EL-07-FP: 老人散步时间稍长但正常回家

虽然比平时晚了30分钟回来，但最终正常解锁回家并有后续活动

The kitchen temperature sensor exhibits intermittent failure (reporting None) specifically correlated with cooking activity, indicating environmental interference or device malfunction that compromises safety monitoring.

Explanation: Analysis of the logs reveals a consistent pattern where the `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` immediately following state changes in the `kitchen_cook_surface` (both ON and OFF events).

Explanation: Specific instances include: C04 (OFF at 06:28, None at 06:29), C15 (ON at 17:02:30, None at 17:03:00), and C16 (OFF at 17:28, None at 17:29).

Explanation: Other sensors in the home report stable values throughout these periods, isolating the issue to the kitchen environment or the specific sensor's ability to handle it.

Explanation: While this could be caused by steam (environmental interference), the complete loss of telemetry during critical safety windows (cooking) constitutes a functional anomaly. Without explicit fault codes or smoke alarms, we cannot confirm fire risk, but the sensor's unreliability is evident.

Explanation: The supervisor noted missing context for the morning cook surface ON event (C03), preventing a definitive 'unattended cooking' conclusion, but the sensor behavior itself is anomalous regardless of the user's intent.

C04: `kitchen_cook_surface` off at 06:28 followed by `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 06:29.

C15: `kitchen_cook_surface` on at 17:02:30 followed by `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 17:03:00.

C16: `kitchen_cook_surface` off at 17:28 followed by `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 17:29.

All other room sensors maintain stable readings during these intervals.

Inspect the kitchen temperature sensor for physical damage or placement issues near heat/steam sources.

Verify if the sensor supports humidity compensation or if it requires relocation away from direct cooking vapors.

Monitor future cooking sessions to see if the sensor recovers reliably or if the failure persists/worsens.

living_room bedroom kitchen bathroom entrance

Analyze the 24-hour log for abnormal behavior patterns, specifically looking for signs of distress, falls, or device faults in an elderly living alone scenario.

Prolonged bathroom occupancy without exit (potential fall/distress)

Cooking activity followed by sensor failure (gas leak/fire risk or device fault)

Door lock state changes inconsistent with occupancy (unauthorized entry or error)

C06: Contains the first significant door lock operation and morning routine; check if lock state matches expected user presence.

C13: Shows a specific lock operation event at 14:48; critical to verify if this is authorized or anomalous given the 'elderly alone' context.

C04 & C16: Both chunks show `kitchen_temp_sensor` reporting `None` shortly after `kitchen_cook_surface` turns off. This suggests a potential device fault or environmental interference that needs investigation to rule out safety hazards like gas leaks causing sensor failure.

Bathroom Occupancy Analysis: While not explicitly detailed in every preview, the low event count in bathroom (2-4 per chunk) vs high occupancy elsewhere suggests checking if any single long-duration occupancy occurred in C09-C15 which might indicate a fall.

The user is an elderly person living alone, exhibiting a normal daily routine with typical morning and evening cooking activities. The 'intruder' at 14:50 is likely the user returning home or a visitor, and the sensor silence during cooking is due to environmental interference (steam/heat) temporarily affecting the temperature sensor.

C05 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turning ON at 17:02:30, confirming the appliance was active before the OFF event in C16, establishing a complete cooking cycle.

C14/C15 show `entrance_occupancy` remaining occupied after the 14:50 lock operation, consistent with someone entering and staying inside (user returning or guest).

Temperature sensors in other rooms (living_room, bedroom) report stable values throughout, suggesting the network and other sensors are functional.

Bathroom occupancy events occur regularly every ~30-60 minutes (e.g., C04, C05, C06, C13, C14, C15, C16), indicating no prolonged unattended stay that would suggest a fall.

Does not fully explain why `kitchen_temp_sensor` specifically reports `None` immediately after cook surface activation in both C04 and C15, while other sensors remain stable. This requires assuming environmental interference rather than device fault.

The lock operations at 08:27 and 14:50 represent standard entry/exit behavior by the resident. The `UserIndex=1` at 14:50 indicates a known user credential was used, reducing the likelihood of unauthorized intrusion.

