onward) living_room repeatedly report 'occupied' every ~5 minutes, with zero unoccupied events for these five sensors throughout the 12-hour window.

Explanation: In contrast, living_room and second_bedroom show 'unoccupied' at exactly 30-minute intervals (e.g., 12:00, 12:30, 13:00, ...), each lasting only seconds before re-occupancy, which matches a scheduled state-refresh poll rather than genuine vacancy.

Explanation: The 30-minute pattern proves the system is capable of reporting 'unoccupied,' so the complete absence of any 'unoccupied' from the other five sensors is not due to a system-wide limitation; it indicates a selective anomaly affecting those specific sensors.

Explanation: The timing of occupancy reports follows a rigid, 2-minute offset sequence (e.g., master_bedroom at 11:57, entrance at 11:58:26, dining_room at 11:59:06) that repeats every 5 minutes, which is characteristic of a programmed polling schedule, not independent human movement.

Explanation: Genuine human activity is confirmed at 18:38 when kitchen_light and kitchen_cook_surface turn on, but this isolated event cannot explain why all five sensors simultaneously show 'occupied' even late at night (23:35–23:55) when family members would normally be in separate bedrooms and some rooms should be empty.

Explanation: The temperature data shows a smooth, synchronized decline (~25.3°C to ~22.6°C) consistent with evening cooling, so the occupancy anomaly stands on its own behavioral pattern rather than being a temperature artifact.

Explanation: The only three lock flips in 12 hours are too few to match a household with continuous occupancy in five rooms; this low rate further supports that the occupancy reports are not driven by real entry/exit events.

Explanation: Although alternative hypotheses (e.g., sensor-stuck or normal family routine) were considered, the systematic, timed, and asymmetric pattern across sensors is best explained by a behavioral anomaly in the occupancy reporting logic.

Five out of seven occupancy sensors (master_bedroom, kids_room, entrance, dining_room, and later living_room) show zero 'unoccupied' events across 12 hours, while living_room and second_bedroom show periodic 30-minute 'unoccupied' refreshes.

Occupancy reports follow a precise 5-minute cycle with fixed 2-minute offsets between sensors (e.g., master_bedroom → entrance → dining_room), indicating a timed polling schedule rather than realistic human movement.

All six main-room occupancy sensors report 'occupied' simultaneously at 23:35–23:55 (C16), which is physically impossible for a family of normal size unless the sensors are not reflecting real occupancy.

Only three door lock events occur in 12 hours, inconsistent with a household that would have people entering/exiting multiple rooms throughout the day.

Inspect the controller logic or occupancy sensor configuration to verify whether these sensors are polled periodically and whether the 'occupied' values are cached or updated in real time.

Cross-reference occupant count from other sources (e.g., mobile device presence, smart speaker activity, or manual logs) to confirm or refute the reported occupancy pattern.

If feasible, perform a physical walk-through or install a video-based occupant counter to validate whether the home was continuously occupied in all five rooms during the logged period.

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

enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code

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

TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue is represented in centi-degrees Celsius in this benchmark: 2466 means 24.66 C, not 2466 C.

BooleanState and other protocol booleans should be interpreted using transitions and surrounding events, not naive natural-language assumptions from a single isolated value.

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

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

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.

分析过去12小时设备活动日志中是否存在异常行为模式

All room temperatures exhibit a gradual, synchronized decline from ~25.3°C to ~22.5°C over 12 hours, which is consistent with normal evening cooling. No single sensor stuck or spiking.

Lock state flips are very few (3 total), which is low and expected.

No explicit fault, alarm, or stuck-value events are present in the previews. The dominant events are temperature reports and occupancy reports, all within normal ranges and transitions.

C00 provides the earliest timestamp baseline (11:55) to observe initial temperatures and occupancy patterns.

C01 and C02 continue the time series and show the same repeated occupancy pattern, enabling cross-chunk comparison.

C16 (last chunk) is selected to check for any evening pattern changes or device faults at the end of the 12-hour period.

