DF-02-FP: 夏季午后持续升温（正常日照效应）

温度上升后在午后到达峰值并回落，符合日间正弦曲线；而真正的漂移是不回落的单向偏移

The living room temperature sensor exhibited a transient but physically impossible measurement spike (25.10°C) that deviated significantly from the stable baseline and recovered immediately, indicating an intermittent telemetry glitch or sensor malfunction.

Explanation: Analysis of C00 and C13 shows the `living_room_temp_sensor` operates normally with stable readings around 22.5-23.3°C and logical occupancy transitions.

Explanation: In C10, at 18:24:00, the sensor reports 25.10°C, which is a +2.02°C jump from the previous reading (23.08°C) just 4 minutes prior.

Explanation: This rapid rise followed by an equally rapid drop to 23.06°C at 18:25:00 violates thermal inertia principles for ambient air in a residential setting without a massive, instantly removed heat source (which is not corroborated by other devices).

Explanation: While the device recovered, this single-point failure constitutes an anomaly (intermittent malfunction/glitch) rather than normal operation, as it produced data inconsistent with physical reality.

Explanation: No persistent stuck value or drift was observed, ruling out `sensor_stuck` or `sensor_drift`, but the event confirms a temporary malfunction.

C10: TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = 25.10 C at 18:24:00, surrounded by ~23.08 C and 23.06 C.

Physics check: A +2°C change in 4 minutes and -2°C in 1 minute is physically implausible for ambient room temperature.

Monitor the sensor for recurrence of similar spikes to determine if this is a random noise event or a developing hardware issue.

Check for environmental factors near the sensor (e.g., direct sunlight, drafts) that might cause localized heating artifacts.

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

enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code

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

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

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

C00: Baseline check for temperature sensor reporting and initial occupancy state (unoccupied).

C13: Check for sustained occupancy and continued temperature reporting stability in the evening.

C10: After the transient spike at 18:24:00, the temperature immediately returns to ~23.06°C at 18:25:00, indicating no stuck value or persistent fault.

C13: Evening logs show continuous, stable temperature reporting (~22.5°C) and sustained occupancy status without interruption.

Does not fully explain the root cause of the single high-value outlier at 18:24:00, though it assumes it was a transient glitch.

The living room temperature sensor experienced a transient measurement error or environmental interference at 18:24:00, resulting in an impossible physical jump (+2°C in one minute). While the device recovered, this constitutes a sensor anomaly (glitch/spike) rather than confirmed hardware failure.

C10: At 18:24:00, `living_room_temp_sensor` reports 25.10°C. The previous reading at 18:20:00 was 23.08°C and the next at 18:25:00 was 23.06°C.

Physics check: A +2.02°C rise in 4 minutes followed by a -2.04°C drop in 1 minute is physically impossible for ambient air temperature in a standard living room without a massive heat source being removed instantly, which is not corroborated by other devices (AC remained on, no fire/cook events in living room).

No explicit fault alarm was generated by the device itself, suggesting it was a self-correcting telemetry glitch or momentary sensor noise.

The anomaly was isolated to a single timestamp with immediate recovery.

No repeated occurrences were found in C00 or C13, making it difficult to classify as a persistent hardware defect like 'stuck' or 'drift'.

Could be explained by a temporary obstruction or electrical noise rather than component failure.

The temperature reading of 25.10°C at 18:24:00 in C10, which deviates significantly from the surrounding baseline of ~23°C and violates thermal inertia principles.

The immediate return to baseline (23.06°C) at 18:25:00 confirms the sensor did not fail permanently but did produce an erroneous data point.

Diagnostic logs from the sensor itself to confirm if it flagged an internal error during the 18:24:00 event.

Contextual data regarding any sudden changes in the living room environment (e.g., direct sunlight hitting the sensor, appliance usage) that could justify the spike.

Check for other temperature spikes in C00 or C13 to determine if the 18:24:00 event is an isolated glitch or part of a pattern.

Verify if the 'impossible' jump at 18:24:00 correlates with any specific device state change (e.g., AC compressor cycling) that might cause local heating or sensor lag, although the recovery speed makes this unlikely.

Confirm if the raw value 2510 corresponds to exactly 25.10°C and if the surrounding values are consistent with the scaling factor (centi-degrees).

Check if there are any explicit fault alarms or diagnostic logs from the `living_room_temp_sensor` around 18:24:00.

The investigator correctly identified a significant anomaly at 18:24:00 (25.10°C vs ~23°C baseline).

However, the conclusion that the sensor is 'functioning normally' (N1) contradicts the presence of a physically impossible transient spike without further explanation. A single point failure/glitch does not equal 'normal operation' in a health check context; it indicates intermittent malfunction.

The risk of false alarm is medium because the spike recovered instantly, suggesting it might be noise rather than hardware failure, but it cannot be dismissed as 'normal' without ruling out systematic issues.

The investigation lacks evidence from other time chunks (C00, C13) to confirm if this was a one-off event or a recurring issue. The current evidence is insufficient to definitively classify the device as healthy or faulty.

Recommendation: Refine investigation to check for recurrence in other chunks or look for internal error flags. If no recurrence, classify as 'intermittent glitch' rather than 'normal' or 'failed'.

The living room temperature sensor and occupancy sensor are functioning normally. The temperature readings show expected natural fluctuations within a comfortable range (22-23°C), and the occupancy sensor correctly transitions between unoccupied and occupied states consistent with human presence patterns.

C00: Temperature sensor reports stable values around 22.6-23.2°C while the room is unoccupied, showing normal thermal drift or HVAC influence without stuck values.

C00: Occupancy sensor consistently reports 'unoccupied' (raw=0) during the early morning hours (00:00-01:50), which aligns with typical nighttime behavior.

C10: Occupancy sensor transitions to 'occupied' (raw=1) at 18:13:16, coinciding with lights turning on, indicating correct detection of entry.

C13: Occupancy sensor remains 'occupied' throughout the evening session (22:22-23:45), maintaining state consistency.

Temperature values in C10 and C13 remain within reasonable bounds (22.4-23.2°C) and do not exhibit impossible jumps or sensor saturation.

Does not fully explain the transient spike in C10, though it attributes it to environmental factors rather than fault.

Transient sensor glitch or environmental interference caused a momentary erroneous high temperature reading in the living room sensor during the evening occupancy period.

In C10, at 18:24:00, the living_room_temp_sensor reports 25.10 C (raw=2510).

This value is an immediate outlier compared to the preceding reading of 23.08 C (18:20:00) and the subsequent reading of 23.06 C (18:25:00).

The deviation (+2.02°C) is abrupt and recovers instantly in the next 5-minute interval, suggesting a transient error rather than a physical change in room temperature (which would be slower due to thermal mass).

The anomaly is isolated to a single data point and recovered immediately; there is no persistence or repeated failure pattern required for a definitive 'malfunction' classification under strict device-health criteria.

Could be explained by a temporary heat source (e.g., sunlight, appliance) briefly affecting the sensor, which is an environmental factor, not a device fault.

The isolated temperature spike to 25.10 C at 18:24:00 in C10, which contradicts the surrounding stable readings of ~23.0 C.

The consistent correlation between occupancy state changes and lighting/HVAC activity in C10 and C13, supporting normal operational logic.

Context regarding any active heat sources (ovens, heaters, direct sunlight) in the living room at 18:24:00 to rule out environmental causes for the spike.

Sensor calibration logs or historical baseline variance to determine if a 2°C jump is statistically significant for this specific device model.

Verify if the temperature spike at 18:24:00 is an isolated glitch or part of a pattern by checking adjacent timestamps in C10 more closely.

Check for any explicit fault/alarm events from the sensor itself (e.g., diagnostic reports) which are not present in the current logs.

Confirm if the 'None' values in kitchen_temp_sensor indicate a broader communication issue or just that specific device failure.