Lock state transitions are logical: Unlock -> Door Open (Contact False) -> Occupancy Change -> Lock -> Door Closed (Contact True).

At 08:27 (C06), the sequence matches leaving the house: Lock opens, entrance becomes occupied (person exiting), then locks behind them.

At 14:50 (C13), the sequence matches entering: Lock opens, entrance remains occupied (person entering/staying), consistent with a return home.

Relies on the assumption that `UserIndex=1` is always authorized. If credentials were stolen, this doesn't rule out intrusion.

Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk: The kitchen temperature sensor fails to report values (`None`) immediately after the cook surface is turned ON, potentially indicating a hazardous environment (steam/fire) or a sensor failure that masks rising temperatures. In C04, the sensor goes silent for only 1 minute, but in C15, it goes silent for 2 minutes. While it recovers, the correlation with high heat sources is suspicious.

In C04, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns OFF at 06:28, and `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 06:29, recovering at 06:30.

In C15, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON at 17:02:30, and `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 17:03:00, recovering at 17:05:00.

In C16, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns OFF at 17:28, and `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 17:29, recovering at 17:30.

The pattern of sensor silence coinciding with cook surface activity suggests either environmental interference (steam) overwhelming the sensor or a safety hazard causing sensor malfunction.

No explicit fire alarm or smoke detector logs are present in the provided chunks.

The sensor recovers quickly, which might just be steam clearing, not necessarily a persistent fault.

Sensor Malfunction / Environmental Interference: The `kitchen_temp_sensor` exhibits intermittent failures (`None` values) specifically correlated with high humidity or heat from cooking. This is a device/environmental anomaly that could compromise safety monitoring if the sensor is needed for other reasons (e.g., detecting overheating unrelated to cooking).

The `kitchen_temp_sensor` is the only sensor showing `None` values in the entire log set.

These `None` values consistently appear within 1-2 minutes of `kitchen_cook_surface` state changes (ON/OFF).

Other sensors in the same room (if any) or adjacent rooms do not show similar drops, isolating the issue to the kitchen sensor's ability to handle the local environment.

Intermittent faults that self-recover are often classified as environmental interference rather than permanent hardware failure.

Potential Unauthorized Entry or Tailgating: The lock operation at 14:50 uses `UserIndex=1`, but the subsequent occupancy data shows the entrance remained occupied for a long duration without a clear exit event in the immediate following chunks. If the user was already inside, this could indicate an intruder using a valid key/fob.

At 14:50 (C13), `front_door_lock` unlocks with `UserIndex=1`. `entrance_occupancy` is already occupied (raw=1) at 14:47 and remains occupied through C14 and C15.

If the user was already inside (indicated by prior occupancy), an unlock event suggests someone else entered. However, the lack of an 'unoccupied' transition later makes it ambiguous whether they left or stayed.

The use of `UserIndex=1` implies a known credential, which could be stolen.

It is equally plausible that the user left earlier (not captured in these specific chunks) and returned at 14:50, keeping the entrance occupied upon re-entry. The logs don't prove the user was inside *before* 14:50 in the entrance zone specifically.

C15: `kitchen_cook_surface` ON at 17:02:30 followed by `kitchen_temp_sensor` = None at 17:03:00. This confirms the 'cooking-sensor silence' link hypothesized in A1/A2.

C05: `kitchen_cook_surface` ON at 17:02:30 (Note: Timestamps in C05 end at 08:24, so this must be a typo in my reading or the chunk label. Re-reading C05: It ends at 08:24. The ON event is actually in C15 at 17:02:30. Wait, looking at C05 again... C05 is 07:20-08:24. There is NO cook surface ON in C05. The supervisor said 'Verify if kitchen_cook_surface was turned ON before the observed OFF events in C04'. In C04, it turns OFF at 06:28. We don't see it turn ON in C04. We DO see it turn ON in C15 at 17:02:30. So the 'complete cycle' evidence for the evening meal is strong. For the morning meal (C04), we lack the ON event, making it unclear if it was left on too long or just used normally.)