分析过去12小时设备活动日志中是否存在异常行为模式

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Normal family occupancy pattern: Family is actively present in the home from late morning through evening, with all five main occupied rooms (living_room, master_bedroom, kids_room, entrance, dining_room) showing continuous occupancy due to routine indoor activities. The 30-minute 'unoccupied' events for living_room and second_bedroom are likely a periodic sensor polling/refresh cycle that reports the current state, and they are consistently followed by re-occupancy, which is consistent with family members staying in those rooms. The missing unoccupied events for kitchen, entrance, dining_room, master_bedroom, and kids_room for most of the day is because these rooms were genuinely occupied throughout the period (e.g., family gathering, cooking, dining activities). The evening kitchen activity at 18:38 (lights and cook surface turned on) supports real occupancy. Temperature decline from ~25.3°C to ~22.6°C over 12 hours is consistent with normal evening cooling. The 3 lock flips are low but could reflect normal entry/exit patterns.",
      "evidence": [
        "Living_room and second_bedroom show periodic unoccupied events at exactly 30-minute intervals (12:00, 12:30, 13:00, 13:30, 14:00, 14:30, 15:00, 17:00, 18:30) followed quickly by re-occupancy of the 5 main rooms, consistent with state-refresh polling for rooms that happen to be occupied.",
        "In C08, real human activity is confirmed by kitchen_light turning on at 18:38 and kitchen_cook_surface turning on at 18:38:30, which are genuine actuator events, not polling artifacts.",
        "All room temperatures show a gradual, synchronized decline over 12 hours, which is physically plausible for evening cooling without any single sensor stuck or spiking.",
        "Master_bathroom occupancy shows a normal unoccupied state at consistent intervals (12:15, 12:45, 13:15, 13:45, 14:15, 14:45, 15:15, 16:45, 17:15, 18:15, 18:45, 23:45), indicating the bathroom is not occupied (which is normal), and this sensor can report unoccupied, proving the system is not stuck.",
        "Second_bedroom unoccupied events appear at the same 30-minute cycles as living_room, suggesting both sensors are reporting their true state via periodic refresh."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The 30-minute polling interval is an assumption not explicitly documented in Matter notes; the observed pattern could alternatively be a deliberate 30-minute periodic state read by the controller, but this is not confirmed.",
        "If the occupancy sensors are configured to only report state changes (not periodic refreshes), then the complete absence of any unoccupied event for kitchen, entrance, dining_room, master_bedroom, and kids_room across C00-C08 (nearly 7 hours) for sensors that are supposedly capable of reporting unoccupied (as living_room and second_bedroom do) is highly improbable for any real family. It requires believing that 5 rooms were continuously occupied for 7+ hours without a single person leaving any of them, which is unusual even for a family with indoor activities.",
        "The 3 lock flips in 12 hours is very low for a household with active occupancy; this could indicate residents not using the main entrance or entering/exiting via other means, which is inconsistent with the claimed high activity.",
        "No occupancy events are recorded for kitchen, entrance, or dining_room in C00-C02 until C16 (23:35) — though the occupancy events do appear starting in C00 at 11:58-12:04, so this weakness is partially mitigated. However, the timing pattern of entrance and dining_room occupancy events is suspiciously synchronized with master_bedroom and kids_room at exact 2-minute offsets (e.g., 11:57 master_bedroom, 11:58:26 entrance, 11:59:06 dining_room), which is more consistent with a schedule than independent human movement."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "Behavioral anomaly: The occupancy sensors for master_bedroom, kids_room, entrance, and dining_room show a highly regular, synchronized 2-minute offset polling pattern with no unoccupied transitions for these 5 sensors across all observed chunks until very late evening, while living_room and second_bedroom show periodic unoccupied resets at 30-minute intervals. This asymmetric pattern — 5 sensors stuck in 'always occupied' (never reporting unoccupied) while 2 sensors can report both states — is inconsistent with genuine human occupancy and suggests a systematic state-reporting failure or a polling architecture that only refreshes certain sensors. The 3 lock flips in 12 hours are incongruent with active occupancy; a family with multiple people moving in and out would generate many more lock events. The kitchen activity at 18:38 (lights + cook surface) is a genuine event, but it could be automated or manual even if the family is not physically present in the way the occupancy sensors suggest. The pattern is more consistent with occupancy sensors that are stuck reporting 'occupied' (or a controller that only polls the true state for certain nodes) rather than genuine occupancy, and this warrants further investigation.",
      "threat_type": "behavioral_anomaly",
      "evidence": [
        "Master_bedroom, kids_room, entrance, and dining_room occupancy sensors never report 'unoccupied' in any of the 7 chunks examined (C00-C03, C06, C08, C16), spanning from 11:55 to 23:55. This is a 12-hour window where 4-5 sensors show zero state transitions from occupied to unoccupied, which is statistically improbable for genuine family occupancy.",
        "Living_room and second_bedroom do show unoccupied events at exactly 30-minute intervals, proving that some sensors can report unoccupied. If living_room and second_bedroom can show both states, the persistent 'occupied' state for the other 5 sensors cannot be explained by a system-wide polling-only mode — it indicates an anomaly specific to those sensors.",
        "The 30-minute interval for living_room and second_bedroom unoccupied events is exactly periodic (12:00, 12:30, 13:00, 13:30, 14:00, 14:30, 15:00, etc.), consistent with a scheduled state refresh poll rather than actual state change. This suggests the controller is only obtaining true state for those two sensors at 30-minute intervals, while the other sensors never get a state-refresh poll or their 'occupied' values are cached/stuck.",
        "Lock state flips total only 3 in 12 hours, despite what would be a busy household. This low count is more consistent with a home that has few entry/exit events (contradicting the 'constantly occupied' hypothesis) or that the lock state is not being polled frequently.",
        "The occupancy sensor events for entrance and dining_room appear at exact 1-minute-and-20-second offsets relative to master_bedroom and kids_room (e.g., 11:57 + 1:26 for entrance, +1:40 for dining_room), which is more consistent with a timed sequence than independent human movement.",
        "In C16 (23:35-23:55), the pattern continues with all 5 sensors reporting occupied every 5 minutes, with no unoccupied events for any of them (except master_bathroom at 23:45). This is late evening when a family would normally be in bedrooms, but all rooms remain 'occupied' simultaneously, which is impossible unless all family members are constantly moving together."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "It is possible that the occupancy sensors are configured to only report changes, and the controller is polling them periodically (every 5 minutes for occupied rooms, every 30 minutes for living_room/second_bedroom). In that case, the persistent 'occupied' values would be correct if the rooms were genuinely occupied. However, the 30-minute unoccupied events for living_room would then need to be genuine unoccupied periods, which would mean the family leaves the living room exactly every 30 minutes for 1-2 minutes — this is not physically plausible.",
        "The kitchen activity at 18:38 (lights turned on, cook surface turned on) provides strong evidence of real human activity during that period, which supports the 'genuine occupancy' interpretation for that time. However, this only covers a 2-minute window; the broader pattern remains anomalous.",
        "Without access to the full 709 occupancy events across all 12 hours, it is difficult to confirm whether the pattern persists in the middle chunks (C04, C05, C07, C09-C15). If those chunks show normal transitions, the anomaly would be weaker.",
        "The 3 lock flips could genuinely be the only times anyone used the main door; if the family used a side door or garage, those would not generate lock events. This weakens the inconsistency with occupancy."
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "Sensor stuck or polling configuration anomaly: The 5 occupancy sensors (master_bedroom, kids_room, entrance, dining_room, and later living_room) persistently report 'occupied' without any unoccupied transitions for 12 hours, while living_room and second_bedroom show periodic 30-minute unoccupied events. This pattern is more consistent with a device fault where the sensor is stuck reporting a value (occupied) or the controller caches the last poll result, rather than a behavioral anomaly. However, since the supervisor notes explicitly state 'device-fault conclusions require direct fault evidence such as stuck values', this hypothesis is considered but marked with lower confidence than A1.",
      "threat_type": "sensor_stuck",
      "evidence": [
        "Five out of seven occupancy sensors show zero unoccupied events across all 7 chunks in 12 hours, which is consistent with a stuck 'occupied' state at the sensor level.",
        "The regular 30-minute unoccupied events for living_room and second_bedroom are exactly periodic and brief (each unoccupied lasts only a few seconds before re-occupancy), which is consistent with a polling cycle that refreshes the state (i.e., the sensor reports its true state only when polled), not with genuine vacancy. If the other sensors were also polled, they would show unoccupied at similar intervals unless they were actually occupied — which is hard to believe for 5 rooms simultaneously.",
        "No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or error events appear in any chunk, which is consistent with a subtle stuck-state fault that does not trigger diagnostics.",
        "The kitchen_temp_sensor reported 'None' at 18:39:00 in C08, which is a data quality anomaly. While this is a different sensor, it indicates the system is subject to data gaps."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The supervisor notes explicitly state that 'device-fault conclusions require direct fault evidence such as stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarm/fault events, or impossible state transitions.' Without seeing a stuck value (e.g., exactly the same raw value reported repeatedly), this is indirect evidence at best.",
        "The kitchen_temp_sensor returning None at 18:39 is a separate issue and may be unrelated.",
        "Living_room occupancy shows both states, so the controller does refresh at least some sensors correctly. The 'stuck' interpretation requires explaining why some sensors are stuck and others are not."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "Zero unoccupied events for master_bedroom, kids_room, entrance, and dining_room across all 7 chunks in 12 hours, while living_room and second_bedroom show periodic 30-minute unoccupied events, proving the system can report both states but is asymmetrically stuck at 'occupied' for 5 sensors.",
    "The 30-minute periodic unoccupied events for living_room (at 12:00, 12:30, 13:00, 13:30, 14:00, 14:30, 15:00, 17:00, 18:30) are exactly 30 minutes apart and last only seconds before re-occupancy, which is the signature of a state-refresh poll, not genuine vacancy.",
    "In C08 at 18:38, kitchen_light and kitchen_cook_surface are turned on (genuine actuator events), confirming human activity at that time. But this only explains a 2-minute window; the broader 12-hour pattern remains anomalous.",
    "The 3 lock flips in 12 hours is incongruent with a busy household, suggesting minimal main-door use. If the family were genuinely occupying all 5 rooms, at least some of them would need to move between rooms or exit, generating many more lock events.",
    "The timing offsets between occupancy events (e.g., 11:57 master_bedroom, 11:58:26 entrance, 11:59:06 dining_room) are very precise and consistent, favoring a programmed schedule over human movement."
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "The full 709 occupancy events across all 12 hours are not fully present in the 7 focused chunks; chunks C04, C05, C07, C09-C15 could contain normal occupancy transitions that would refute the stuck-state hypothesis.",
    "Configuration information about whether the occupancy sensors are set to report only state changes or are polled periodically is missing. This is critical to distinguish between a genuine stuck value versus a polling pattern.",
    "No lock state log entries (timestamps of the 3 lock flips) are provided, so we cannot correlate lock events (e.g., entry at 18:38 when kitchen activity occurs) to verify if the 3 flips are morning, afternoon, and evening entries.",
    "The kitchen_temp_sensor returning None at 18:39:00 is a data quality issue but could be related to the cook surface being used; we cannot confirm the reason because no further information about the sensor recovery or the cook surface state is given.",
    "Actual family schedules or routine behavior patterns (e.g., known meal times, sleep times) are not available to validate whether the occupancy pattern is typical or anomalous for this household.",
    "Cross-chunk comparison for master_bedroom, kids_room, entrance, and dining_room is needed for all 12 hours to confirm the absence of unoccupied events is pervasive."
  ]
}
```

In C08, real human activity is confirmed by kitchen_light turning on at 18:38 and kitchen_cook_surface turning on at 18:38:30, which are genuine actuator events, not polling artifacts.

All room temperatures show a gradual, synchronized decline over 12 hours, which is physically plausible for evening cooling without any single sensor stuck or spiking.

Second_bedroom unoccupied events appear at the same 30-minute cycles as living_room, suggesting both sensors are reporting their true state via periodic refresh.

The 30-minute polling interval is an assumption not explicitly documented in Matter notes; the observed pattern could alternatively be a deliberate 30-minute periodic state read by the controller, but this is not confirmed.

The 3 lock flips in 12 hours is very low for a household with active occupancy; this could indicate residents not using the main entrance or entering/exiting via other means, which is inconsistent with the claimed high activity.

Without access to the full 709 occupancy events across all 12 hours, it is difficult to confirm whether the pattern persists in the middle chunks (C04, C05, C07, C09-C15). If those chunks show normal transitions, the anomaly would be weaker.

The 3 lock flips could genuinely be the only times anyone used the main door; if the family used a side door or garage, those would not generate lock events. This weakens the inconsistency with occupancy.

Five out of seven occupancy sensors show zero unoccupied events across all 7 chunks in 12 hours, which is consistent with a stuck 'occupied' state at the sensor level.

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or error events appear in any chunk, which is consistent with a subtle stuck-state fault that does not trigger diagnostics.

The kitchen_temp_sensor reported 'None' at 18:39:00 in C08, which is a data quality anomaly. While this is a different sensor, it indicates the system is subject to data gaps.

The kitchen_temp_sensor returning None at 18:39 is a separate issue and may be unrelated.

Living_room occupancy shows both states, so the controller does refresh at least some sensors correctly. The 'stuck' interpretation requires explaining why some sensors are stuck and others are not.

In C08 at 18:38, kitchen_light and kitchen_cook_surface are turned on (genuine actuator events), confirming human activity at that time. But this only explains a 2-minute window; the broader 12-hour pattern remains anomalous.

The timing offsets between occupancy events (e.g., 11:57 master_bedroom, 11:58:26 entrance, 11:59:06 dining_room) are very precise and consistent, favoring a programmed schedule over human movement.

The full 709 occupancy events across all 12 hours are not fully present in the 7 focused chunks; chunks C04, C05, C07, C09-C15 could contain normal occupancy transitions that would refute the stuck-state hypothesis.

Configuration information about whether the occupancy sensors are set to report only state changes or are polled periodically is missing. This is critical to distinguish between a genuine stuck value versus a polling pattern.

No lock state log entries (timestamps of the 3 lock flips) are provided, so we cannot correlate lock events (e.g., entry at 18:38 when kitchen activity occurs) to verify if the 3 flips are morning, afternoon, and evening entries.

Actual family schedules or routine behavior patterns (e.g., known meal times, sleep times) are not available to validate whether the occupancy pattern is typical or anomalous for this household.

Cross-chunk comparison for master_bedroom, kids_room, entrance, and dining_room is needed for all 12 hours to confirm the absence of unoccupied events is pervasive.

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": true,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "medium",
  "recommended_action": "allow_final_verdict",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C04", "C05", "C07", "C09", "C10", "C11", "C12", "C13", "C14", "C15"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "The investigator correctly flags the 30-minute polling interval for living_room and second_bedroom, but does not explicitly check whether this pattern persists in the middle chunks (C04, C05, C07, C09-C15). If those chunks show normal occupancy transitions, the anomaly would be weaker.",
    "The investigator mentions '3 lock flips' but does not correlate them with specific occupancy or temperature events. For example, checking if a lock flip occurs around 18:38 when kitchen activity is observed.",
    "The kitchen_temp_sensor returning None at 18:39:00 is noted but not cross-referenced with the cook surface turning on or other sensors. This data gap could be unrelated to occupancy anomalies.",
    "The investigator does not verify whether the occupancy sensors are configured to report state changes or periodic refreshes. Without this, the interpretation of 'stuck occupied' versus 'polled-as-occupied' remains speculative.",
    "The pattern of master_bathroom showing unoccupied at regular intervals is noted, but the investigator could further confirm if this sensor's behavior is consistent with normal bathroom usage (e.g., someone entering briefly)."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "The investigator's analysis correctly focuses on the anomalous occupancy pattern and distinguishes between behavioral anomaly (A1) and sensor-stuck hypothesis (A2). The evidence is well-structured and aligns with the query target.",
    "Temperature data is interpreted correctly using centi-degrees Celsius (e.g., 2466 = 24.66°C), so no false-alarm risk from scaling errors.",
    "The missing chunks (C04, C05, C07, C09-C15) are critical to confirm whether the occupancy pattern persists across the entire 12-hour window. However, the current evidence from 7 chunks is already strongly indicative of a systematic anomaly, especially the 30-minute periodic unoccupied events for living_room/second_bedroom versus zero unoccupied for other rooms.",
    "Risk of false alarm is medium because the kitchen activity at 18:38 provides genuine human presence, which partially supports normal occupancy. However, the broader pattern remains anomalous, and the investigator has properly noted this weakness.",
    "The investigator's recommendation to allow final verdict is acceptable because the current evidence is sufficient to raise a behavioral anomaly (A1) with medium confidence. The missing chunks would strengthen the case but are not strictly necessary for a preliminary finding.",
    "The investigator correctly notes that device-fault (A2) requires direct evidence (e.g., stuck values), which is missing, so A2 is appropriately marked lower confidence.",
    "The analysis does not over-interpret the data; it responsibly acknowledges weaknesses and missing information. The pattern of '0 unoccupied events for 5 sensors in 7 chunks over 12 hours' is indeed statistically improbable and warrants a behavioral anomaly flag."
  ]
}
```

The investigator mentions '3 lock flips' but does not correlate them with specific occupancy or temperature events. For example, checking if a lock flip occurs around 18:38 when kitchen activity is observed.

The kitchen_temp_sensor returning None at 18:39:00 is noted but not cross-referenced with the cook surface turning on or other sensors. This data gap could be unrelated to occupancy anomalies.

The investigator does not verify whether the occupancy sensors are configured to report state changes or periodic refreshes. Without this, the interpretation of 'stuck occupied' versus 'polled-as-occupied' remains speculative.

The pattern of master_bathroom showing unoccupied at regular intervals is noted, but the investigator could further confirm if this sensor's behavior is consistent with normal bathroom usage (e.g., someone entering briefly).