The investigator correctly identifies a transient anomaly (25.10°C) but correctly concludes it is likely not a persistent fault due to immediate recovery.

However, the conclusion that sensors are 'working normally' is slightly premature without explicitly ruling out intermittent hardware faults based on this single outlier.

The evidence provided is sufficient to say there is no *confirmed* malfunction requiring replacement, but insufficient to definitively rule out intermittent issues without more context or longer observation.

The risk of false alarm is medium because relying on a single recovered outlier to declare 'normal' health ignores potential intermittent failures. However, since no other fault indicators exist, the 'abstain' threshold isn't met yet; refinement is better to confirm stability.

No protocol-format misunderstandings detected regarding scaled values.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 一室一厅 (Studio/1BR)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅台灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 404,
    "bedroom": 357,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 58,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 871,
    "Occupancy": 224,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 224,
  "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": "2026-06-09T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-09T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices":

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "living_room_temp_sensor",
      "living_room_occupancy"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 living_room 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "living_room_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C10",
    "C13"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "sensor_data_continuity",
    "occupancy_state_transitions",
    "temperature_stability"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline check for temperature sensor reporting and initial occupancy state (unoccupied).",
    "C10: Check for occupancy transition to 'occupied' and subsequent sensor behavior during active use.",
    "C13: Check for sustained occupancy and continued temperature reporting stability in the evening."
  ]
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The living room temperature sensor and occupancy sensor are functioning normally. The observed data shows consistent reporting intervals, logical state transitions for occupancy (unoccupied to occupied), and physically plausible temperature readings that fluctuate within a normal residential range.",
      "evidence": [
        "C00: Temperature sensor reports stable values (~22-23°C) while the room is unoccupied, showing expected thermal drift.",
        "C10: Occupancy sensor correctly transitions from 'unoccupied' to 'occupied' at 18:13:16, correlating with lights and AC turning on.",


DF-04-FP: 门锁响应延迟但最终成功锁定

The entrance contact sensor is functioning normally; the lack of logs during mid-day hours is consistent with change-only reporting behavior while the door remained closed.

Explanation: The investigation focuses on whether the `front_door_contact` sensor in the entrance area is faulty based on log gaps (C05-C08) and specific events (C04, C09).

Explanation: Matter contact sensors typically operate on a 'change-of-state' trigger rather than periodic polling. The absence of logs between 09:05 and 16:45 indicates no state change occurred (i.e., the door remained closed), which is normal behavior for this device type.

Explanation: Direct evidence of functionality is present: C04 shows valid transitions from closed to open (`false` -> `true`) followed by lock operation, and C09 shows a valid transition back to closed (`false`) coinciding with manual unlock and light activation.

Explanation: There are no explicit fault codes, stuck values, or impossible state transitions in the logs. The supervisor correctly identified that treating 'silence' as an anomaly without occupancy proof leads to a medium risk of false alarm.

Explanation: Since the sensor successfully reported state changes when they occurred and showed no signs of malfunction (e.g., failing to report the clear entry event at 18:24), the conclusion is that the device is healthy.

Valid state transitions recorded in C04 (open/close) and C09 (close) confirm the sensor reports correctly when triggered.

No logs for `front_door_contact` in C05-C08 are consistent with the door remaining closed (no state change) given standard change-only reporting protocols.

Absence of error logs, alarms, or stuck values in any chunk.

No immediate action required; the sensor is operating within expected parameters.

If audit trail completeness is critical, consider enabling periodic heartbeat reporting if supported by the device configuration, though this is not a fault fix.

判断 entrance 区域的传感器（入户门传感器）是否工作正常，若异常说明故障类型。

C04 shows valid state transitions: `false` -> `true` (open) followed by lock operation.

C09 shows a valid state transition: `false` (closed) at 18:24:02, coinciding with the door being unlocked and the light turning on, suggesting entry occurred.

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or stuck values are present in any chunk.

Temperature sensors in other rooms show normal periodic updates, indicating the logging system itself is not globally failing.

Relies on the assumption that no door activity occurred between 09:05 and 16:45, which cannot be fully verified without intermediate occupancy/motion data in the entrance hall to corroborate the 'closed' state.

The entrance contact sensor has intermittent connectivity issues or configuration problems causing it to fail to report state changes during the mid-day period (C05-C08). While the door might have been physically closed, the absence of *any* heartbeat or status update from the contact sensor (unlike temperature sensors which poll regularly) suggests a potential communication drop or sensor malfunction that went uncorrected until the next physical interaction.

Chunks C05, C06, C07, and C08 contain zero log entries for `front_door_contact` or `front_door_lock`.

Other devices (temp sensors, bedroom/bathroom occupancy) continue to report regularly throughout these same chunks, isolating the silence to the entrance area's specific devices.

The gap spans over 7 hours (09:05 to 16:45), which is unusually long for a high-traffic entry point if the sensor were configured to send periodic heartbeats.

In C09, the lock operates twice (17:51 and 18:24) but the contact sensor only reports once (18:24), potentially missing the first unlock event if the door was opened then re-closed, or simply reflecting the final state.

Contact sensors often operate on change-of-state triggers rather than periodic polling; thus, silence can legitimately mean 'no change'.

There is no direct evidence of failure (e.g., error logs), only absence of expected traffic which could be explained by user behavior (door stayed shut).

Potential security blind spot or delayed detection due to sensor latency/failure. If the door was opened and closed multiple times during the day (e.g., deliveries, family members coming/going) but the sensor failed to log these events, the system lacks an accurate audit trail of access.

The total event count for the entrance room is extremely low (17 events in Structured Signals) compared to living room (397) and bedroom (353), despite entrances typically having higher traffic.

In C09, the lock unlocks manually at 18:24, and immediately after, the contact sensor reports `false` (closed) and lights turn on. This sequence is coherent, but the preceding 7+ hours of silence create a large gap in access history.

Assumes high traffic in the entrance area without corroborating motion/occupancy logs specifically for the entrance hall (only bedroom/bathroom/living room occupancy is shown).

Complete absence of `front_door_contact` logs in C05-C08 while other devices remain active.

Valid state transitions in C04 (open/close) and C09 (close) confirm the device is capable of reporting when triggered.

Low total activity count (17) for the entrance zone relative to other zones.

Entrance-specific occupancy or motion sensor logs to verify if anyone entered/exited during C05-C08.

Configuration details regarding whether the contact sensor is set to 'report on change' only or includes periodic heartbeats.

Logs for the front door lock in C05-C08 to see if any lock operations occurred without corresponding contact sensor updates.

Verify if 'front_door_contact' is configured for change-only reporting (standard for Matter contact sensors) vs periodic polling.

Check C09 logs around 17:51 to see if the lock operation triggered a corresponding contact sensor state change that might have been missed or logged differently.

Confirm if the absence of logs in C05-C08 is due to lack of physical activity (door remained closed) rather than sensor failure.

The investigator correctly identifies that direct fault evidence (stuck values, alarms) is missing. However, they lean too heavily on the 'silence' in C05-C08 as potential anomaly evidence without explicitly ruling out the most likely cause: the door simply wasn't opened/closed during those hours.

Contact sensors typically report only on state changes. The gap from 09:05 to 16:45 with no entries is consistent with the door remaining closed (state unchanged). Without occupancy/motion data specifically for the entrance hall to prove someone entered/exited, we cannot conclude the sensor failed.

In C09, at 17:51, the lock operates but no contact sensor log appears. This could be because the door didn't move enough to trigger the magnet, or the log was dropped. At 18:24, the lock unlocks and the contact sensor reports 'false' (closed). This sequence is coherent but sparse.

The current conclusion is ambiguous. It's safer to classify this as 'insufficient evidence for fault' rather than 'normal' or 'abnormal' definitively, but definitely not sufficient to declare a fault. The risk of false alarm is medium because the investigator treats normal 'no-change' behavior as suspicious.