Correction on Evidence: C15 clearly shows the ON event for the evening cooking. C04 shows an OFF event at 06:28 but no preceding ON event in the visible logs, creating a gap in context for the morning activity.

C13/C14/C15: Continuous `entrance_occupancy = occupied` from 14:47 through 16:33+ after the 14:50 lock event. This supports the 'return home' or 'guest staying' narrative over a quick intrusion.

Logs for the period before 06:24 (start of C04) to confirm if `kitchen_cook_surface` was ON before 06:28 in the morning.

Smoke/Gas detector logs to correlate with the `kitchen_temp_sensor` failures.

Camera footage or more granular door contact logs to distinguish between 'user returning' and 'intruder entering' at 14:50.

Context on who `UserIndex=1` corresponds to (is it the sole resident?).

C05 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turning ON at 17:02:30, confirming the appliance was active before the OFF event in C16, establishing a complete cooking cycle.

C14/C15 show `entrance_occupancy` remaining occupied after the 14:50 lock operation, consistent with someone entering and staying inside (user returning or guest).

Temperature sensors in other rooms (living_room, bedroom) report stable values throughout, suggesting the network and other sensors are functional.

Lock state transitions are logical: Unlock -> Door Open (Contact False) -> Occupancy Change -> Lock -> Door Closed (Contact True).

At 08:27 (C06), the sequence matches leaving the house: Lock opens, entrance becomes occupied (person exiting), then locks behind them.

At 14:50 (C13), the sequence matches entering: Lock opens, entrance remains occupied (person entering/staying), consistent with a return home.

In C04, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns OFF at 06:28, and `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 06:29, recovering at 06:30.

In C15, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON at 17:02:30, and `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 17:03:00, recovering at 17:05:00.

In C16, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns OFF at 17:28, and `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 17:29, recovering at 17:30.

The `kitchen_temp_sensor` is the only sensor showing `None` values in the entire log set.

These `None` values consistently appear within 1-2 minutes of `kitchen_cook_surface` state changes (ON/OFF).

Other sensors in the same room (if any) or adjacent rooms do not show similar drops, isolating the issue to the kitchen sensor's ability to handle the local environment.

At 14:50 (C13), `front_door_lock` unlocks with `UserIndex=1`. `entrance_occupancy` is already occupied (raw=1) at 14:47 and remains occupied through C14 and C15.

The use of `UserIndex=1` implies a known credential, which could be stolen.

Verify `kitchen_cook_surface` state prior to 06:28 (C04) to confirm if it was left on unattended or just turned off. C03 is required for this context.

Check for explicit fault codes or alarm events in the `kitchen_temp_sensor` logs during the `None` periods to distinguish between environmental interference and hardware failure.

Confirm `UserIndex=1` authorization status against known resident profiles to rule out credential theft for the 14:50 lock event.

The investigator correctly identified the correlation between cooking and sensor silence but failed to check the preceding chunk (C03) for the morning cook surface ON event. Without knowing if the stove was on before 06:28, we cannot determine if it was an 'unattended cooking' hazard or a normal shutdown. This is a critical missing piece of evidence for the A1 hypothesis.

The 'intrusion' hypothesis (A3) relies heavily on the assumption that the user was not already inside. While the occupancy data shows continuous presence, the lack of an exit event before 14:50 makes the 'return home' narrative plausible but not proven. However, given the elderly-alone context, the safety risk of the kitchen sensor failure is more immediate and requires the missing C03 data to assess properly.

No false-alarm risk regarding temperature scaling (investigator used correct centi-degree interpretation). The main risk is misinterpreting environmental steam as a device fault without checking the full appliance cycle.

The user is an elderly person living alone, exhibiting a normal daily routine with typical morning and afternoon activities. The kitchen temperature sensor `None` readings are transient communication drops or initialization delays that resolved immediately, posing no safety risk.

Occupancy patterns show consistent presence in bedroom/kitchen during morning (06:24-07:20) and afternoon (14:43-15:37), consistent with waking up and daytime activity.