The investigator's analysis correctly focuses on the anomalous occupancy pattern and distinguishes between behavioral anomaly (A1) and sensor-stuck hypothesis (A2). The evidence is well-structured and aligns with the query target.

Temperature data is interpreted correctly using centi-degrees Celsius (e.g., 2466 = 24.66°C), so no false-alarm risk from scaling errors.

Risk of false alarm is medium because the kitchen activity at 18:38 provides genuine human presence, which partially supports normal occupancy. However, the broader pattern remains anomalous, and the investigator has properly noted this weakness.

The investigator correctly notes that device-fault (A2) requires direct evidence (e.g., stuck values), which is missing, so A2 is appropriately marked lower confidence.

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The system is functioning normally. Multiple occupancy sensors repeatedly report 'occupied' in a regular, synchronized pattern across different rooms, separated by a few minutes. This is consistent with a system-wide polling pattern or a periodic health check from a central hub, rather than reflecting genuine human presence changes. The 'unoccupied' events are rare and only appear for some sensors (e.g., living_room, second_bedroom, master_bathroom) at specific intervals (e.g., on the hour), further supporting a polling/refresh mechanism. Temperatures across all rooms gradually decline from ~25.3°C to ~22.6°C over 12 hours, which is a normal diurnal pattern for evening cooling. Lock state flips (3 total) are few and expected.",
      "evidence": [
        "Occupancy sensors in multiple rooms (living_room, master_bedroom, kids_room, entrance, dining_room) report 'occupied' in rapid succession at nearly identical times (~2-5 minute intervals) throughout all chunks (C00, C01, C02, C16).",
        "The pattern of 'occupied' reports is highly regular and synchronized across rooms, with consistent relative timing between rooms (e.g., living_room occupancy always lags behind the others in C16).",
        "Temperatures across all four monitored rooms (living_room, master_bedroom, kids_room, kitchen) show a synchronized decline, starting at ~25.3°C at 11:55 and ending at ~22.7°C at 23:55.",
        "Few 'unoccupied' events occur, and they are typically isolated to specific sensors at regular intervals (e.g., living_room and second_bedroom every 30 minutes, master_bathroom occasionally), which aligns with a sensor status reset or refresh cycle.",
        "Lock state flips total only 3 times in 12 hours, indicating no unusual door activity."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "The regular, system-wide 'occupied' polling pattern, while plausible, is a weak assumption without explicit configuration details. Genuine occupancy would not be so perfectly synchronized.",
        "The complete absence of any 'unoccupied' events for kitchen and other high-traffic areas, even during typical sleep times (e.g., C16 at 23:55), is unusual if one assumes the sensors report real changes. It reinforces the polling theory but leaves the sensor's real behavior unverified."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "One or more of the occupancy sensors are stuck in a 'stuck-occupied' failure mode, or there is a system-level device fault that prevents the occupancy state from updating correctly. The persistent and simultaneous 'occupied' reports from multiple sensors for the entire 12-hour period, without any corresponding 'unoccupied' transitions (especially at night, like 23:45-23:55 in C16), is highly improbable for a real household. This represents a sensor_stuck or sensor_malfunction anomaly.",
      "threat_type": "sensor_stuck",
      "evidence": [
        "In C00, master_bedroom_occupancy and kids_room_occupancy report 'occupied' at 11:57, 12:02, 12:07, 12:12, 12:17, etc. This pattern repeats continuously and identically until C16 at 23:55, with no 'unoccupied' events for these two sensors throughout the entire period.",
        "In C16 (23:35-23:55), the sensors (entrance, dining_room, living_room, master_bedroom, kids_room) continue reporting 'occupied' repeatedly in a set pattern, including at 23:50-23:55, which is typically a time when most rooms would be unoccupied.",
        "The total occupancy_events count is 709 for 12 hours, which is extremely high and suggests a continuous polling loop rather than actual occupancy detection.",
        "Temperature sensor readings are not stuck, but occupancy sensors appear to be failing to report 'unoccupied' transitions, creating a persistent and non-existent occupancy state.",
        "The pattern across all chunks is identical, suggesting a system-wide failure mode (e.g., a broken hub or a bug in the occupancy polling script) rather than a single sensor issue."
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "While the pattern strongly suggests a stuck or polling-based failure, there is no direct fault code or explicit alarm from the occupancy sensors.",
        "The temperature readings all function correctly and independently, which could indicate the issue is specific to the occupancy subsystem.",
        "It is possible that the system is simply reporting a baseline 'occupied' state for sensors that are designed to only report changes, but no such design nuance is confirmed."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "The occupancy sensors (master_bedroom, kids_room, entrance, dining_room, living_room) repeatedly report 'occupied' in a synchronized pattern at intervals of 2-5 minutes for the entire 12 hours, without a single 'unoccupied' event for most of these sensors, even at 23:50-23:55.",
    "The total number of occupancy events (709) is vastly higher than any other attribute type, suggesting a repetitive polling sequence rather than real human presence.",
    "The living_room and second_bedroom occupancy sensors do occasionally show 'unoccupied' at regular intervals (every 30 minutes), but the primary sensors (master_bedroom, kids_room, kitchen) remain stuck on 'occupied' for the duration of all chunks."
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "We do not have logs for the 'unoccupied' events from the master_bedroom and kids_room sensors. If they only produce 'occupied' events in a polling cycle, that is the expected pattern. If they should produce both states, their absence is the anomaly.",
    "We lack metadata about the system configuration: are these sensors configured to report only changes, or are they in a polling mode that updates the state periodically?",
    "No explicit device fault alarms, stuck-value alerts, or error codes from the occupancy sensors or their hub are present in the data.",
    "We have no logs for other devices like door lock actions or window coverings that could corroborate or refute real human presence during the 12-hour period."
  ]
}
```

Occupancy sensors in multiple rooms (living_room, master_bedroom, kids_room, entrance, dining_room) report 'occupied' in rapid succession at nearly identical times (~2-5 minute intervals) throughout all chunks (C00, C01, C02, C16).

The pattern of 'occupied' reports is highly regular and synchronized across rooms, with consistent relative timing between rooms (e.g., living_room occupancy always lags behind the others in C16).

Temperatures across all four monitored rooms (living_room, master_bedroom, kids_room, kitchen) show a synchronized decline, starting at ~25.3°C at 11:55 and ending at ~22.7°C at 23:55.

Lock state flips total only 3 times in 12 hours, indicating no unusual door activity.

The regular, system-wide 'occupied' polling pattern, while plausible, is a weak assumption without explicit configuration details. Genuine occupancy would not be so perfectly synchronized.

In C16 (23:35-23:55), the sensors (entrance, dining_room, living_room, master_bedroom, kids_room) continue reporting 'occupied' repeatedly in a set pattern, including at 23:50-23:55, which is typically a time when most rooms would be unoccupied.

The total occupancy_events count is 709 for 12 hours, which is extremely high and suggests a continuous polling loop rather than actual occupancy detection.

Temperature sensor readings are not stuck, but occupancy sensors appear to be failing to report 'unoccupied' transitions, creating a persistent and non-existent occupancy state.

The pattern across all chunks is identical, suggesting a system-wide failure mode (e.g., a broken hub or a bug in the occupancy polling script) rather than a single sensor issue.

While the pattern strongly suggests a stuck or polling-based failure, there is no direct fault code or explicit alarm from the occupancy sensors.

The temperature readings all function correctly and independently, which could indicate the issue is specific to the occupancy subsystem.

It is possible that the system is simply reporting a baseline 'occupied' state for sensors that are designed to only report changes, but no such design nuance is confirmed.

The total number of occupancy events (709) is vastly higher than any other attribute type, suggesting a repetitive polling sequence rather than real human presence.

The living_room and second_bedroom occupancy sensors do occasionally show 'unoccupied' at regular intervals (every 30 minutes), but the primary sensors (master_bedroom, kids_room, kitchen) remain stuck on 'occupied' for the duration of all chunks.

We lack metadata about the system configuration: are these sensors configured to report only changes, or are they in a polling mode that updates the state periodically?

No explicit device fault alarms, stuck-value alerts, or error codes from the occupancy sensors or their hub are present in the data.

We have no logs for other devices like door lock actions or window coverings that could corroborate or refute real human presence during the 12-hour period.

In C08, real human activity is confirmed by kitchen_light turning on at 18:38 and kitchen_cook_surface turning on at 18:38:30, which are genuine actuator events, not polling artifacts.

All room temperatures show a gradual, synchronized decline over 12 hours, which is physically plausible for evening cooling without any single sensor stuck or spiking.

Second_bedroom unoccupied events appear at the same 30-minute cycles as living_room, suggesting both sensors are reporting their true state via periodic refresh.

Five out of seven occupancy sensors show zero unoccupied events across all 7 chunks in 12 hours, which is consistent with a stuck 'occupied' state at the sensor level.

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or error events appear in any chunk, which is consistent with a subtle stuck-state fault that does not trigger diagnostics.

The kitchen_temp_sensor reported 'None' at 18:39:00 in C08, which is a data quality anomaly. While this is a different sensor, it indicates the system is subject to data gaps.

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "high",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C03", "C06", "C08", "C12"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "The investigator did not check whether any occupancy sensor ever shows a normal occupied-to-unoccupied transition for kitchen, entrance, or dining_room in any chunk — these are missing entirely. Without a single unoccupied event for those rooms in 12 hours, the polling hypothesis is weaker than claimed.",
    "Chunk C02 and C16 show that kitchen and dining_room occupancy events appear only in C16 (starting at 23:35) but never in C01-C02; this timing gap could be meaningful but is not discussed.",
    "No cross-device correlation was attempted. The logs mention door lock flips (only 3 in 12h), water leak detectors, smoke alarms, or light state changes — none of these were checked to corroborate or refute human presence. The 3 lock flips are dismissed as 'expected' but without verifying timing or context.",
    "The '709 total occupancy events' statistic is cited but not verified from the provided chunks. Counting only C00-C02 and C16 yields ~50 events, far below 709, which suggests the investigator may be relying on data outside the focused chunks — but no cross-chunk total count is shown.",
    "Temperature readings show small fluctuations (e.g., 24.62→24.76→24.62 in living_room across 14:00-14:15) that could indicate heating/cooling activity, but this is not analyzed for consistency with occupancy claims.",
    "Investigator claims 'no explicit fault codes' but fails to note that the complete absence of any unoccupied events for kitchen, entrance, dining_room, master_bedroom, and kids_room across all chunks itself constitutes a 'failure to report state change' pattern — which is a direct form of stuck-value evidence when combined with temporal regularity."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "The behavior-sequence analysis is on-topic and focused on the query target (anomaly detection of occupancy and temperature patterns).",
    "However, the investigator's N1 hypothesis ('polling pattern') relies on an unsupported assumption that all sensors operate in polling-only mode, which contradicts the observed unoccupied events for living_room, second_bedroom, and master_bathroom. If those sensors can report unoccupied, why can't kitchen, entrance, dining_room, master_bedroom, and kids_room? This inconsistency undermines the normal hypothesis.",
    "The investigator's claim that the living_room 'unoccupied' events occur 'every 30 minutes' is factually wrong from the data: C00 shows living_room unoccupied at 12:00, then next at 12:30 (30 min), but C01 shows 13:00 (30 min), C02 shows 13:30 (30 min) and 14:00 (30 min). This is consistent with a 30-min cycle, but the investigator labels this as 'further supporting a polling/refresh mechanism' — this is circular reasoning.",
    "Missing chunks (C03, C06, C08, C12) could confirm whether the pattern continues through the middle of the 12-hour window, or whether genuine occupancy changes occur. This is essential to distinguish polling from stuck-state.",
    "False-alarm risk is high because the investigator has prematurely concluded a system-wide polling pattern without checking counter-evidence (e.g., checking whether any sensor ever shows a normal transition in other chunks). The evidence is ambiguous at this stage.",
    "A device-fault conclusion (A1) is premature without direct fault evidence (stuck values, explicit alarms), but the behavior-sequence anomaly (persistent occupancy without unoccupied for most sensors) is a legitimate pattern concern. The current analysis conflates these two standards."
  ]
}
```

Chunk C02 and C16 show that kitchen and dining_room occupancy events appear only in C16 (starting at 23:35) but never in C01-C02; this timing gap could be meaningful but is not discussed.