No additional chunks are strictly needed to make a final determination if we accept the standard behavior of contact sensors (change-only). The key missing check is confirming the reporting mode or accepting that silence = no event. Since we can't confirm the reporting mode from logs alone, we should refine the investigation to explicitly state that 'no fault detected' is the provisional verdict based on available evidence, or request configuration details.

The entrance contact sensor is functioning normally. The low activity count (17 events) reflects the physical reality of the front door being closed for the vast majority of the monitoring period, with only brief openings/closings recorded.

C04 shows a valid state transition: `front_door_contact` changes from `false` to `true` between 07:15:20 and 07:15:22, coinciding with a lock operation event at 07:15:23. This indicates the sensor correctly detects the door opening.

C09 shows another valid state change: `front_door_contact` reports `false` at 18:24:02, immediately following a manual unlock event at 18:24:00. This confirms the sensor responds to door movement.

No stuck values, error codes, or impossible transitions are observed in the contact sensor logs.

The total number of events (17) is significantly lower than other rooms (e.g., living_room 397), which might suggest missed detections if the door was opened frequently but not logged, though this is less likely given the specific timestamps align with user activity.

Potential intermittent failure or reporting gap of the entrance contact sensor. While explicit faults are absent, the extremely low event count compared to the high activity in the entrance room (7 events in C09 alone, mostly lock/temp) suggests the contact sensor may be failing to report states during periods when the door is actually open or moving, or it is simply not triggering as expected by the system's logging frequency.

In C09, there are 7 distinct log entries for the entrance area (lock operations, temp sensors), yet no `front_door_contact` logs appear until 18:24:02, despite the lock being unlocked at 17:51:03 and again at 18:24:00. If the door was open between 17:51 and 18:24, the contact sensor should have reported `true`, but no such log exists in the provided chunk.

The `room_activity` signal shows 'entrance' has only 17 events, while 'living_room' has 397. Given that the front door is a primary access point, this disparity is suspicious unless the house is strictly sealed, which contradicts the multiple lock/unlock events seen in the logs.

There is a gap in contact sensor data in C09 between the start of the window and the final close event, whereas lock state changes are frequent.

It is possible the door remained closed (or the contact sensor failed to trigger due to mechanical misalignment) between 17:51 and 18:24, meaning the lack of logs is accurate rather than a malfunction.

The single successful transitions in C04 and C09 prove the device *can* work, making a complete hardware failure unlikely; it would be an intermittent issue.

Without continuous occupancy or motion data in the entrance hall to corroborate door movement, we cannot definitively prove the door was open when the sensor didn't report it.

The absence of `front_door_contact` logs in C09 between 16:45 and 18:24, despite multiple `front_door_lock` state changes (unlocked at 17:51, locked at 17:51, unlocked at 18:24). If the door was manipulated, the contact sensor should typically reflect the open state.

The successful state transitions in C04 (false->true) and C09 (false at 18:24) confirm the sensor is capable of reporting, isolating the potential anomaly to intermittent reporting gaps.

Continuous presence/motion sensor data for the entrance hallway to verify if the door was physically open during the gaps in contact sensor logging.

Raw binary logs for the entire duration to check for dropped packets or silent failures of the contact sensor.

Configuration details on whether the contact sensor is configured to report only on change or periodically.

Verify if `front_door_contact` logs exist in chunks C05-C08 to determine if the gap in C09 is a continuous failure or just a long period of no activity.

Check for any explicit fault/alarm events from the contact sensor in the full dataset.

Corroborate door state with other sensors (e.g., motion/occupancy in entrance hall) if available, or acknowledge that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence without further data.

The investigator correctly identifies that direct fault evidence (stuck values, error codes) is missing. However, they rely heavily on the 'absence of logs' in C09 as potential evidence of malfunction (A1). This is a weak inference because contact sensors only report on change; if the door was closed for hours, no logs are expected.

The investigator notes the low total event count (17) but fails to check intermediate chunks (C05-C08) which cover the bulk of the day between C04 and C09. Without seeing if the sensor reported anything in those hours, we cannot confirm if it is 'intermittently failing' or simply 'inactive'.

The risk of false alarm is medium because concluding a malfunction based solely on a lack of log entries during a long idle period is speculative. We need to see the full timeline to rule out simple inactivity.

Recommendation: Refine investigation by checking C05-C08 for any contact sensor activity. If none exist, the device may be configured to report rarely or is indeed faulty, but more data is needed before labeling it 'abnormal'.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 一室一厅 (Studio/1BR)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅台灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 397,
    "bedroom": 353,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 52,
    "entrance": 17
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 866,
    "Occupancy": 212,
    "OnOff": 18,
    "LockState": 6,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 6,
  "occupancy_events": 212,
  "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": "2026-06-12T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-12T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "contact_sensor",
      "door_lock",
      "onoff_light"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 entrance 区域的传感器（入户门传感器）是否工作正常，若异常说明故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "front_door_contact",
    "front_door_lock"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C09"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "missing_device_logs",
    "low_activity_anomaly"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C04 contains the only explicit log entries for entrance devices (front_door_contact and front_door_lock) in the entire dataset, showing a door open/close/lock event. This is critical to establish if the sensor reports state changes correctly.",
    "C09 shows significant activity in the entrance room (7 events) but the top devices listed are temperature sensors and locks, with no occupancy or contact sensor logs visible in the preview, helping to determine if the contact sensor is failing to report or simply not triggered during that period compared to C04."
  ]
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The entrance contact sensor is functioning normally. The lack of logs in chunks C05-C08 indicates the door remained closed (state unchanged) for an extended period, which is consistent with a 'change-only' reporting protocol or long idle periods. The sensor successfully reported state changes at the beginning (C04) and end (C09) of the observation window.",
      "evidence": [
        "C04 shows valid state


触发间隔不规律（不是周期性的），且频率较低（几分钟一次不是几十秒一次）

The second_bedroom temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally with no evidence of hardware failure or persistent faults.

Explanation: Temperature sensor data across chunks C00, C12, and C13 shows consistent, logical progression (e.g., rising from ~22.7°C to ~24.8°C) without stuck values, impossible jumps, or communication dropouts.

Explanation: Occupancy sensor in C13 exhibits valid state transitions (unoccupied -> occupied -> unoccupied), which, while brief, are consistent with transient human presence detection and do not indicate a stuck-on or stuck-off fault.

Explanation: No explicit fault codes, alarms, or repeated non-recovery events were logged for either device.

Explanation: The investigator's hypothesis of intermittent false triggers is noted but correctly dismissed as insufficient for a device-fault conclusion due to the lack of persistent error states.

C00/C12/C13: Temperature readings vary logically over time (e.g., 22.72C at 00:00 -> 24.82C at 13:55).

C13: Occupancy transitions at 15:11-15:14 and 15:16-15:17 are self-resolving and do not constitute a fault.

Absence of any 'fault', 'alarm', or 'error' logs for second_bedroom devices.

No immediate action required; continue standard monitoring.

C12: Temperature continues to rise naturally (~24.6-24.8°C), showing no stuck values or drops.

C13: Occupancy sensor shows valid state transitions: unoccupied -> occupied (15:11) -> unoccupied (15:14) -> occupied (15:16) -> unoccupied (15:17). This pattern is consistent with a person entering and leaving the room briefly.

No explicit fault codes, alarms, or communication errors are present in the logs for these devices.

The occupancy transitions in C13 are very short (3-4 minutes), which could be interpreted as noise or false positives if the user was not actually present, but this is not definitive proof of malfunction without more context.

The second_bedroom occupancy sensor may be experiencing intermittent false triggers or sensitivity issues, indicated by two very brief 'occupied' states separated by only 2 minutes in C13, while the temperature sensor remains stable. However, given the lack of other corroborating signals (like motion or door locks) and the brevity, it is more likely a transient glitch or minor behavioral anomaly rather than a hard device failure.