Bathroom occupancy events occur at regular intervals (06:39, 08:39, 15:09, 17:39, 18:09) with short durations, indicating normal hygiene routines rather than prolonged distress.

Door lock operations at 07:09 and 08:27 involve manual unlock followed by auto-lock, consistent with the user leaving the house for errands or walks.

Kitchen cook surface turns off at 06:28 and 17:28, followed by immediate return of valid temperature data from the sensor (06:30, 17:30), suggesting the cooking event was completed safely.

Temperature values across all sensors remain within reasonable indoor ranges (22-25 C) when reported, showing no extreme environmental anomalies.

Does not fully explain why the kitchen temperature sensor specifically reports `None` exactly one minute after the cook surface turns off, which could indicate a correlation with heat/steam affecting the sensor temporarily.

Assumes the 'UserIndex=1' on the door lock at 14:50 is the resident; if this were a visitor, the lack of subsequent exit might be concerning, but the logs don't explicitly show entry duration.

The system is functioning correctly, and the observed patterns represent standard smart home automation behavior (auto-locking doors, periodic sensor polling).

Front door lock state transitions (Unlocked -> Locked) happen automatically via `OperationSource=Auto` shortly after manual unlock, which is standard security configuration.

Sensor reporting frequency is high and consistent, indicating healthy network connectivity.

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

Ignores the potential safety implication of unattended cooking if the user fell asleep or became incapacitated while the cook surface was on, although the logs show it turning off.

Potential unattended cooking or sensor interference due to steam/heat, leading to temporary sensor failure. While the cook surface turned off, the specific timing of the sensor going `None` suggests the environment near the sensor was compromised, potentially masking a gas leak or fire hazard if the sensor is also a CO/smoke detector (though labeled temp, placement matters). More critically, if the user left the cook surface on inadvertently and it auto-shut off, or if they were incapacitated nearby.

At 06:28, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns off. At 06:29, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`. At 06:30, it recovers.

At 17:28, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns off. At 17:29, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`. At 17:30, it recovers.

The precise 1-minute delay between appliance shutdown and sensor silence/recovery suggests a causal link (e.g., residual heat/steam overwhelming the sensor or causing a brief comms drop).

The sensor recovered quickly, so no long-term damage occurred.

There is no evidence of smoke, fire, or gas alarm triggers.

The cook surface did turn off, so the immediate fire risk is mitigated.

Possible unauthorized entry or tailgating at 14:50. The door lock operation shows `UserIndex=1`, which typically maps to the primary resident. However, if the resident is elderly and alone, an external user using their credentials (or a shared code) without a corresponding exit later in the log window could indicate an intruder staying in the home.

At 14:50, `front_door_lock` has a LockOperation with `UserIndex=1` and `OperationSource=3` (often remote/keypad).

Following this, `entrance_occupancy` remains `occupied` continuously through the end of chunk C13 (until 15:37+), and there is no record of the door locking again or the entrance becoming unoccupied in the provided chunks.

If `UserIndex=1` is the sole resident, an external actor using their index implies credential compromise or physical access granted by someone else.

`UserIndex=1` could legitimately be the resident returning home.

The log ends at 15:37 in C13, so we don't see if the person eventually left.

Entrance occupancy staying 'occupied' is consistent with the resident being inside.

Health concern/Fall risk in the bathroom. While bathroom occupancy events appear frequent, the pattern of 'unoccupied' timestamps might mask a fall if the sensor is ceiling-mounted and fails to detect a person lying flat, or if the person is unconscious in a position not detected by PIR. However, the more likely anomaly here is the *absence* of expected movement if the user is known to be active.

Bathroom occupancy is marked 'unoccupied' at 06:39, 08:39, 15:09, 17:39, 18:09. These are short bursts.

If any of these 'unoccupied' periods actually contained a fall where the user remained on the floor outside the sensor's field of view, it would be undetectable by this specific sensor type.

However, looking at the broader context, the user is active elsewhere, making a silent fall less likely than other issues.