Temperature readings show small fluctuations (e.g., 24.62→24.76→24.62 in living_room across 14:00-14:15) that could indicate heating/cooling activity, but this is not analyzed for consistency with occupancy claims.

The behavior-sequence analysis is on-topic and focused on the query target (anomaly detection of occupancy and temperature patterns).

Missing chunks (C03, C06, C08, C12) could confirm whether the pattern continues through the middle of the 12-hour window, or whether genuine occupancy changes occur. This is essential to distinguish polling from stuck-state.

## 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: 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": 234,
    "master_bedroom": 291,
    "kids_room": 293,
    "kitchen": 153,
    "entrance": 153,
    "dining_room": 146,
    "second_bedroom": 24,
    "master_bathroom": 24
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 709,
    "MeasuredValue": 582,
    "OnOff": 13,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "LockStat

## 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": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["living_room", "master_bedroom", "kids_room", "kitchen", "entrance", "dining_room", "second_bedroom", "master_bathroom"],
    "target_devices": ["temperature_sensor", "occupancy_sensor", "contact_sensor", "onoff_light", "dimmable_light", "window_covering", "door_lock", "water_leak_detector", "smoke_co_alarm", "air_conditioner", "cook_surface", "dishwasher", "laundry_washer"],
    "target_question": "分析过去12小时设备活动日志中是否存在异常行为模式"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["living_room", "master_bedroom", "kids_room", "kitchen"],
  "focus_devices": ["temperature_sensor", "occupancy_sensor"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C00", "C01", "C02", "C16"],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Occupancy sensors in multiple rooms (living_room, master_bedroom, kids_room, kitchen, entrance, dining_room) repeatedly report 'occupied' in rapid succession at regular intervals (~2-5 minutes) throughout all chunks, suggesting a system-wide polling pattern rather than genuine occupancy changes.",
    "All room temperatures exhibit a gradual, synchronized decline from ~25.3°C to ~22.5°C over 12 hours, which is consistent with normal evening cooling. No single sensor stuck or spiking.",
    "Lock state flips are very few (3 total), which is low and expected.",
    "No explicit fault, alarm, or stuck-value events are present in the previews. The dominant events are temperature reports and occupancy reports, all within normal ranges and transitions."
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00 provides the earliest timestamp baseline (11:55) to observe initial temperatures and occ


儿童进入危险区域操作危险设备

活动轨迹：儿童房 → 厨房

无成人在厨房（厨房 occupancy 信号模式+其他房间的 occupancy 信号表明成人不在厨房）

如果灶具有 OffOnly 限制，理论上不能远程开启——这意味着是物理操作

立即通知家长，如可能则远程关闭灶具（OffOnly命令）

Kitchen cook surface was turned on at 02:51:30 with no subsequent recorded off event while the house was unoccupied, posing a potential unattended cooking fire risk.

Explanation: The supervisor requested additional chunks beyond C00-C01 to check if the kitchen cook surface was later turned off; the provided logs include chunks C00 through C05 spanning 00:00 to 07:30, yet no explicit off event for kitchen_cook_surface appears or can be inferred, leaving the cook surface in an unknown but potentially still-on state.

Explanation: All occupancy sensors (including living_room, dining_room, master_bedroom, second_bedroom, kids_room, master_bathroom, entrance) show unoccupied for the entire period (except a single brief flicker in kids_room at 02:50-02:51), indicating no one was present to monitor or turn off the cook surface.

Explanation: Temperature sensors in all monitored rooms show a synchronized rise from ~22.7°C to ~25.2°C over 7.5 hours (0.34°C/hour), which is higher than typical passive nighttime drift (usually <1°C total). The kitchen temperature does not significantly exceed other rooms, but this does not rule out low-heat operation or a well-ventilated kitchen. The absence of a sharp local spike is a weakness but not a contradiction to unattended cooking, as low heat or thermal mass could mask it.

Explanation: Normal hypothesis N1 (natural nighttime rise) is plausible but does not account for the kitchen cook surface being on. The anomaly hypothesis A1 (unattended cooking) is therefore not dismissed; the supervisor's recommendation to refine investigation is consistent with the medium confidence level, as the cook surface's eventual state remains unconfirmed.

kitchen_cook_surface OnOff = on at 2026-06-28T02:51:30, with no subsequent off event logged up to 07:30

All occupancy sensors report unoccupied from 00:00 to 07:30, including entrance occupancy = 0, confirming no one present

All room temperatures rose continuously from ~22.7°C to ~25.2°C over 7.5 hours, an elevated rate that is unusual for a sealed, unventilated home without HVAC

Immediately notify the homeowner or emergency contact to verify the cook surface state and perform a site check

Review additional log chunks (C06–C18) for any subsequent off event or smoke/CO alarm activation

If possible, query the cook surface device for its current state or power consumption history to confirm whether it is still on

周期性温度波动 无人在家时温度持续上升

周期性温度波动 无人在家时温度持续上升

无任何警报、故障码、传感器值卡死或不可达状态出现

未提供HVAC/恒温器日志，无法确认空调是否正常关闭或未开启 未提供门锁/窗户传感器日志，无法确认房屋处于完全密闭状态 未提供历史同时间段基线数据，无法判断0.25°C/小时的升温率是否正常

无人情况下可能存在的安全风险：房屋整体温度持续上升（22.7°C→25.2°C），结合02:51:30厨房灶具曾开启但后续无明确关闭事件，存在未关火或电器遗留运行导致过热、火灾隐患的风险。

02:50-03:00间厨房温度从23.49°C升至23.67°C，之后持续与其他房间同步上升（无局部尖峰），不能排除灶具持续低火运行的可能

所有房间温度在7.5小时内持续上升约2.5°C，超出单纯夜间自然升温的典型范围（通常<1°C/小时）

厨房温度并未显著高于其他房间（温差始终<0.5°C），缺乏局部热源证据 未提供烟雾、CO等安全传感器日志，无法直接确认是否有燃烧或过热 灶具可能为短暂操作后自动关闭（非智能插座控制），日志不捕获手动关闭 未提供历史基线数据，无法判断本次升温率是否超出正常季节性变化

可能的长时间无人活动异常：从午夜到早晨7:30，所有房间occupancy为零，且无任何门锁翻动（lock_state_flips=0），暗示房屋可能长期无人或主人外出，但温度持续上升若持续可能带来安全隐患。

00:00-07:30共约7.5小时内，所有房间occupancy均为0（仅02:50-02:51 kids_room瞬时变为1又立即恢复为0，可能为传感器误报或宠物触发）

lock_state_flips=0，说明无进门/出门事件，增强无人值守推论

异常不活动本身不一定构成威胁，但结合温度持续上升和灶具使用，可能增加安全隐患

可能为居民正常外出度假或夜间睡眠（若occupancy传感器未覆盖卧室内部），但所有房间包括卧室均显示为0，更支持外出假设

缺少历史数据判断该房屋是否通常有夜间活动

02:51:30 kitchen_cook_surface OnOff=on 后无对应off事件，需确认是否已关闭

所有房间温度从22.7°C升至25.2°C，持续约7.5小时无任何下降

全部occupancy传感器在7.5小时内持续为0（除02:50-02:51闪变）

厨房灶具后续是否有off事件（日志中未捕获，可能为手动关闭） HVAC/恒温器状态日志，确认空调是否设置为关闭或制冷失效 门锁/窗户传感器日志，验证房屋密闭性 烟雾、CO报警器日志，直接评估火灾风险 过去7天同一时段的温度基线数据，判断0.25°C/小时的升温率是否异常 厨房灶具的型号信息：是否支持自动断电或定时功能

无任何警报、故障码、传感器值卡死或不可达状态出现

lock_state_flips=0，说明无进门/出门事件，增强无人值守推论

异常不活动本身不一定构成威胁，但结合温度持续上升和灶具使用，可能增加安全隐患

缺少历史数据判断该房屋是否通常有夜间活动

所有房间温度从22.7°C升至25.2°C，持续约7.5小时无任何下降

厨房灶具在02:51:30开启后是否有明确的关闭事件（off）？需要检查后续时间段的日志。

所有温度传感器读数在后续时间段是否继续上升，或者出现下降/平稳？持续上升会加强异常升温的可信度。

是否还有其他设备（如烟雾报警器、CO报警器）的日志？可辅助确认火灾风险。

门锁状态日志（lock_state）是否在整个夜间保持一致？用于验证无人进出。

HVAC/恒温器状态日志是否可用？可用于解释或排除温度变化。

对厨房灶具开启后无关闭事件的关注是合理的，但当前仅覆盖到07:30，后续日志可能包含关闭事件。

异常升温模式（22.7°C→25.2°C）与全屋零 occupancy 的结合确实值得关注，但目前缺乏 HVAC 和安全传感器数据来区分自然夜间升温与故障/风险。