In C13, at 15:11:00, second_bedroom_occupancy becomes occupied (raw=1).

At 15:14:00, it returns to unoccupied (raw=0). Duration: 3 minutes.

At 15:16:20, it becomes occupied again (raw=1).

At 15:17:10, it returns to unoccupied (raw=0). Duration: <1 minute.

These rapid, short-duration transitions are atypical for sustained occupancy and might indicate sensor instability or environmental interference (e.g., pets, drafts), though they do not constitute a complete failure.

The temperature sensor shows no signs of malfunction (stuck values, drift, or dropout).

The occupancy events are brief and self-resolving; there is no persistent error state.

Without additional context (e.g., did someone actually enter?), we cannot confirm if this is a malfunction or just unusual behavior. It does not meet the threshold for 'device-fault' requiring direct evidence like stuck values or repeated non-recovery.

Temperature sensor data in C00, C12, and C13 shows consistent, logical progression with no stuck values or gaps.

Occupancy sensor in C13 shows two brief 'occupied' events (15:11-15:14 and 15:16-15:17) which are anomalous in duration but not necessarily indicative of total failure.

No explicit fault messages or communication failures are logged for either sensor.

Context on whether anyone was actually present in the second bedroom during the C13 timestamps to validate the occupancy sensor's accuracy.

Logs from other sensors in the second bedroom (e.g., door contact, motion) to cross-corroborate the occupancy events.

The investigator correctly identified the target devices and analyzed the relevant chunks (C00, C12, C13).

Protocol interpretation is accurate: Temperature values are correctly scaled (centi-degrees), and Occupancy states are interpreted as transitions.

The conclusion that sensors are working normally is well-supported. The temperature data shows logical progression without stuck values or drops. The occupancy sensor shows valid state transitions in C13, which, while brief, are consistent with human presence detection logic and do not constitute a fault (no stuck-on/off behavior).

The investigator appropriately flagged the brevity of occupancy events as a potential behavioral anomaly but correctly distinguished it from a device malfunction based on the lack of persistent error states or communication failures.

No false-alarm risks detected; the analysis relies on direct evidence of normal operation.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 401,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "second_bedroom": 340,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 222,
    "entrance": 233
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1154,
    "Occupancy": 647,
    "OnOff": 14,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 647,
  "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

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "second_bedroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "second_bedroom_temp_sensor",
      "second_bedroom_occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 second_bedroom 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "second_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "second_bedroom_temp_sensor",
    "second_bedroom_occupancy_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C12",
    "C13"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "missing_data",
    "sensor_stuck",
    "communication_failure"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline check for normal operation of second_bedroom sensors at the start of the log.",
    "C12: Check for occupancy sensor state transitions (unoccupied) to verify basic functionality.",
    "C13: High activity chunk in second_bedroom (17 events) to test if temperature reporting persists during high traffic or if it drops out."
  ]
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The second_bedroom temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally. The temperature readings show expected diurnal variation (rising from ~22.7°C to ~24.8°C) and stable reporting intervals. The occupancy sensor correctly reports 'unoccupied' for the majority of the time, with brief transitions to 'occupied' during specific windows in C13, indicating normal human presence detection.",
      "evidence": [
        "C00: Temperature sensor reports consistent values (~22.7-23.1°C) every 5 minutes, matching trends in other rooms.",
        "C


DF-05-FP: 烟雾报警器正常自检

有完整的自检流程（TestInProgress=true → SelfTestComplete → TestInProgress=false），不是HardwareFault

The kitchen temperature sensor is functioning normally; the observed activity spike was caused by a scheduled smoke alarm self-test, not a sensor fault.

Explanation: Analysis of C00 and C13 chunks shows the kitchen_temp_sensor reporting physically plausible temperature changes (e.g., 22.68°C to 23.04°C in C00; 23.31°C down to 22.95°C in C13) that correlate with trends in other rooms, ruling out stuck values or drift.

Explanation: The triage-identified anomaly (high event count in C13) is explicitly explained by logs showing `kitchen_smoke_alarm` performing a self-test (`TestInProgress=true`, `SelfTestComplete()`) at 18:45:00-18:45:30.

Explanation: During the smoke alarm test, the temperature sensor continued to report valid, changing data (22.95°C -> 22.92°C), confirming no interference or failure.

Explanation: No explicit fault codes, connectivity drops, or impossible state transitions were found for the temperature sensor.

C00/C13 temperature readings show consistent, gradual changes matching household thermal inertia.

C13 18:45:00-18:45:30 logs confirm `kitchen_smoke_alarm` SelfTest events, explaining the room-level activity spike.

Absence of any fault indicators or stuck values in `kitchen_temp_sensor` logs.

No action required; device health is confirmed normal.

Verify if the smoke alarm self-test was scheduled maintenance to ensure operational compliance.

C13: Kitchen temp drops from 23.31°C to 22.95°C over 1h10m, consistent with cooling patterns seen in other sensors.

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or connectivity drops associated with the temperature sensor itself.

Does not fully explain why the triage flagged a spike in event count for the kitchen in chunk C13, although the detailed log shows this was dominated by the smoke alarm self-test rather than the temp sensor.

False positive anomaly detection due to co-located safety device activity. The 'anomaly' suspected in the kitchen area (high event count in C13) is actually caused by the `kitchen_smoke_alarm` performing a self-test (`TestInProgress=true`, `SelfTestComplete()`), not a malfunction of the temperature sensor. The temperature sensor data remains valid throughout.

In C13 at 18:45:00, `kitchen_smoke_alarm` sets `TestInProgress = true` and `ExpressedState = 4`.

At 18:45:30, `kitchen_smoke_alarm` fires `Event: SelfTestComplete()` and resets state.

The `kitchen_temp_sensor` continues to report normal, changing values during this period (23.10°C -> 22.92°C), showing no interference or failure.

The high event count mentioned in triage likely aggregates all kitchen devices, including the smoke alarm's test events.

If the smoke alarm self-test was unscheduled or triggered by a real hazard, it would be a safety issue, but the logs explicitly label it as a self-test completion, indicating intentional operation.

C13 18:45:00 - 18:45:30: Explicit `SmokeCoAlarm.TestInProgress` and `SelfTestComplete` events confirm the source of kitchen activity spikes is the smoke alarm, not the temp sensor.

Consistent temperature deltas in `kitchen_temp_sensor` across both C00 and C13 chunks, matching physical expectations and correlating with other room sensors.

Context on whether the smoke alarm self-test was scheduled/maintenance-related or triggered by an external command, though this does not affect the temperature sensor's health status.

The investigator correctly identified that the kitchen temperature sensor is functioning normally.

Evidence analysis is sound: The temperature readings in C00 and C13 show physically plausible changes consistent with other sensors, ruling out 'stuck value' faults.

The investigator correctly attributed the high event count anomaly flagged by triage to the `kitchen_smoke_alarm` self-test, not the temp sensor, demonstrating good protocol understanding (distinguishing device-specific logs from room-level aggregates).

No false-alarm risks detected; the conclusion relies on direct observation of valid sensor data and explicit exclusion of fault indicators.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 336,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "kitchen": 293,
    "bathroom": 48,
    "entrance": 48
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1152,
    "Occupancy": 240,
    "TestInProgress": 2,
    "ExpressedState": 2
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 0,
  "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": "2026-06-06T00:00:00",
    "end_ts":

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "kitchen_temp_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 kitchen 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_temp_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C13"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "sensor_stuck_value",
    "missing_data_gap"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00 provides the baseline operational status of the kitchen temperature sensor at the start of the log period, showing normal readings and presence in top devices.",
    "C13 shows a significant anomaly: the kitchen event count spikes to 20 (highest in that chunk) while the preview lines only list other rooms' temperatures, suggesting the kitchen device might be stuck on a single value or generating non-temperature events (like alarms), which requires detailed inspection to confirm if it's a fault."
  ]
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The kitchen temperature sensor is functioning normally. The logs show consistent, gradual temperature changes (22.68°C to 23.31°C in C00; 23.31°C down to 22.95°C in C13) that correlate with typical household thermal inertia and ambient fluctuations. The values are physically plausible and do not exhibit stuck states or impossible jumps.",
      "evidence": [
        "C00: Kitchen temp rises from 22.68°C to 23.04°C over 1h20m, mirroring trends in other rooms (Living Room: 22.80->23.13).",
        "C13: Kitchen temp drops from 23.31°C


DF-01-FP: 空调恒温控制导致温度稳定

有微小波动（±0.2°C），不是完全固定值；且空调处于开启状态

The living room temperature and occupancy sensors are functioning normally with no evidence of faults or anomalies.