No prolonged 'occupied' state in the bathroom was observed that would strongly suggest a fall (e.g., >30 mins).

The query asks for analysis of *existing* logs; inferring a hidden fall without evidence is speculative compared to the sensor/cook surface correlation.

The recurring pattern of `kitchen_temp_sensor` reporting `None` exactly 1 minute after `kitchen_cook_surface` turns off (C04 and C16). This temporal coupling is the strongest signal of either environmental interference (steam/heat) or a device-specific fault triggered by the cooking cycle.

The door lock operation at 14:50 with `UserIndex=1` in C13. Determining if this was the resident or an imposter requires cross-referencing with other presence data not fully visible in the snippet, but it is a critical security checkpoint.

The continuous 'occupied' status of the entrance from 14:50 onwards in C13. If the user didn't leave, this confirms presence; if they did, the sensor might be faulty or the user is still inside.

Definition of `UserIndex` mapping: Is Index 1 strictly the resident? Are there other authorized users?

Full 24-hour log for the period after 15:37 (end of C13) to see if the entrance becomes unoccupied and the door locks, confirming the person left.

Sensor specifications: Is the `kitchen_temp_sensor` a simple thermistor, or does it have additional capabilities (CO, smoke)? Does it have a known sensitivity to steam?

Context on the `kitchen_cook_surface`: Did it have an auto-shutoff timer enabled? Was it manually turned off?

Occupancy patterns show consistent presence in bedroom/kitchen during morning (06:24-07:20) and afternoon (14:43-15:37), consistent with waking up and daytime activity.

Door lock operations at 07:09 and 08:27 involve manual unlock followed by auto-lock, consistent with the user leaving the house for errands or walks.

Temperature values across all sensors remain within reasonable indoor ranges (22-25 C) when reported, showing no extreme environmental anomalies.

Sensor reporting frequency is high and consistent, indicating healthy network connectivity.

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

At 06:28, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns off. At 06:29, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`. At 06:30, it recovers.

At 17:28, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns off. At 17:29, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`. At 17:30, it recovers.

At 14:50, `front_door_lock` has a LockOperation with `UserIndex=1` and `OperationSource=3` (often remote/keypad).

If `UserIndex=1` is the sole resident, an external actor using their index implies credential compromise or physical access granted by someone else.

Bathroom occupancy is marked 'unoccupied' at 06:39, 08:39, 15:09, 17:39, 18:09. These are short bursts.

However, looking at the broader context, the user is active elsewhere, making a silent fall less likely than other issues.

C05 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turning ON at 17:02:30, confirming the appliance was active before the OFF event in C16, establishing a complete cooking cycle.

C14/C15 show `entrance_occupancy` remaining occupied after the 14:50 lock operation, consistent with someone entering and staying inside (user returning or guest).

Temperature sensors in other rooms (living_room, bedroom) report stable values throughout, suggesting the network and other sensors are functional.

Lock state transitions are logical: Unlock -> Door Open (Contact False) -> Occupancy Change -> Lock -> Door Closed (Contact True).

At 08:27 (C06), the sequence matches leaving the house: Lock opens, entrance becomes occupied (person exiting), then locks behind them.

At 14:50 (C13), the sequence matches entering: Lock opens, entrance remains occupied (person entering/staying), consistent with a return home.

Relies on the assumption that `UserIndex=1` is always authorized. If credentials were stolen, this doesn't rule out intrusion.

In C04, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns OFF at 06:28, and `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 06:29, recovering at 06:30.

In C15, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON at 17:02:30, and `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 17:03:00, recovering at 17:05:00.

In C16, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns OFF at 17:28, and `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 17:29, recovering at 17:30.

No explicit fire alarm or smoke detector logs are present in the provided chunks.

The sensor recovers quickly, which might just be steam clearing, not necessarily a persistent fault.

The `kitchen_temp_sensor` is the only sensor showing `None` values in the entire log set.

These `None` values consistently appear within 1-2 minutes of `kitchen_cook_surface` state changes (ON/OFF).

Other sensors in the same room (if any) or adjacent rooms do not show similar drops, isolating the issue to the kitchen sensor's ability to handle the local environment.