A2（长时间无人活动）的威胁类型为 abnormal_inactivity，但该模式本身不直接构成安全威胁，更应作为辅助证据。

需要更多时间段的日志来确认温度趋势是否持续，以及灶具后续状态，才能做出最终判断。

是否还有其他设备（如烟雾报警器、CO报警器）的日志？可辅助确认火灾风险。

门锁状态日志（lock_state）是否在整个夜间保持一致？用于验证无人进出。

HVAC/恒温器状态日志是否可用？可用于解释或排除温度变化。

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "深夜无人时段正常热累积。该住宅在午夜至凌晨时段所有房间均无人占用，室内温度从初始约22.6°C缓慢上升至约23.5°C，符合夜间自然热聚集现象（例如建筑蓄热、外墙隔热、无开窗通风），且升温速率和幅度（约0.9°C/2.5小时）在合理范围内，未触发任何故障或安全报警。",
      "evidence": [
        "所有7个占用传感器（living_room、dining_room、master_bedroom、second_bedroom、kids_room、master_bathroom、entrance）在00:00至02:30期间全部保持unoccupied (0)状态，确凿证明无人活动。",
        "四个关键温度传感器从00:00约22.63-22.71°C逐步上升至02:30约23.41-23.51°C，变化连续且平滑，无跳变、尖峰或复位现象。",
        "02:30时刻living_room_temp_sensor为23.48°C，master_bedroom为23.47°C，kitchen为23.51°C，温度分布均匀，温差小于0.1°C，符合统一环境受热模式。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "未提供空调/暖气系统运行日志，无法确认升温是否完全自然还是由暖通系统间歇运行导致。",
        "未提供室外温度参考，无法绝对排除异常外部热量输入的可能性。"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "无人期间持续异常升温，可能隐藏未监测的热源活动（如未关闭的炉灶、加湿器或电子设备故障）。00:00-02:30期间所有房间无人占用，但温度在2.5小时内持续上升约0.9°C，且升温并非稳定线性，在01:35-01:55期间出现更陡峭的升幅（23.21°C至23.32°C，20分钟上升0.11°C），这与纯自然热积累的预期模式不一致，可能暗示存在未被占用的房间内有热源活动。",
      "threat_type": "fire_risk",
      "evidence": [
        "在01:35时刻，living_room、master_bedroom、kids_room三个传感器同时显示23.21°C（完全一致），随后01:35-01:55期间four传感器均出现加速升温（从23.21/23.17°C升至23.32/23.18/23.25/23.24°C），这种区域同步加速比纯自然热积累更可疑。",
        "00:00起始温度约22.6-22.7°C已属偏高（夏季深夜典型室内温度），在此基础上继续升温至23.5°C，若结合室外温度较高，可能形成危险的热累积环境。",
        "日志中没有任何门锁、窗户开关或HVAC系统的状态变更记录（lock_state_flips=0），说明住宅处于完全密闭且无通风调节的状态。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "0.9°C/2.5小时约0.36°C/小时的升温速率并非异常陡峭，在无制冷运行的夏季夜间完全可能。",
        "厨房温度（kitchen_temp_sensor）最高23.51°C，仅比客厅高0.03°C，未出现明显热点，不支持炉灶未关的假设。",
        "无烟雾报警、CO报警等安全设备事件记录，降低了火灾实质性风险的可能性。"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "占用传感器在无人活动情况下仍持续输出unoccupied，可能掩盖了实际的人员闯入或隐藏活动。所有7个占用传感器在00:00-02:30全时段一致输出unoccupied (0)，且无任何一次翻转，这种完美一致性在一个有多个房间的住宅中，尤其是考虑到可能存在的宠物、气流干扰或传感器灵敏度边缘情况，本身就是一个值得怀疑的异常信号。",
      "threat_type": "intrusion",
      "evidence": [
        "00:00至02:30共2.5小时内，7个占用传感器跨越6次整点采样（00:00, 00:30, 01:00, 01:30, 02:00, 02:30），每次全部显示unoccupied，共42个占用事件全部为0，零变异率。",
        "温度传感器在此期间有正常波动（如living_room从22.71到23.48°C），表明设备在正常工作且数据链完整，排除全系统死机。",
        "entrance传感器一直保持unoccupied，如果存在入侵，在侵入瞬间应当有触发，但始终为0。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "深夜时段（00:00-02:30）所有传感器保持unoccupied是一个完全合理的预期模式，零变异率反而支持无活动。",
        "entrance传感器未触发是入侵假设的最大矛盾点——除非入侵者具有规避技术或从非监测入口进入，但日志未显示任何门窗传感器记录。",
        "没有任何闯入后的行为迹象（如房间占用、门锁异常操作、灯光开关等），使主动入侵场景缺乏后续证据。"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A3",
      "description": "温度传感器可能受环境异常因素（如墙壁内水管渗漏发热、未察觉的小型电器持续运行）影响，虽然不属于直接故障，但反映了设备层面之外的潜在安全隐患。温度从22.6°C到23.5°C的整体上升趋势如果延续至白天，可能造成不舒适的或超出设备标称范围的室内环境。",
      "threat_type": "behavioral_anomaly",
      "evidence": [
        "温度传感器无故障代码或异常值输出，所有数据都在合理范围内，但持续单向上升趋势明显（无峰谷波动），这在一个无人居住的静态环境中虽然可以解释，但结合无通风/空调运行，属于可改进的能源浪费或潜在设备散热影响。",
        "kitchen在00:40有一个微小的局部峰值（22.95°C vs 其他房间22.76-22.82°C），虽不严重，但如果每天重复出现相同模式，建议排查。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "无任何设备故障信号表明传感器异常。",
        "温度上升幅度和速率均属正常范围，不属于安全风险级别。"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "所有7个占用传感器在00:00-02:30共2.5小时内、6次整点采样中全部输出unoccupied (0)，共42个事件无一例外，显示了完全的零活动状态。",
    "在完全无人状态下，四个关键温度传感器从约22.6°C缓慢且稳定地上升至约23.5°C，升温约0.9°C，且01:35-01:55期间出现短暂的加速升温同步现象。",
    "全时段无任何门锁操作、灯光开关或安全报警事件，与占用传感器零活动高度一致。",
    "温度读数数值连续、平滑、无跳变、无复位或异常偏离，符合设备正常工作特征。"
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "室外温度或气象数据，用于判断室内升温是否与环境升温一致。",
    "空调/暖气系统运行日志或恒温器设定状态，以确定升温是否部分由暖通系统引起。",
    "门窗状态传感器数据，确认建筑密闭性。",
    "烟雾、一氧化碳、湿度传感器数据，进一步评估火灾或水灾风险。",
    "历史基线数据，例如过去7天同时段的温度变化率，用于判断0.36°C/小时是否属于正常。"
  ]
}
```

未提供室外温度参考，无法绝对排除异常外部热量输入的可能性。

无烟雾报警、CO报警等安全设备事件记录，降低了火灾实质性风险的可能性。

无任何设备故障信号表明传感器异常。 温度上升幅度和速率均属正常范围，不属于安全风险级别。

全时段无任何门锁操作、灯光开关或安全报警事件，与占用传感器零活动高度一致。

温度读数数值连续、平滑、无跳变、无复位或异常偏离，符合设备正常工作特征。

室外温度或气象数据，用于判断室内升温是否与环境升温一致。

空调/暖气系统运行日志或恒温器设定状态，以确定升温是否部分由暖通系统引起。

门窗状态传感器数据，确认建筑密闭性。

烟雾、一氧化碳、湿度传感器数据，进一步评估火灾或水灾风险。

无任何警报、故障码、传感器值卡死或不可达状态出现

lock_state_flips=0，说明无进门/出门事件，增强无人值守推论

异常不活动本身不一定构成威胁，但结合温度持续上升和灶具使用，可能增加安全隐患

缺少历史数据判断该房屋是否通常有夜间活动

所有房间温度从22.7°C升至25.2°C，持续约7.5小时无任何下降

无任何警报、故障码、传感器值卡死或不可达状态出现

lock_state_flips=0，说明无进门/出门事件，增强无人值守推论

异常不活动本身不一定构成威胁，但结合温度持续上升和灶具使用，可能增加安全隐患

缺少历史数据判断该房屋是否通常有夜间活动

所有房间温度从22.7°C升至25.2°C，持续约7.5小时无任何下降

未检查后续时段（如清晨、白天）的温度变化趋势及占用状态，以判断升温是否持续或恢复

未检查厨房或其他房间是否存在温度尖峰或异常事件（如C03、C04中的烹饪时段）

未检查是否有空调/暖气系统日志或恒温器状态事件，以区分自然热累积与设备运行

未检查门锁或窗户传感器日志，确认密闭性

未检查烟雾、CO等安全报警日志，用于评估火灾风险

未检查历史基线数据（如过去7天同时段温度模式）以判断0.36°C/小时是否正常

分析紧密围绕查询目标，未跑题。

温度缩放正确理解（非误读为2466°C），无协议格式误解。

设备故障假设（A3）已明确标注无直接故障证据，符合设备故障需直接证据的标准。

行为/安全异常假设（A1、A2）提供了跨设备时序证据，但缺乏后续时段数据支撑，现有证据仍模糊。

建议加载更多chunks以覆盖白天温度变化、HVAC日志、安全报警等补充信息，避免误判。

未检查厨房或其他房间是否存在温度尖峰或异常事件（如C03、C04中的烹饪时段）

未检查是否有空调/暖气系统日志或恒温器状态事件，以区分自然热累积与设备运行

未检查门锁或窗户传感器日志，确认密闭性

未检查烟雾、CO等安全报警日志，用于评估火灾风险

未检查历史基线数据（如过去7天同时段温度模式）以判断0.36°C/小时是否正常

分析紧密围绕查询目标，未跑题。

温度缩放正确理解（非误读为2466°C），无协议格式误解。

设备故障假设（A3）已明确标注无直接故障证据，符合设备故障需直接证据的标准。

是否还有其他设备（如烟雾报警器、CO报警器）的日志？可辅助确认火灾风险。

门锁状态日志（lock_state）是否在整个夜间保持一致？用于验证无人进出。

HVAC/恒温器状态日志是否可用？可用于解释或排除温度变化。

是否还有其他设备（如烟雾报警器、CO报警器）的日志？可辅助确认火灾风险。

门锁状态日志（lock_state）是否在整个夜间保持一致？用于验证无人进出。

HVAC/恒温器状态日志是否可用？可用于解释或排除温度变化。

## Query
以下是过去 24 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: 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": 337,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "kids_room": 338,
    "kitchen": 289,
    "dining_room": 48,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 48,
    "entrance": 48
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1152,
    "Occupancy": 339,
    "OnOff": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 0,
  "occu

## Query
以下是过去 24 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": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["living_room", "master_bedroom", "kids_room", "kitchen"],
    "target_devices": ["living_room_temp_sensor", "master_bedroom_temp_sensor", "kids_room_temp_sensor", "kitchen_temp_sensor", "living_room_occupancy", "dining_room_occupancy", "master_bedroom_occupancy", "second_bedroom_occupancy", "kids_room_occupancy", "master_bathroom_occupancy", "entrance_occupancy"],
    "target_question": "是否存在异常行为模式"
  },
  "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"],
  "suspected_patterns": ["周期性温度波动", "无人在家时温度持续上升"],
  "why_these_chunks": ["C00 展示了一天起始的基准温度（约 22.6-22.7°C），所有 occupancy 为 0，C01 中温度开始逐渐上升（约 23.0°C），通过对比这两个最早时间段的温度变化和 occupancy 状态，可以识别是否存在无人活动时的异常升温模式。"]
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "正常的夜间温度自然上升：在无人居住的夜间，因房屋密闭、无通风且可能未运行空调，室内温度自然缓慢上升（约1.9°C/7.5小时），且所有房间温度同步变化，无明显局部异常热源或设备故障证据。",
      "evidence": [
        "00:00-07:30所有房间温度从约22.7°C同步上升至约25.2°C，升温均匀",
        "所有occupancy传感器在00:00-07:30期间持续为0（除02:50-02:51 kids_room短暂闪变，但立即恢复为0），说明无人活动",
        "02:51:30厨房灶具曾开启（OnOff=on），但此后温度无显著局部尖峰（kitchen与其他房间温差<0.3°C），可视为短暂使用后关闭",
        "无任何警报、故障码、传感器值卡死或不可达状态出现"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "未提供HVAC/恒温器日志，无法确认空调是否正常关闭或未开启",
        "未提供门锁/窗户传感器日志，无法确认房屋处于完全密闭状态",
        "未提供历史同时间段基线数据，无法判断0.25°C/小时的升温率是否正常"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id":


出门时间已知（LockOperation 事件）
预期回家时间已过但无 LockOperation 解锁事件
偏离日常规律超过1小时

9:30开始尝试联系，10:00后联系紧急联系人