Explanation: Temperature readings for `living_room_temp_sensor` show natural, gradual fluctuations (ranging from ~22.69°C to ~24.44°C) consistent with ambient environmental changes, without any signs of being stuck, drifting abnormally, or reporting impossible values.

Explanation: Occupancy sensor `living_room_occupancy` consistently reports 'unoccupied' (raw=0) throughout the entire log period, which is a valid state for an empty room and shows no erratic transitions or fault indicators.

Explanation: No explicit fault events, alarms, error codes, or protocol-level anomalies were detected in the structured signals or raw chunks.

Explanation: The data adheres to Matter protocol standards (e.g., correct scaling of raw integers to Celsius), and the behavior matches the expected baseline for normal operation.

Temperature values fluctuate naturally between 22.69 C and 24.44 C over the observed period.

Occupancy state remains consistently at 0 (unoccupied) with no impossible transitions.

Absence of any explicit fault events, alarms, or error codes in the logs.

No immediate action required; continue routine monitoring.

Temperature values for `living_room_temp_sensor` fluctuate between 22.69 C and 24.44 C over the observed period, showing no signs of being stuck or drifting abnormally compared to other rooms.

Occupancy state remains consistently at 0 (unoccupied) throughout the entire log duration (C00-C03), which is a valid state for an empty room.

No explicit fault events, alarms, or error codes are present in the structured signals or raw chunks.

The raw integer values (e.g., 2269, 2444) correctly map to Celsius values when divided by 100, adhering to Matter protocol standards.

The analysis is limited to the provided time window; long-term stability cannot be fully assessed without more historical data.

Absence of any 'stuck value' patterns: Temperature changes every 5 minutes with reasonable variance.

Absence of 'sensor_malfunction' triggers: No repeated non-recovery or impossible transitions.

Consistent 'unoccupied' status across all timestamps for living_room_occupancy, matching the general quietness of the household logs.

Logs beyond 05:00:00 to confirm if occupancy changes occur later.

Context on whether anyone was actually present in the living room during this period to validate the 'unoccupied' reading against ground truth.

The investigator correctly identified the target devices (living_room_temp_sensor, living_room_occupancy) and analyzed the provided chunks (C00-C03).

Protocol interpretation is accurate: raw integer values are correctly scaled to Celsius (divided by 100), avoiding false alarms from literal value misinterpretation.

Evidence supports a 'normal' verdict: Temperature readings show natural, gradual fluctuations consistent with ambient changes, not stuck or erratic behavior. Occupancy remains consistently 'unoccupied' (0), which is a valid state for an empty room and shows no impossible transitions or fault indicators.

No explicit fault events, alarms, or error codes were found in the logs.

The conclusion that sensors are working normally is well-supported by the absence of direct fault evidence and the presence of coherent, expected data patterns.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 三室两厅 (3BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- dining_room: 餐厅灯<dimmable_light>, 餐厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kids_room: 儿童房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 儿童房灯<dimmable_light>, 儿童房窗帘<window_covering>, 儿童房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 儿童房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅副灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅氛围灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘1<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器1<contact_sensor>, 客厅窗户传感器2<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bathroom: 主卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 主卫灯<onoff_light>, 主卫运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧床头灯<onoff_light>, 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bathroom: 次卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 次卫灯<onoff_light>
- second_bedroom: 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧空调<air_conditioner>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

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

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "living_room_temp_sensor",
      "living_room_occupancy"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 living_room 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "living_room_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C01",
    "C02",
    "C03"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "temperature_stability_check",
    "occupancy_transition_validation",
    "missing_fault_events"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00-C03 cover the initial period of the logs where baseline temperature readings and occupancy states are established for the living room.",
    "These chunks allow verification of sensor responsiveness (temperature changes) and correct state transitions (unoccupied to occupied) without immediate fault indicators.",
    "Checking these early chunks helps determine if the sensors are reporting valid, changing data or if they are stuck/faulty from the start."
  ]
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The living room sensors (temperature and occupancy) are functioning normally. The temperature readings show expected natural fluctuations within a comfortable range, and the occupancy sensor correctly reports 'unoccupied' status consistent with the lack of other activity indicators in the logs.",
      "evidence": [
        "Temperature values for `living_room_temp_sensor` fluctuate between 22.69 C and 24.44 C over the


DF-06-FP: 窗帘正常移动但速度慢

The master bedroom occupancy and temperature sensors are functioning normally; the observed brief telemetry gap was a transient network issue affecting multiple devices, not a persistent sensor fault.

Explanation: 1. Analyze Temperature Sensor: The `master_bedroom_temp_sensor` reports continuous, physically plausible readings (ranging from ~22.6°C to ~25.1°C) across all provided chunks (C00-C05, C29). There are no stuck values, impossible jumps, or hardware failure indicators.

Explanation: 2. Analyze Occupancy Sensor State Transitions: The `master_bedroom_occupancy` sensor correctly transitions from 'unoccupied' (raw=0) during sleep hours to 'occupied' (raw=1) at 06:04, coinciding with the light turning on. It remains occupied through the morning and evening periods shown in C05 and C29.

Explanation: 3. Evaluate Potential Anomalies: A brief dropout occurred around 06:37-06:39 where `kitchen_temp_sensor` reported `None` and `master_bathroom_occupancy` flipped state. However, this was a momentary event that fully recovered within minutes, and other sensors (including the target temperature sensor) remained stable. This indicates a transient network jitter rather than a device-specific malfunction.

Explanation: 4. Address Supervisor Concerns: While the supervisor noted missing data for the late-night transition back to 'unoccupied', the available evidence shows the sensor is online and reporting valid states ('occupied') at 23:25. Without evidence of it being 'stuck' (e.g., failing to update when it should have, or showing contradictory states), we cannot conclude a fault. The lack of 'unoccupied' logs is likely due to sampling gaps or the occupant still being present, not a sensor error.

Explanation: 5. Conclusion: No direct fault evidence (stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarms) exists for the master bedroom sensors. The system behavior is consistent with normal operation.

Continuous valid temperature readings from `master_bedroom_temp_sensor` (e.g., 22.76 C to 25.09 C).

Logical occupancy transition from unoccupied to occupied at 06:04 aligned with light activation.

Transient nature of the 06:37 dropout, which affected kitchen/bathroom sensors simultaneously, suggesting network jitter rather than local sensor failure.

No immediate action required; sensors appear healthy.

Monitor for recurrence of the transient network dropouts if they impact critical automation logic.

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

Temperature sensor `master_bedroom_temp_sensor` reports continuous, physically plausible readings from 22.76 C to 25.09 C across all chunks (C00-C05, C29), with no gaps or impossible jumps.

Occupancy sensor `master_bedroom_occupancy` shows a logical transition: Unoccupied (raw=0) from 00:00 to 06:03, then Occupied (raw=1) starting at 06:04, remaining occupied through the rest of the observed timeline (including late night in C29).

The occupancy state correlates logically with other devices: Light turns on at 06:04 immediately after occupancy change; window opens later in the evening when occupants are present.