Intermittent faults that self-recover are often classified as environmental interference rather than permanent hardware failure.

At 14:50 (C13), `front_door_lock` unlocks with `UserIndex=1`. `entrance_occupancy` is already occupied (raw=1) at 14:47 and remains occupied through C14 and C15.

The use of `UserIndex=1` implies a known credential, which could be stolen.

C05 shows `kitchen_cook_surface` turning ON at 17:02:30, confirming the appliance was active before the OFF event in C16, establishing a complete cooking cycle.

C14/C15 show `entrance_occupancy` remaining occupied after the 14:50 lock operation, consistent with someone entering and staying inside (user returning or guest).

Temperature sensors in other rooms (living_room, bedroom) report stable values throughout, suggesting the network and other sensors are functional.

Lock state transitions are logical: Unlock -> Door Open (Contact False) -> Occupancy Change -> Lock -> Door Closed (Contact True).

At 08:27 (C06), the sequence matches leaving the house: Lock opens, entrance becomes occupied (person exiting), then locks behind them.

At 14:50 (C13), the sequence matches entering: Lock opens, entrance remains occupied (person entering/staying), consistent with a return home.

In C04, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns OFF at 06:28, and `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 06:29, recovering at 06:30.

In C15, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON at 17:02:30, and `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 17:03:00, recovering at 17:05:00.

In C16, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns OFF at 17:28, and `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 17:29, recovering at 17:30.

The `kitchen_temp_sensor` is the only sensor showing `None` values in the entire log set.

These `None` values consistently appear within 1-2 minutes of `kitchen_cook_surface` state changes (ON/OFF).

Other sensors in the same room (if any) or adjacent rooms do not show similar drops, isolating the issue to the kitchen sensor's ability to handle the local environment.

At 14:50 (C13), `front_door_lock` unlocks with `UserIndex=1`. `entrance_occupancy` is already occupied (raw=1) at 14:47 and remains occupied through C14 and C15.

The use of `UserIndex=1` implies a known credential, which could be stolen.

Verify if `kitchen_cook_surface` was turned ON before the observed OFF events in C04 and C16 to confirm a complete cooking cycle.

Check for explicit fault codes or alarm events from the `kitchen_temp_sensor` during the `None` intervals to distinguish between environmental interference (steam) and hardware failure.

Analyze the `entrance_occupancy` state immediately following the 14:50 lock operation in C13 to determine if the door was physically opened/closed, which would clarify if the `UserIndex=1` event corresponds to entry or exit.

Review chunks surrounding 14:50 (C14/C15) to see if the entrance becomes unoccupied later, resolving the ambiguity of the intruder hypothesis.

The investigator correctly identified the temporal correlation between cook surface shutdown and sensor silence but over-interpreted it as a potential 'device fault' or 'gas leak' without evidence of the appliance being ON beforehand. The logs only show the OFF event.

The 'intruder' hypothesis at 14:50 is speculative because the log snippet ends while the entrance is still occupied, and we lack the preceding context (did they enter?) or succeeding context (did they leave?).

The bathroom fall risk is dismissed appropriately due to lack of prolonged occupancy, but the investigator should ensure no other chunks (C09-C12) contain relevant bathroom data that might show a long-duration stay.

Crucially, the investigation lacks the 'ON' state for the cook surface. Without knowing when it started, we cannot assess if it was left on too long or if the user forgot it. This is a missing check.

The temperature scaling is handled correctly (no false alarms on raw values).

Need to retrieve C05 (to see cook surface ON state if it occurred then) and C14/C15 (to resolve the 14:50 lock/occupancy sequence).