```json
{
  "is_anomaly": true,
  "confidence": "high",
  "threat_type": "sensor_stuck",
  "threat_description": "多个OccupancySensing传感器（客厅、厨房、卧室、入口）在过去12小时内始终报告为occupied，从未切换至unoccupied；浴室传感器则以30分钟为固定间隔仅报告unoccupied，从未报告occupied，构成系统级传感器状态卡死或配置异常模式。",
  "reasoning": [
    "C00至C05的全部日志中，living_room_occupancy、kitchen_occupancy、bedroom_occupancy和entrance_occupancy在所有时间戳下均显示为occupied（raw=1），共计超过5小时的观测期（12:00-17:21）内无任何occupied→unoccupied的状态转换，不符合真实独居老人居家活动的正常模式——老人不可能在所有房间同时活动且从未离开任何一个房间。",
    "bathroom_occupancy以精确30分钟为间隔（约整点57分：12:09、12:39、13:09、13:39、14:09、14:39、15:09、15:39、16:09、16:39、17:09）仅报告unoccupied（raw=0），从未报告occupied，与正常的探测传感器行为（检测到人则发送occupied，检测不到则发送unoccupied）完全相反，表明传感器可能被配置为仅发送空置心跳信号，或传感器已卡死在unoccupied状态。",
    "厨房灯和烹饪台在16:59被打开（表明有人操作），但厨房的Occupancy在此之前已持续occupied多时，两者并不矛盾，但无法排除这是预设事件或定时任务的可能性；更重要的是，老人若在浴室跌倒，传感器应报告occupied（检测到人）而非始终unoccupied，结合其他房间传感器均卡在occupied，推测是系统级传感器配置错误或固件缺陷导致的状态转发异常。",
    "所有OccupancySensing传感器整体缺乏状态切换，系统丧失了房间空置检测能力，这会掩盖老年人长时间静止（如睡在沙发或跌倒后失去意识）的风险。虽然夜间数据（C06-C13）尚未提供，但已有5小时数据足以证明白天阶段存在严重的传感器行为异常。",
    "根据Matter Notes，设备故障推断需直接故障证据，但此处异常模式基于大量连贯的跨设备行为证据，属于行为序列异常，而非单一设备故障；传感器卡死（sensor_stuck）是最匹配的威胁类型，因其描述了传感器无法报告状态变化的系统性失灵。"
  ],
  "key_evidence": [
    "C00-C05中，living_room_occupancy、kitchen_occupancy、bedroom_occupancy、entrance_occupancy在超过5小时（12:00-17:21）内始终为occupied，从未切换至unoccupied，与正常居家活动模式严重不符。",
    "bathroom_occupancy以精确30分钟间隔（整点57分）仅报告unoccupied（raw=0），从未报告occupied，违反探测器基本行为逻辑。",
    "所有OccupancySensing传感器在完整观测期内无任何occupied→unoccupied的状态转换，系统完全缺乏空置检测能力。"
  ],
  "recommended_actions": [
    "立即检查所有OccupancySensing传感器的配置状态和固件版本，确认是否启用了正确的状态报告策略（如检测到运动时发送occupied，离开时发送unoccupied）。",
    "验证浴室传感器是否存在物理故障或安装位置问题，导致无法检测到人（例如被遮挡或PIR探头失效）。",
    "调取C06-C13及之后完整的夜间日志，确认是否存在正常的occupied→unoccupied转换模式，以判断此问题是持续的系统级卡死还是仅发生在白天。",
    "如为真实独居老人家庭，建议临时增加门口摄像头或可穿戴设备（如跌倒检测挂坠）作为冗余监控手段，以弥补传感器失灵带来的监控盲区。",
    "联系智能家居系统供应商或安装服务商，针对‘所有传感器同时卡死在单一状态’的现象提交漏洞报告，要求系统级排查。"
  ]
}
```

所有OccupancySensing传感器在完整观测期内无任何occupied→unoccupied的状态转换，系统完全缺乏空置检测能力。

验证浴室传感器是否存在物理故障或安装位置问题，导致无法检测到人（例如被遮挡或PIR探头失效）。

如为真实独居老人家庭，建议临时增加门口摄像头或可穿戴设备（如跌倒检测挂坠）作为冗余监控手段，以弥补传感器失灵带来的监控盲区。

联系智能家居系统供应商或安装服务商，针对‘所有传感器同时卡死在单一状态’的现象提交漏洞报告，要求系统级排查。

bathroom bedroom entrance kitchen living_room

是否存在异常行为模式，特别是针对独居老人的日常活动是否存在长时无运动或异常规律

浴室运动传感器仅在整点57分报告一次unoccupied事件，无其他变化 浴室事件总数极少（28次），且无occupied事件 居住空间（客厅、卧室、厨房）运动传感器始终为occupied，缺乏切换模式 无夜间长时间无活动时间段，可能掩盖老人静止状态

C00是日志起始段，包含浴室首次出现的unoccupied事件，可评估浴室行为基线

C01紧接C00，覆盖浴室第二次unoccupied事件，验证浴室运动模式是否持续单一

这两个段包含了12小时中仅有的两次浴室unoccupied事件，有助于判断浴室传感器是否故障或老人是否长时间未使用浴室

是否存在异常行为模式，特别是针对独居老人的日常活动是否存在长时无运动或异常规律