No explicit fault codes, alarm events, or repeated non-recovery patterns are observed for these specific devices.

There is a data gap between 01:10 (end of C00) and 06:20 (start of C05) where only sparse snapshots exist. While the start and end points are consistent with normal sleep behavior, we cannot verify continuous reporting during this 5-hour window, though lack of evidence for failure is not evidence of failure.

Intermittent connectivity or reporting dropout affecting the master bedroom occupancy sensor around 06:37-06:39. Although the sensor recovered quickly, the brief loss of signal coincides with high activity (kitchen cooking, bathroom usage), suggesting potential network instability or sensor glitch that could lead to missed detection if it persisted.

At 06:37:10, `master_bathroom_occupancy` reports 'unoccupied' while `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`, indicating a broader momentary telemetry issue or network jitter in the household hub.

Immediately following this, at 06:39:00, `master_bedroom_occupancy` re-reports 'occupied'. The gap between the last confirmed 'occupied' state (06:34) and this re-reporting is short, but the simultaneous `None` value in the kitchen suggests a systemic transient fault rather than an isolated sensor error.

If this dropout occurred during a critical security event (e.g., entry/exit), it would represent a monitoring blind spot.

The dropout was extremely brief (~2 minutes) and fully recovered, which is typical for transient Wi-Fi/Zigbee interference rather than permanent hardware failure.

No other master bedroom sensors (temperature) were affected by this specific glitch, isolating the issue potentially to the occupancy device's radio or a specific polling interval.

The supervisor noted this as a 'brief dropout' likely transient, and without recurrence in adjacent chunks (C04/C06 boundaries), it does not meet the threshold for persistent malfunction.

Potential false negative in occupancy detection during the early morning transition (06:00-06:04). The sensor remained 'unoccupied' until 06:04, despite the light turning on at 06:04:10. If the occupant entered earlier (e.g., 05:55), the sensor failed to detect presence for ~9 minutes.

Last 'unoccupied' report for master bedroom is at 06:00:00.

This implies a delay between physical presence and digital detection, or the person entered exactly at 06:04.

In a security context, a 4-minute lag in occupancy detection could be significant if used for automated locking/unlocking logic.

PIR/motion sensors often have debounce timers or require sustained motion to trigger, so a 4-minute lag might be within normal operational parameters for the device type.

No evidence suggests the occupant was actually present before 06:04 (e.g., no other device activity like bathroom use or phone movement detected).

Continuous temperature data from `master_bedroom_temp_sensor` across all chunks confirms the device is online and reporting valid physics-based values.

Logical consistency of `master_bedroom_occupancy` transitioning from 0 to 1 at 06:04 aligns with `master_bedroom_light` turning on at 06:04:10.

Transient `None` value in `kitchen_temp_sensor` at 06:37:10 alongside `master_bathroom_occupancy` flipping to unoccupied suggests a minor network hiccup rather than a specific master bedroom sensor fault.

Logs for the intermediate period between 01:10 and 06:20 to confirm continuous occupancy reporting during sleep hours.

Device-specific diagnostic logs (e.g., RSSI, packet loss) to determine if the 06:37 dropout was due to local interference or hub processing issues.

Verify if master_bedroom_occupancy transitions back to 'unoccupied' in the late night/early morning period (C28/C30) to rule out a 'stuck occupied' fault.

Check for any explicit fault codes or repeated non-recovery patterns in C06-C10 which cover the daytime period where the investigator noted a brief dropout but did not see recurrence.

Confirm continuous temperature reporting in C06-C10 to ensure no intermittent hardware failure occurred during the day.

The investigator correctly identified that the sensors are generally functional based on the provided chunks (C00, C05, C29). However, the conclusion of 'normal' is premature because it relies on limited temporal coverage.

Specifically, we need to verify the 'late night/early morning transition' mentioned in the triage. The query asks about the sensor's health over a full cycle. If the sensor gets stuck in 'occupied' after the morning activity and never resets, that is a fault. Chunk C29 shows it is occupied at 23:25, but we do not have data for when it should have turned off (if anyone left) or if it stayed on all night.

The 'brief dropout' in C05 was transient and recovered, so it doesn't constitute a permanent fault yet, but without seeing the subsequent hours (C06+), we cannot confirm stability.

Therefore, evidence is insufficient to declare the device healthy for the entire observed period. We need to see the end-of-day behavior to check for stuck states.

Master bedroom sensors (occupancy and temperature) are functioning normally. The occupancy sensor correctly transitions between unoccupied and occupied states based on human presence, and the temperature sensor reports stable, physically plausible values consistent with other rooms.

C00: master_bedroom_occupancy reports 'unoccupied' (raw=0) during early morning hours when no activity is expected, which is consistent with the room being empty.

C05: master_bedroom_occupancy transitions to 'occupied' (raw=1) at 06:24 and remains occupied through the morning routine, correlating with other devices like kids_room_light turning on and kitchen_cook_surface activating, suggesting a shared household wake-up pattern.

C29: master_bedroom_occupancy reports 'occupied' (raw=1) in the evening, consistent with typical nighttime usage.

Temperature readings for master_bedroom_temp_sensor are within normal ranges (22-25 C) and show gradual changes consistent with ambient temperature fluctuations, not stuck or erratic values.

The logs provided are sparse snapshots; continuous monitoring would be needed to rule out intermittent glitches between these timestamps.

Potential transient communication dropout or sensor glitch in the master bedroom occupancy sensor around 06:37-06:39, where it briefly disappears from the log stream while other devices continue reporting, potentially indicating a temporary connectivity issue or sensor reset.

In C05, at 06:37:10, master_bathroom_occupancy reports 'unoccupied', but there is no explicit 'master_bedroom_occupancy' update logged between 06:34:00 and 06:39:00, despite other devices (kids_room, kitchen) updating frequently.

At 06:39:00, master_bedroom_occupancy reappears as 'occupied'. This gap might indicate a missed event or a brief period where the sensor failed to report its state, although it recovered quickly.

The gap is very short (approx. 5 minutes) and the sensor recovers immediately without any error codes or persistent stuck states.

Matter notes specify that a single transient dropout is not sufficient to claim sensor malfunction.

No evidence of repeated failures or inability to recover.

C05: The sequence of master_bedroom_occupancy transitioning from unoccupied (implied before 06:24) to occupied (06:24) and staying occupied aligns with household activity patterns.

C00 & C29: Consistent 'unoccupied' and 'occupied' states respectively, matching expected daily cycles.

Temperature data: No extreme values or flatlines indicating hardware failure.

Continuous log data for the entire day to verify if the brief gap in C05 was an isolated incident or part of a recurring pattern.

Battery level or connection strength metrics for the master bedroom sensors to rule out power/connectivity issues causing the brief dropout.

Verify occupancy sensor behavior during the gap between C00 (01:10) and C05 (06:20). The investigator assumes a transition occurred but has no data for ~5 hours. A stuck 'unoccupied' state or intermittent failure could be hidden here.

Check if the brief dropout in C05 (06:37-06:39) is an isolated incident or part of a pattern by reviewing surrounding chunks (C04, C06).

Confirm temperature sensor continuity across all chunks to rule out silent hardware failures that might not show as 'stuck' values but rather as missing updates.

The investigator correctly identifies that the visible data points in C00, C05, and C29 are consistent with normal operation.

However, there is a significant evidence gap between C00 (ends 01:10) and C05 (starts 06:20). The investigator's hypothesis relies on the assumption that the occupancy sensor worked normally during this 5-hour window, but no logs are provided to support this. If the sensor was stuck 'unoccupied' or failed entirely during sleep hours, it would still appear 'normal' in the sparse snapshots if we only look at the start/end points.

The 'anomaly' identified in C05 (brief dropout) is dismissed as likely transient, which is reasonable given the quick recovery, but without checking adjacent chunks (C04, C06), we cannot confirm if this is a recurring connectivity issue.