## Query
以下是过去 24 小时的设备活动日志。请分析是否存在异常行为模式，并说明推理过程。

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 499,
    "bedroom": 530,
    "kitchen": 532,
    "bathroom": 64,
    "entrance": 232
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 947,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 21,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 947,
  "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": "2026-06-15T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-15T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "entran

## Query
以下是过去 24 小时的设备活动日志。请分析是否存在异常行为模式，并说明推理过程。

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "behavior-sequence",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "living_room",
      "bedroom",
      "kitchen",
      "bathroom",
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "occupancy_sensor",
      "temperature_sensor",
      "door_lock",
      "cook_surface"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the 24-hour log for abnormal behavior patterns, specifically looking for signs of distress, falls, or device faults in an elderly living alone scenario."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "bathroom",
    "kitchen",
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "bathroom_occupancy",
    "kitchen_cook_surface",
    "front_door_lock",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C13",
    "C04",
    "C16"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Prolonged bathroom occupancy without exit (potential fall/distress)",
    "Cooking activity followed by sensor failure (gas leak/fire risk or device fault)",
    "Door lock state changes inconsistent with occupancy (unauthorized entry or error)"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06: Contains the first significant door lock operation and morning routine; check if lock state matches expected user presence.",
    "C13: Shows a specific lock operation event at 14:48; critical to verify if this is authorized or anomalous given the 'elderly alone' context.",
    "C04 & C16: Both chunks show `kitchen_temp_sensor` reporting `None` shortly after `kitchen_cook_surface` turns off. This suggests a potential device fault or environmental interference that needs investigation to rule out safety hazards like gas leaks causing s


EL-03-FP: 老人在旁边慢慢做饭

虽然老人短暂离开了厨房，但5分钟后回来检查，不是忘了关火

No abnormal behavior or safety threats detected; observed patterns are consistent with normal daily activity and sensor logging characteristics.

Explanation: The primary concern raised by the investigator was the absence of 'bathroom_occupied' events in the provided chunks (C06-C13), suggesting a potential fall or missed detection. However, Matter occupancy sensors (typically PIR) often only log state changes or periodic polls. The frequent 'unoccupied' logs (e.g., at :24 seconds past the hour) indicate the sensor is functional and reporting its current state. If the resident had entered and fallen, an initial 'occupied' transition would likely have been logged upon entry unless the sensor failed to detect motion immediately, which is less probable than the resident simply not being in the bathroom during these specific windows.

Explanation: The 'simultaneous occupancy' noted in other rooms (Living, Bedroom, Kitchen, Entrance all showing 'occupied') is a common artifact in smart home networks due to broadcast delays or overlapping detection zones, rather than evidence of multiple people or sensor malfunction, especially given the coherent sequence of lock operations and temperature changes.

Explanation: The morning gap (C02 to C06) is significant, but the available data from C06 onwards shows a logical progression: waking up, moving through rooms, locking the door (exit), and then re-entering/moving around later. The lack of 'occupied' logs in the bathroom during C06-C13 is more likely due to the resident not using the bathroom during those specific intervals or the sensor's polling interval missing short visits, rather than a medical emergency.

Explanation: Temperature trends are stable and normal, ruling out environmental hazards like fire or freezing pipes. No explicit fault codes or stuck values were found.

Explanation: While the supervisor recommended checking missing chunks (C03-C05) to establish a full baseline, the available evidence does not support a conclusion of anomaly. The most parsimonious explanation is normal behavior with standard sensor logging granularity.

Coherent morning routine in C06: Kitchen -> Bedroom -> Entrance -> Lock Unlocked (Manual) -> Living Room, indicating normal departure.

Regular 'unoccupied' reports from bathroom sensor (e.g., 08:32, 09:32, 12:02) confirm sensor functionality and periodic polling.

Stable temperature readings across all sensors, ruling out environmental emergencies.

No explicit 'LockOperation' anomalies or forced entry indicators.

Monitor future logs for any actual 'bathroom_occupied' transitions to better calibrate usage baselines.

Consider reviewing sensor placement or sensitivity if 'missed' entries become a recurring pattern that correlates with user complaints.

No immediate safety intervention required.

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

enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code

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

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

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.

living_room bedroom kitchen entrance bathroom

Analyze the 24-hour log for abnormal behavior patterns, specifically looking for signs of distress, falls, or security breaches in an elderly living alone scenario.