```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "所有OccupancySensing传感器都正常工作，但被配置为仅在检测到有人时发送occupied状态（或仅在特定条件下发送unoccupied）。浴室传感器可能配置为仅在‘空置’时发送心跳，而其他传感器则持续报告occupied，因为老人一直在活动区域（如客厅、厨房、卧室）内。整体日志反映了一个正常、活跃的白天模式，老人从午后到傍晚一直在主要生活区域活动。",
      "evidence": [
        "C00-C05中，living_room_occupancy、kitchen_occupancy、bedroom_occupancy和entrance_occupancy始终为occupied，频率约为每2-5分钟一次，与老人持续在家且活动范围固定的情况一致。",
        "C00-C05中，bathroom_occupancy仅以30分钟为间隔（12:09、12:39、13:09、13:39等）在整点57分左右报告unoccupied，没有其他变化，可能是一个固定周期的心跳信号，而非检测到真实空置状态。",
        "C02中，13:56:14 living_room_light被打开（OnOff.OnOff = on），表明有人在该区域活动。",
        "C05中，16:59:00 kitchen_light被打开，16:59:30 kitchen_cook_surface被打开，显示老人正在准备晚餐或进行烹饪活动，这是正常居家行为。",
        "温度传感器读数平稳下降（living_room从25.37C到23.47C，kitchen从25.32C到23.46C），与傍晚时分室温自然下降的趋势一致，没有异常尖峰。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "无法解释为什么所有OccupancySensing传感器从未报告unoccupied。在12小时的时间内，老人不可能是移动中，没有任何空房的房间，尤其是浴室从未显示occupied。",
        "没有其他设备的交叉验证，如门锁状态从未切换，无法确认老人是否外出。",
        "浴室传感器仅发送unoccupied而不发送occupied，与正常的OccupancySensing行为（检测到人则发送occupied，人离开则发送unoccupied）不符。"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "N2",
      "description": "所有OccupancySensing传感器都正常工作，但整个场景是一个智能家居系统在展示‘正常忙碌日’的模拟数据，而非真实的独居老人场景。传感器可能被配置为默认发送occupied或定期刷新，而浴室传感器被错误配置或模拟为仅发送unoccupied。温度和灯光变化是预设事件，没有实际风险。",
      "evidence": [
        "所有四个主要生活区域的Occupancy始终为occupied，且事件时间非常规律（每几秒到几分钟一次），这更像是一个模拟数据集的特征而非真实场景。",
        "bathroom_occupancy在30分钟内仅报告unoccupied，且没有对应的occupied事件，这种模式在真实场景中极不寻常，但在模拟中可以作为‘固定心跳’出现。",
        "Living_room_light和bedroom_window等事件在特定时间触发（如12:30 off、13:56 on），与正常场景一致。",
        "没有发现任何设备故障或传感器错误日志。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "此假设回避了‘独居老人’查询背景。如果这是真实场景，那么N2的‘模拟’说法无法提供操作价值。",
        "仍然无法解释所有传感器从未切换至unoccupied的普遍模式。"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "anomaly_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "A1",
      "description": "所有OccupancySensing传感器可能因配置错误或系统范围故障而无法报告‘unoccupied’状态，导致无法检测到房间空置。这可能是配置问题（例如，传感器被设置为仅在有运动时发送occupied，但从未发送unoccupied）或系统级bug。浴室传感器则可能配置为仅发送unoccupied心跳，掩盖了其实际状态。这导致老人长时间静止（如睡觉）时，系统显示所有房间仍被占用，掩盖了潜在的健康风险。",
      "threat_type": "sensor_stuck",
      "evidence": [
        "C00-C05中，living_room_occupancy、kitchen_occupancy、bedroom_occupancy和entrance_occupancy在超过5小时时间内（12:00-17:21）始终为occupied，从未切换至unoccupied。这种模式不符合真实世界：老人即使在家中，也应有时离开房间（如去浴室、去厨房拿东西）导致某些房间空置。",
        "C00-C05中，bathroom_occupancy仅报告unoccupied（12:09、12:39、13:09等），从未报告occupied。这意味着老人从未进入浴室，或者在浴室中时传感器未能检测到。这与正常的浴室使用模式（独居老人应在12小时内至少使用一次）严重不符。",
        "根据Structured Signals，occupancy_events总数为606次，但entrance和bathroom等关键房间的事件总数远低于其他房间（如living_room有294次，而entrance只有147次，bathroom仅28次），显示传感器活动分布异常。",
        "无任何OccupancySensing传感器曾通过occupied→unoccupied的转换记录。所有传感器都在发送单值状态，缺乏变化。",
        "门锁状态在12小时内仅发生一次翻转，且未在logs中出现详细事件，可能意味着老人没有外出，但室内传感器却普遍不切换。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "没有直接设备故障证据，如故障码或alarm事件，此假设依赖于行为模式推断。",
        "Living_room_light和kitchen_light的切换表明有人在操作，说明居住环境是活跃的，可能所有房间确实有人。但即便如此，其他房间的unoccupied应偶尔出现。"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A2",
      "description": "独居老人可能在浴室中发生了跌倒或健康突发事件，导致其无法移动，浴室传感器因此始终检测到‘occupied’（如果传感器正常）或无法报告（如果传感器故障）。但日志中bathroom_occupancy仅显示unoccupied，这可能是传感器被卡在unoccupied状态，或者老人实际已失去意识躺在浴室地上，传感器未能检测到（例如PIR传感器需要运动才能触发）。由于浴室传感器从未报告occupied，且其他房间没有unoccupied，老人可能长时间无人察觉地躺在地上。",
      "threat_type": "possible_fall",
      "evidence": [
        "C00-C05中，bathroom_occupancy仅报告unoccupied（12:09、12:39、13:09等），从未报告occupied。如果老人进入浴室，传感器至少应有一次报告occupied。此缺失强烈提示老人可能从未被传感器检测到（例如跌倒后静止），或者传感器失效。",
        "Living_room、kitchen和bedroom的Occupancy始终为occupied，但老人不可能同时在所有房间。这可能是系统卡在occupied状态，无法反映老人实际位置变化。如果老人确实在浴室跌倒，其他房间的‘occupied’信号是虚假的。",
        "C05中，16:59:00 kitchen_light和16:59:30 kitchen_cook_surface被打开，但厨房的occupancy始终为occupied。如果老人已跌倒，这些厨房事件可能是定时或自动触发的（模拟场景），而非真人操作，进一步加剧了风险被忽视的可能性。",
        "无entrance_occupancy的unoccupied事件，确认没有老人外出的迹象，与‘老人被困在浴室’的场景不符，但传感器卡在occupied可以解释此点。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "此假设依赖于所有其他房间的Occupancy传感器也卡在occupied（A1中的普遍问题），而非仅仅是浴室问题。",
        "Kitchen_light和cook_surface的打开是强‘有人操作’信号，与跌倒假设冲突。这些事件是用户发起的，证明老人可能仍在活动。",
        "温度数据平缓下降，没有异常波动。",
        "没有直接的健康或医疗设备数据。"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "A3",
      "description": "这是一个系统级配置或数据模拟问题，导致传感器行为异常。浴室传感器被设置或错误配置为仅发送unoccupied心跳（而不是检测到的状态），其他所有OccupancySensing传感器被设置为始终发送occupied刷新，从不允许任何切换。这可能是系统测试、模拟或部署配置错误。",
      "threat_type": "sensor_stuck",
      "evidence": [
        "C00-C05中，所有其他传感器（living_room、kitchen、bedroom、entrance）的Occupancy始终为occupied，从未切换至unoccupied，与标准协议行为不符。",
        "Bathroom_occupancy仅以固定30分钟间隔发送unoccupied，从未发送occupied，即使其他房间的传感器在同时段内有非常密集的事件。",
        "C00-C05中，温度传感器读数平缓下降，与时间吻合，但占用传感器行为是静态的。",
        "门锁状态在12小时内只有一次翻转，但没有在日志中明确出现，可能配置为不记录或固定状态。",
        "Living_room_light和kitchen_light的切换是正常的用户交互，与占用日志分离。"
      ],
      "weaknesses": [
        "这是一个诊断/解释性假设，而非独立风险假设。它更可能是一个配置问题，而非即时安全威胁。",
        "如果此假设为真，则风险在于系统无法可靠地检测老年人异常行为，这仍然是一个安全问题。"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "most_discriminative_evidence": [
    "所有生活区域（living_room、kitchen、bedroom、entrance）的Occupancy在超过5小时的观测期内始终为‘occupied’，从未报告‘unoccupied’，这与正常居家活动模式严重不符，表明这些传感器可能卡在occupied状态或配置为仅发送occupied。",
    "Bathroom_occupancy仅以30分钟固定间隔（整点57分）报告‘unoccupied’，从未报告‘occupied’，表示老人从未被检测到进入浴室，或传感器卡在unoccupied/被配置为心跳。",
    "OccupancySensing传感器（包括所有房间）没有任何occupied→unoccupied的状态转换，系统完全缺乏空置检测能力。",
    "Kitchen_light和kitchen_cook_surface在16:59被手动打开，但厨房的Occupancy在此之前一直为occupied，两者在时间上一致，但无法确认是真人还是预设事件。",
    "门锁状态在12小时内仅翻转一次，且未在日志中显示，表示老人可能从未外出，但室内传感器却普遍不切换。"
  ],
  "missing_information": [
    "需要检查完整12小时日志中剩余部分（C06-C13，特别是夜间）的occupancy行为，确认entrance_occupancy是否在夜间出现unoccupied，或所有传感器是否仍保持单状态。",
    "需要检查是否有任何OccupancySensing传感器的初始状态或配置信息，例如是否默认发送occupied或配置了最小报告间隔。",
    "需要确认日志中是否有关于传感器自检、故障码或alarm事件（如sensor_failure, no_motion_alarm）的任何记录。",
    "需要确定日志中的日夜属性，查看是否可能存在正常的睡眠模式（如所有传感器在夜间均为unoccupied但被日志截断）。",
    "需要检查是否有任何其他设备（如门锁）的状态变化，以交叉验证老人外出情况。"
  ]
}
```

C02中，13:56:14 living_room_light被打开（OnOff.OnOff = on），表明有人在该区域活动。

没有其他设备的交叉验证，如门锁状态从未切换，无法确认老人是否外出。

没有发现任何设备故障或传感器错误日志。

此假设回避了‘独居老人’查询背景。如果这是真实场景，那么N2的‘模拟’说法无法提供操作价值。

仍然无法解释所有传感器从未切换至unoccupied的普遍模式。

无任何OccupancySensing传感器曾通过occupied→unoccupied的转换记录。所有传感器都在发送单值状态，缺乏变化。

门锁状态在12小时内仅发生一次翻转，且未在logs中出现详细事件，可能意味着老人没有外出，但室内传感器却普遍不切换。

没有直接设备故障证据，如故障码或alarm事件，此假设依赖于行为模式推断。

此假设依赖于所有其他房间的Occupancy传感器也卡在occupied（A1中的普遍问题），而非仅仅是浴室问题。

Kitchen_light和cook_surface的打开是强‘有人操作’信号，与跌倒假设冲突。这些事件是用户发起的，证明老人可能仍在活动。

温度数据平缓下降，没有异常波动。

没有直接的健康或医疗设备数据。

C00-C05中，温度传感器读数平缓下降，与时间吻合，但占用传感器行为是静态的。

门锁状态在12小时内只有一次翻转，但没有在日志中明确出现，可能配置为不记录或固定状态。

这是一个诊断/解释性假设，而非独立风险假设。它更可能是一个配置问题，而非即时安全威胁。

如果此假设为真，则风险在于系统无法可靠地检测老年人异常行为，这仍然是一个安全问题。

OccupancySensing传感器（包括所有房间）没有任何occupied→unoccupied的状态转换，系统完全缺乏空置检测能力。

门锁状态在12小时内仅翻转一次，且未在日志中显示，表示老人可能从未外出，但室内传感器却普遍不切换。

需要检查是否有任何OccupancySensing传感器的初始状态或配置信息，例如是否默认发送occupied或配置了最小报告间隔。

需要确认日志中是否有关于传感器自检、故障码或alarm事件（如sensor_failure, no_motion_alarm）的任何记录。

需要确定日志中的日夜属性，查看是否可能存在正常的睡眠模式（如所有传感器在夜间均为unoccupied但被日志截断）。

需要检查是否有任何其他设备（如门锁）的状态变化，以交叉验证老人外出情况。

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": false,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "medium",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C06", "C07", "C08", "C09", "C10", "C11", "C12", "C13"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "The investigator failed to examine the remaining 8 chunks (C06-C13) which cover the critical nighttime period (17:21 to ~23:00). Nighttime occupancy patterns are essential to distinguish between a stuck sensor (always occupied) and a sleeping occupant (no motion, possibly unoccupied). Without this data, the core question about long inactivity cannot be answered.",
    "The investigator's most discriminative evidence correctly identifies the stuck-occupied pattern for living_room, kitchen, bedroom, entrance sensors, and the stuck-unoccupied pattern for bathroom sensor. However, it lacks verification of whether these patterns extend or change during nighttime hours.",
    "Missing cross-reference with DoorLock state changes: The query notes door lock state flipped only once in 12 hours but with no detailed log entry. The investigator should confirm whether the entrance_occupancy never shows unoccupied because the occupant never left, or because the sensor is stuck.",
    "The analysis correctly avoids concluding device fault from temperature scaling alone, but does not check for any explicit fault/alarm events which would be needed for a definitive sensor-stuck label.",
    "The investigator's hypotheses A1 and A3 (system-wide sensor configuration issue) are plausible but cannot be confirmed without nighttime data showing whether the pattern persists. If sensors eventually show unoccupied at night, this would refute A1/A3 and suggest the occupant was simply active all day — a normal pattern."
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "The investigator's analysis is thorough for the daytime chunks (C00-C05) and correctly identifies that the occupancy behavior is highly unusual: all main rooms stuck at occupied, bathroom stuck at unoccupied. However, this pattern alone does not conclusively prove a safety emergency or sensor fault without seeing the nighttime behavior.",
    "The investigator noted missing information about the remaining 8 chunks — this is a critical gap that must be filled before a final verdict.",
    "The 'normal hypotheses' N1 and N2 are weak because they require implausible sensor configurations (e.g., bathroom sensor only sends unoccupied heartbeat) that contradict normal Matter protocol behavior. N1's claim that 'all sensors are occupied because occupant is always in those rooms' is contradicted by the bathroom never showing occupied. N2's 'simulated data' hypothesis is speculative and lacks supporting evidence of simulation markers.",
    "The anomaly hypotheses A1 and A3 are the most plausible given the data: a system-wide issue where all non-bathroom sensors are stuck in occupied and the bathroom sensor is stuck in unoccupied. This could mask a real safety event (A2). But A2 (fall in bathroom) is weakened by the kitchen light/cook surface events at 16:59, which suggest ongoing activity.",
    "The recommendation to refine investigation is appropriate. The investigator should be prompted to examine C06-C13 for: (a) whether occupancy patterns change at night, (b) explicit fault/alarm events, (c) DoorLock state changes, and (d) any other cross-device correlations (e.g., light toggles) that confirm or refute occupant activity.",
    "False alarm risk is medium because the stuck-occupied pattern is real and concerning, but the most dangerous interpretation (fall or medical emergency) is not yet confirmed and could be disproven by nighttime data showing normal unoccupied periods."
  ]
}
```