To definitively conclude the sensors are 'working normally', we need to verify continuous reporting or at least check the intermediate chunks to ensure no long-duration faults were missed.

Risk of false alarm is medium because concluding 'normal' based on sparse sampling risks missing intermittent faults.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 三室两厅 (3BR)
- balcony: 洗衣机<laundry_washer>, 阳台灯<onoff_light>, 阳台门传感器<contact_sensor>
- dining_room: 餐厅灯<dimmable_light>, 餐厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>, 玄关运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kids_room: 儿童房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 儿童房灯<dimmable_light>, 儿童房窗帘<window_covering>, 儿童房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 儿童房运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅副灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅氛围灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘1<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器1<contact_sensor>, 客厅窗户传感器2<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bathroom: 主卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 主卫灯<onoff_light>, 主卫运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- master_bedroom: 主卧床头灯<onoff_light>, 主卧温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 主卧灯<dimmable_light>, 主卧空调<air_conditioner>, 主卧窗帘<window_covering>, 主卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 主卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- second_bathroom: 次卫漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 次卫灯<onoff_light>
- second_bedroom: 次卧灯<dimmable_light>, 次卧空调<air_conditioner>, 次卧窗帘<window_covering>, 次卧窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 次卧运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 403,
    "master_bedroom": 526,
    "kids_room": 517,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 219,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 222,
    "entrance": 225,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 1254,
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "master_bedroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "master_bedroom_occupancy_sensor",
      "master_bedroom_temp_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 master_bedroom 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "master_bedroom_occupancy",
    "master_bedroom_temp_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C29"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "occupancy_stuck_unoccupied",
    "missing_data_points"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline check for early morning (unoccupied state) to verify sensor reporting frequency and normal temperature readings.",
    "C05: Critical period where occupancy transitions to 'occupied' (raw=1). Checking if the sensor correctly detects presence after being unoccupied.",
    "C29: Late night/early morning transition. Checking if the sensor reverts to 'unoccupied' or stays stuck, and verifying continuous temperature data."
  ]
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "The master bedroom sensors (occupancy and temperature) are functioning normally. The occupancy sensor correctly transitions from unoccupied to occupied in the morning, stays occupied during the day/evening, and reports valid temperature readings throughout the entire period without stuck values or hardware faults.",
      "evidence": [
        "Temperature sensor `master_bedroom_temp_sensor` reports continuous, physically plausible readings from 22.76 C to 25.09 C a


The bathroom occupancy sensor is functioning normally; the water leak detector shows no fault evidence in the provided logs.

Explanation: The query asks to check the status of sensors in the bathroom area, specifically targeting the water leak detector, on/off light, and occupancy sensor.

Explanation: Evidence from chunks C04-C06 confirms the `bathroom_occupancy` sensor is working correctly: it transitions between 'occupied' (raw=1) and 'unoccupied' (raw=0) at logical times (e.g., entering at 08:55, leaving at 09:19), with no stuck values or communication errors.

Explanation: The `bathroom_light` also responds appropriately to occupancy events (turning on at 08:55, off at 09:18), indicating normal actuator behavior.

Explanation: Regarding the `bathroom_water_leak_detector`, there are zero log entries for this device in the entire provided dataset (C00-C06). While this absence is noted as a potential risk by the supervisor, Matter devices often only report on state changes (leak detected) or periodic heartbeats. Without explicit 'offline', 'fault', or 'alarm' events, and given that no leaks were detected (which is a normal state for a dry bathroom), we cannot conclude a fault based solely on silence.

Explanation: Per the rules, 'sensor_malfunction' or 'safety_device_failure' cannot be escalated from missing logs alone without direct fault evidence. Therefore, the most supported conclusion is that the visible sensors are normal, and the leak detector's status is indeterminate but not proven faulty.

bathroom_occupancy transitions: occupied at 08:55:00, unoccupied at 09:19:22, 09:49:22, 10:49:22, 11:19:22 (Chunks C04-C06)

bathroom_light OnOff transitions: on at 08:55:00, off at 09:18:00 (Chunk C05)

Absence of any `bathroom_water_leak_detector` logs in C00-C06

Verify if the water leak detector is paired and online in the hub's device registry.

Check configuration settings to see if the leak detector reports periodic health status or only on-change.

Monitor future logs to confirm if the leak detector ever appears, ensuring it is not permanently offline.

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

C04: `bathroom_occupancy` transitions to `occupied` at 08:55:00.

C05: `bathroom_occupancy` transitions to `unoccupied` at 09:19:22, indicating a successful exit event.

C06: `bathroom_occupancy` transitions back to `unoccupied` at 10:49:22 and 11:19:22, showing continued operation after subsequent exits.

No explicit fault codes or communication errors are logged for the bathroom occupancy sensor.

The hypothesis assumes that the lack of 'water_leak_detector' logs implies no leaks occurred, rather than a device failure. While plausible, it cannot be definitively proven without seeing the device report a 'healthy' status or a triggered alarm.

Bathroom light and water leak detector are functioning normally but were not triggered during the observed periods (light was manually controlled or off; no leaks occurred).

C05: `bathroom_light` turns on at 08:55:00 (coinciding with occupancy) and off at 09:18:00 (after occupancy ended), suggesting normal manual or automated control logic.

Absence of `water_leak_detector` logs across all chunks (C00-C06) suggests no water presence was detected, which is a normal state for a dry bathroom.

Cannot confirm the water leak detector is online or reporting health status, only that it hasn't alarmed.

Water leak detector may be offline or malfunctioning (safety_device_failure/sensor_malfunction) because it never appears in the log stream despite being a critical safety device in a wet area.

Structured signals list `bathroom_water_leak_detector` as a target device.

Scanning C00 through C06 reveals zero entries for `bathroom_water_leak_detector`.

Other devices (temp sensors, occupancy) report regularly. The complete silence of a specific safety sensor is anomalous compared to the rest of the system's activity.

Supervisor feedback explicitly flagged this missing check as a risk.

Matter devices often only report on change or periodic heartbeats. If the device is configured to only report on leak detection and no leak occurred, silence is expected behavior, not necessarily a fault.

Lack of explicit 'offline' or 'fault' events from the hub makes this a weak anomaly claim based solely on absence.

Bathroom light control logic may be inconsistent or partially automated, potentially indicating a configuration issue or intermittent sensor fault if the light did not turn on automatically upon occupancy.

C05: Light turns ON at 08:55:00 exactly when occupancy becomes occupied.

C05: Light turns OFF at 09:18:00, ~1 minute after occupancy became unoccupied (09:19:22). This delay might indicate manual switching or a timeout setting.

If the system is designed for auto-on/off, the timing seems slightly loose, but not necessarily faulty.

The light did respond to the occupancy event (turned on), so it is not completely broken.

The delay in turning off could be intentional (user preference) rather than a fault.

Presence of `bathroom_occupancy` state transitions (C04, C05, C06) proving the occupancy sensor is active and communicating.

Complete absence of any `bathroom_water_leak_detector` logs in the entire dataset (C00-C06), contrasting with the regular reporting of other bathroom-adjacent devices.

Timing correlation between `bathroom_occupancy` and `bathroom_light` in C05 (Light ON at 08:55, Occupancy OCCUPY at 08:55).

Confirmation of whether the `bathroom_water_leak_detector` is paired and online in the hub's device registry.

Logs from outside the C00-C06 window to see if the leak detector ever reports (e.g., during a cleaning cycle or test).

Configuration details for the bathroom light (auto-on vs manual) to determine if the 09:18:00 off-event is normal behavior.

Verification of `bathroom_water_leak_detector` presence in later chunks (C07-C16) to determine if it is permanently offline or just silent during this period.

Check for explicit fault/alarm events from the hub regarding the water leak detector.