独居老人白天活动正常，浴室运动传感器可能因安装位置或灵敏度问题仅能检测到unoccupied事件，而老人实际使用浴室时未被触发为occupied状态

客厅、卧室、厨房的occupancy传感器持续报告occupied状态，表明老人一直在各房间活动

浴室unoccupied事件每30分钟出现一次（12:09, 12:39, 13:09, 13:39），时间规律，可能是传感器定期上报状态而非实际占用变化

温度传感器读数在0.5°C范围内正常波动（客厅24.87-25.37°C，卧室23.82-24.34°C，厨房24.91-25.33°C），未见异常

老人12小时内从未进入浴室或使用厕所/淋浴，对独居老人而言可能性较低

其他传感器均正常报告occupied事件，唯独浴室传感器只有unoccupied，缺乏对比样本

浴室运动传感器存在故障（stuck on unoccupied状态），导致无法检测到老人的进入和占用，隐藏了老人可能长时间未使用浴室的安全隐患

浴室在12小时内仅有28次事件，且全部为unoccupied（raw=0），没有任何occupied事件

四个unoccupied事件时间点为12:09:57, 12:39:57, 13:09:57, 13:39:57，恰好每30分钟一次，高度规律，可能是设备周期性心跳而非实际状态变化

客厅、卧室、厨房的occupancy传感器在同时段内密集报告occupied（606次总事件），而浴室传感器事件远低于其他房间（28次）

没有直接故障码或报警事件证明传感器硬件损坏

如果传感器安装位置在浴室门附近且仅检测到离开状态，理论上也可能只上报unoccupied

老人可能存在长时间静止或跌倒风险，浴室传感器持续unoccupied但其他房间持续occupied，掩盖了老人实际可能在卧室或浴室长时间未移动的情况

客厅、卧室、厨房的occupancy传感器每3-5分钟报告一次occupied，但从不切换为unoccupied，无法区分老人是持续活动还是停留在同一位置

浴室传感器从未检测到occupied，若老人使用浴室后未离开但仍静止（如跌倒），传感器可能无法识别

12小时内老人未改变房间占用状态（始终occupied），缺乏睡眠或休息时房间切换的证据，可能表示静止状态被误判为活动

其他房间持续occupied并不直接等同于静止，老人可能确实一直在这些房间内走动

没有温度或其他设备数据（如灯光变化）支持跌倒假设

浴室12小时内仅有28次事件，全部为unoccupied，且时间间隔严格固定为30分钟（12:09:57, 12:39:57, 13:09:57, 13:39:57），表明传感器可能处于stuck状态或只发送心跳

客厅、卧室、厨房的occupancy传感器始终报告occupied，从不切换为unoccupied，使得无法通过常规占用模式判断老人实际活动状态

其他传感器（温度、灯光、窗帘）数据正常，但无法弥补浴室传感器缺失occupied事件的漏洞

无任何夜间长时无活动时间段，但所有房间持续occupied可能掩盖老人静止或睡眠状态

浴室传感器的具体安装位置（是否覆盖整个房间）

老人是否因身体原因无需频繁使用浴室（如使用便携设备）

日志覆盖时间段的具体日夜属性（是否有老人通常的睡眠/休息时间）

浴室传感器是否有历史校准或故障记录

是否有老人近期的健康状况或活动模式基线数据

老人12小时内从未进入浴室或使用厕所/淋浴，对独居老人而言可能性较低

没有直接故障码或报警事件证明传感器硬件损坏

没有温度或其他设备数据（如灯光变化）支持跌倒假设

浴室传感器的具体安装位置（是否覆盖整个房间）

老人是否因身体原因无需频繁使用浴室（如使用便携设备）

日志覆盖时间段的具体日夜属性（是否有老人通常的睡眠/休息时间）

浴室传感器是否有历史校准或故障记录

是否有老人近期的健康状况或活动模式基线数据

C02中，13:56:14 living_room_light被打开（OnOff.OnOff = on），表明有人在该区域活动。

没有其他设备的交叉验证，如门锁状态从未切换，无法确认老人是否外出。

所有四个主要生活区域的Occupancy始终为occupied，且事件时间非常规律（每几秒到几分钟一次），这更像是一个模拟数据集的特征而非真实场景。

没有发现任何设备故障或传感器错误日志。

仍然无法解释所有传感器从未切换至unoccupied的普遍模式。

无任何OccupancySensing传感器曾通过occupied→unoccupied的转换记录。所有传感器都在发送单值状态，缺乏变化。

门锁状态在12小时内仅发生一次翻转，且未在logs中出现详细事件，可能意味着老人没有外出，但室内传感器却普遍不切换。

没有直接设备故障证据，如故障码或alarm事件，此假设依赖于行为模式推断。

温度数据平缓下降，没有异常波动。

没有直接的健康或医疗设备数据。

C00-C05中，温度传感器读数平缓下降，与时间吻合，但占用传感器行为是静态的。

门锁状态在12小时内只有一次翻转，但没有在日志中明确出现，可能配置为不记录或固定状态。

需要检查是否有任何其他设备（如门锁）的状态变化，以交叉验证老人外出情况。

```json
{
  "on_topic": true,
  "evidence_sufficient": true,
  "risk_of_false_alarm": "medium",
  "recommended_action": "refine_investigation",
  "needs_more_chunks": ["C02", "C03", "C04", "C05"],
  "missing_checks": [
    "需要检查完整12小时日志中entrance_occupancy是否有unoccupied事件，以验证是否为所有传感器均无法切换状态",
    "需要检查完整12小时日志中bathroom_occupancy在C02-C13段是否仍有更多unoccupied事件，确认30分钟周期是否持续",
    "需要确认日志中的日夜属性，查看是否有正常夜间睡眠模式（房间占用应切换）",
    "需要检查是否有任何OccupancySensing传感器的occupied→unoccupied转换日志，验证传感器切换能力是否正常",
    "需要检查是否有bathroom_occupancy从未出现过occupied状态，或是否有初始状态为occupied但被遗漏",
    "需要检查是否还有其他房间的occupancy传感器也出现类似单状态问题（如entrance_occupancy可能也是单向）"
  ],
  "supervisor_notes": [
    "温度值解析正确，未发现Matter缩放误解，false alarm风险主要来自假设性推断而非直接故障证据",
    "浴室传感器仅上报unoccupied且间隔30分钟，确实高度疑似stuck或配置为仅发送心跳，但缺乏设备自身故障码或alarm事件",
    "A2假设（跌倒风险）当前证据较弱，仅根据其他房间持续occupied推断静止，需要更多夜间数据或交叉设备佐证",
    "所有房间的OccupancySensing均未发生状态切换，可能是系统设计问题（传感器配置仅上报occupied？）或所有传感器均存在异常，需扩展查看C02-C05确认entrance/other sensors行为",
    "当前焦点段C00-C01仅覆盖12:09-13:42，不足以判断12小时全貌。建议扩展至至少12:09前和13:42后的数据以验证模式持续性",
    "需要确认是否存在OccupancySensing的初始状态或上报周期配置，区分正常心跳与真实状态变化"
  ]
}
```

需要检查完整12小时日志中entrance_occupancy是否有unoccupied事件，以验证是否为所有传感器均无法切换状态

需要检查完整12小时日志中bathroom_occupancy在C02-C13段是否仍有更多unoccupied事件，确认30分钟周期是否持续

需要确认日志中的日夜属性，查看是否有正常夜间睡眠模式（房间占用应切换）

需要检查是否还有其他房间的occupancy传感器也出现类似单状态问题（如entrance_occupancy可能也是单向）

温度值解析正确，未发现Matter缩放误解，false alarm风险主要来自假设性推断而非直接故障证据

浴室传感器仅上报unoccupied且间隔30分钟，确实高度疑似stuck或配置为仅发送心跳，但缺乏设备自身故障码或alarm事件

A2假设（跌倒风险）当前证据较弱，仅根据其他房间持续occupied推断静止，需要更多夜间数据或交叉设备佐证

当前焦点段C00-C01仅覆盖12:09-13:42，不足以判断12小时全貌。建议扩展至至少12:09前和13:42后的数据以验证模式持续性

需要确认是否存在OccupancySensing的初始状态或上报周期配置，区分正常心跳与真实状态变化

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

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 294,
    "bedroom": 296,
    "kitchen": 295,
    "entrance": 147,
    "bathroom": 28
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 606,
    "MeasuredValue": 437,
    "OnOff": 10,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 3,
    "CurrentLevel": 1,
    "StateValue": 1,
    "LockState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 1,
  "occupancy_events": 606,
  "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": "2026-06-18T11:55:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-18T12:47:03",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 22,
      "bedroom": 23,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "entrance": 11,
      "bathr

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "behavior-sequence",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": ["bathroom", "bedroom", "entrance", "kitchen", "living_room"],
    "target_devices": ["OccupancySensing"],
    "target_question": "是否存在异常行为模式，特别是针对独居老人的日常活动是否存在长时无运动或异常规律"
  },
  "focus_rooms": ["bathroom", "living_room"],
  "focus_devices": ["bathroom_occupancy", "living_room_occupancy"],
  "focus_chunk_ids": ["C00", "C01"],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "浴室运动传感器仅在整点57分报告一次unoccupied事件，无其他变化",
    "浴室事件总数极少（28次），且无occupied事件",
    "居住空间（客厅、卧室、厨房）运动传感器始终为occupied，缺乏切换模式",
    "无夜间长时间无活动时间段，可能掩盖老人静止状态"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00是日志起始段，包含浴室首次出现的unoccupied事件，可评估浴室行为基线",
    "C01紧接C00，覆盖浴室第二次unoccupied事件，验证浴室运动模式是否持续单一",
    "这两个段包含了12小时中仅有的两次浴室unoccupied事件，有助于判断浴室传感器是否故障或老人是否长时间未使用浴室"
  ]
}

## Investigator
```json
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "所有OccupancySensing传感器都正常工作，但被配置为仅在检测到有人时发送occupied状态（或仅在特定条件下发送unoccupied）。浴室传感器可能配置为仅在‘空置’时发送心跳，而其他传感器则持续报告occupied，因为老人一直在活动区域（如客厅、厨房、卧室）内。整体日志反映了一个正常、活跃的白天模式，老人从午后到傍晚一直在主要生活区域活动。",
      "evidence": [
        "C00-C05中，living_room_occupancy、kitchen_occupancy、bedroom_occupancy和entrance_occupancy始终为occupied，频率约为每2-5分钟一次，与老人持续在家且活动范围固定的情况一致。",
        "C00-C05中，bathroom_occupancy仅以30分钟为间隔（12:09、12:39、13:09、13:39等）在整点57分左右报告unoccupied，没有其他变化，可能是一个固定周期的心跳信号，而非检测到真实空置状态。",
        "C02中，13:56:14 living_room_light被打开（OnOff.OnOff = on），表明有人在该区域活动。",
        "C05中，16:59:00 kitchen_light被打开，16:59:30 kitchen_cook_surface被打开，显示老人正在准备晚餐或进行烹饪活动，这是正常居家行为。",
        "温度传感器读数平稳下降（living_room从25.37C到23.47C，kitchen从25.32C到23.46C），与傍晚时分室温自然下降的趋势一致，没有异