Confirmation of whether the `bathroom_light` behavior (auto-on/off logic) is consistent with system configuration or indicates a sensor/control loop issue.

The investigator correctly identified that the occupancy sensor is functional based on state transitions.

However, the conclusion regarding the water leak detector is currently speculative ('silence implies no leak' vs 'silence implies fault'). The logs provided (C00-C06) do not contain any entries for the water leak detector. Without checking subsequent chunks (C07+), we cannot confirm if the device ever reports health status or if it is completely missing from the network.

A 'device-health' verdict requires distinguishing between 'no event triggered' and 'device offline/broken'. The current evidence is insufficient to make this distinction definitively.

The risk of false alarm is medium because concluding 'normal' based solely on absence of logs is risky for safety devices, but concluding 'fault' without connectivity errors is also weak.

Need to review remaining chunks to see if the water leak detector appears at all.

Bathroom occupancy sensor is functioning normally. The device reports valid state transitions (occupied/unoccupied) consistent with short-term human presence, and the lack of other logs (light, leak detector) reflects low usage or specific reporting configurations rather than a fault.

C05 shows `bathroom_occupancy` transitioning from `unoccupied` to `occupied` at 09:10 and back to `unoccupied` at 09:18/09:49, indicating active sensing capability.

The duration of occupancy (~8-39 minutes) is typical for bathroom use.

No explicit error codes, stuck values, or impossible state transitions are observed in the occupancy data.

Other devices in the home (living room, bedroom, kitchen sensors) show normal operational patterns, suggesting the network and gateway are functional.

The query specifically asks about 'sensors' (plural), but only occupancy data is present for the bathroom. The absence of water leak detector logs might be interpreted as missing functionality by a user expecting comprehensive monitoring, even if technically not a fault of the occupancy sensor itself.

Partial device failure or configuration issue: The bathroom water leak detector and light are unresponsive or not logging, while the occupancy sensor works. This constitutes a 'partial functionality' anomaly where critical safety (leak detection) and convenience (lighting) devices are silent despite the hub being active.

Structured signals indicate `bathroom` has very low activity (55 events) compared to other rooms, and `focus_devices` include `bathroom_water_leak_detector` and `bathroom_light` which have zero logged events in the provided chunks.

C05 contains the *only* explicit `bathroom_light` event (`off` at 09:18), occurring after an occupancy change, but no `on` event is recorded when the room became occupied, nor are there any subsequent on/off cycles.

There are absolutely no logs for `bathroom_water_leak_detector` in C00, C01, or C05, despite it being a target device for health checks.

The triage output explicitly suspects `missing_device_logs` and `partial_functionality`.

A single chunk set may not represent the full operational history; the devices might simply not have been triggered (no leaks, lights left off manually).

The rules state that 'mere absence of logs for a device is not enough to claim... sensor_malfunction'. Without evidence of a trigger that *should* have generated a log (e.g., a known leak event or a motion-triggered light command), silence can be normal behavior.

The occupancy sensor working proves connectivity, so if the other devices are offline, it's a specific device-level issue, but proving it's a 'fault' vs 'inactivity' requires more context.

Presence of valid `OccupancySensing.Occupancy` transitions in C05 (09:10-09:49) proves the bathroom occupancy sensor is online and reporting correctly.

Complete absence of any `water_leak_detector` or `bathroom_light` status updates in all focused chunks (C00, C01, C05), contrasting with frequent updates from other rooms' similar devices.

Single isolated `bathroom_light | OnOff.OnOff = off` event at 09:18 without a corresponding 'on' event during the occupancy period suggests either manual control or a logging gap.

Logs for the `bathroom_water_leak_detector` over a longer period to determine if it ever reports or if it is permanently silent.

Logs for `bathroom_light` showing 'on' commands or motion-triggered activations to verify if the device responds to inputs.

Configuration details: Are these devices configured to report only on change, or periodically? If periodic, their silence is a stronger indicator of fault.

Context on whether the user expects automatic lighting or continuous leak monitoring alerts.

C04: `bathroom_occupancy` transitions to `occupied` at 08:55:00.

C05: `bathroom_occupancy` transitions to `unoccupied` at 09:19:22, indicating a successful exit event.

No explicit fault codes or communication errors are logged for the bathroom occupancy sensor.

Structured signals list `bathroom_water_leak_detector` as a target device.

Scanning C00 through C06 reveals zero entries for `bathroom_water_leak_detector`.

Supervisor feedback explicitly flagged this missing check as a risk.

C05: Light turns ON at 08:55:00 exactly when occupancy becomes occupied.

If the system is designed for auto-on/off, the timing seems slightly loose, but not necessarily faulty.

Verify if `bathroom_water_leak_detector` logs exist in other time chunks (C02-C04) to rule out simple absence of leaks vs. device failure.

Check for any explicit fault/alarm events from the hub or gateway regarding the bathroom devices.

Confirm if the single `bathroom_light` 'off' event is part of a pattern or an isolated incident; check surrounding chunks for 'on' commands.

Distinguish between 'device offline/fault' and 'device configured to report only on change/no triggers occurred'.

The investigator correctly identifies that the occupancy sensor is working but flags the silence of the light and leak detector as potential anomalies.

However, concluding 'partial functionality' or 'sensor malfunction' based solely on missing logs is risky without evidence of expected triggers (e.g., did someone turn on the light? Was there a leak?).

The current evidence set (C00, C01, C05) covers disjointed times. We need to see if the water leak detector ever reports in the full dataset to determine if it's broken or just never triggered.

The query asks about 'sensors' (plural). The investigation needs to explicitly address the status of the water leak detector, not just infer it from absence.

Risk of false alarm is medium because the conclusion relies heavily on the assumption that these devices *should* have logged something during the observed periods, which isn't proven yet.

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

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

## Layout
Layout: 一室一厅 (Studio/1BR)
- bathroom: 卫生间漏水传感器<water_leak_detector>, 卫生间灯<onoff_light>, 卫生间运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- bedroom: 卧室温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 卧室灯<dimmable_light>, 卧室窗帘<window_covering>, 卧室窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 卧室运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>
- entrance: 入户门传感器<contact_sensor>, 入户门锁<door_lock>, 玄关灯<onoff_light>
- kitchen: 厨房温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 厨房灯<onoff_light>, 厨房灶具<cook_surface>, 厨房烟雾报警器<smoke_co_alarm>, 厨房窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 洗碗机<dishwasher>
- living_room: 客厅主灯<dimmable_light>, 客厅台灯<onoff_light>, 客厅温度传感器<temperature_sensor>, 客厅空调<air_conditioner>, 客厅窗帘<window_covering>, 客厅窗户传感器<contact_sensor>, 客厅运动传感器<occupancy_sensor>

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

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

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

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "bathroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "water_leak_detector",
      "onoff_light",
      "occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "判断 bathroom 区域的传感器是否工作正常。如果异常，请说明可能的故障类型。"
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "bathroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "bathroom_occupancy",
    "bathroom_light",
    "bathroom_water_leak_detector"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C05",
    "C00",
    "C01"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "missing_device_logs",
    "partial_functionality"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C05 contains the only explicit 'bathroom_light' event in the entire log set, indicating intermittent or rare activity for this device. It also shows occupancy transitions.",
    "C00 and C01 provide baseline context for the start of the monitoring period to check for initial connectivity or consistent reporting patterns of the occupancy sensor.",
    "These chunks allow comparison between the active devices (occupancy) and the potentially faulty/inactive ones (light, leak detector) to confirm if the lack of logs is a fault or just low usage."
  ]
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",
      "description": "Bathroom occupancy sensor is functioning correctly. The device reports state changes (occupied/unoccupied) consistent with user entry and exit, and maintains connectivity throughout the monitoring period.",
      "evidence": [
        "C04: `bathroom_occupancy` transitions to `occupied` at 08:55:00.",
        "C05: `bathroom_occupancy` transitions to `unoccupied` at