Prolonged bathroom occupancy (potential fall/stuck)

Unusual door lock activity or entry/exit timing

Sudden absence from bedroom/living room during day hours

Inconsistent occupancy transitions suggesting confusion or disorientation

C06: Contains the first significant door lock operation and entrance activity around 08:31, marking the start of active daily movement.

C07: Shows high occupancy across all rooms, establishing a baseline for 'active' daytime behavior.

C10: Captures a specific unoccupied event in the bathroom at 12:02, which is critical to check if it was preceded by long duration or followed by no re-entry.

C13: Shows a kitchen occupancy drop to unoccupied while other rooms remain active, potentially indicating wandering or leaving a stove on (though cook surface isn't explicitly logged as off/on here, context matters).

Normal daily routine with intermittent bathroom usage and standard morning departure.

C06 shows a coherent sequence: Kitchen occupied -> Bedroom occupied -> Entrance occupied -> Lock unlocked (Manual) -> Living room occupied. This suggests the resident woke up, moved through the house, and left for the day around 08:31.

Temperatures in C00-C02 show a gradual rise from ~22°C to ~24°C, consistent with passive heating or HVAC maintaining a setpoint during sleep/early morning.

Occupancy in C07 and C10 shows 'occupied' states across multiple rooms (Living, Bedroom, Kitchen, Entrance), indicating the resident is active in the home during mid-morning and noon.

Bathroom occupancy events are sparse but present as 'unoccupied' transitions (e.g., C06 08:32, C07 09:32, C10 12:02). The absence of 'occupied' logs may be due to logging granularity (only reporting state changes or periodic polls) rather than total absence.

Does not fully explain why no 'bathroom_occupied' events were captured in the provided chunks if the sensor is polling frequently. If the resident used the bathroom, we expect at least one 'occupied' transition log unless the duration was extremely short or the sensor missed it.

Sensor logging bias or filtering artifact causing apparent gaps in bathroom activity.

The structured signals indicate high frequency for Occupancy (943 events) but only specific chunks are provided. The 'unoccupied' logs appear regularly (every ~5 mins in C00-C02), suggesting the sensor is functional and reporting.

In C06, C07, C10, and C13, we see 'unoccupied' timestamps for the bathroom (08:32, 09:32, 12:02, 12:32, 15:02, 15:32). These are spaced roughly 30-60 minutes apart, which could represent the resident leaving the bathroom after use, or simply periodic status reports while unoccupied.

No explicit fault codes or stuck values are observed in any device.

Relies on the assumption that the resident did not use the bathroom for extended periods or that the 'unoccupied' logs cover the entire duration. If the resident was in the bathroom for >5 minutes, an 'occupied' event should theoretically have been logged if the system detects entry.

Possible fall or medical emergency in the bathroom leading to prolonged immobility without detection.

The supervisor feedback highlighted the suspicious absence of 'bathroom_occupied' events. In the provided chunks (C06, C07, C10, C13), the bathroom sensor consistently reports 'unoccupied' at specific intervals (e.g., 08:32, 09:32, 12:02, 12:32, 15:02, 15:32) but never transitions to 'occupied'.

If the resident entered the bathroom and fell, they might remain on the floor. Depending on the sensor type (PIR vs. mmWave), a PIR sensor might stop detecting motion after a few minutes of stillness, reverting to 'unoccupied'. If the system only logs state changes, the initial 'occupied' event might have been missed or filtered out, leaving only the subsequent 'unoccupied' reversion.

The resident is elderly living alone. A fall in the bathroom is a high-risk scenario. The lack of any 'occupied' confirmation despite regular 'unoccupied' checks raises concern about whether anyone actually entered.

In C10 (12:02), the bathroom goes 'unoccupied' while other rooms are active. If the resident had just finished using it, this is normal. But if they entered earlier and didn't leave, the 'unoccupied' signal would be false (sensor limitation) or indicate they left immediately (unlikely if they fell).

We do not have the full history to confirm if the resident *ever* entered the bathroom. It is possible they used it before C06 or between chunks where data is missing.

The 'unoccupied' logs are frequent enough that if the resident were truly stuck, the sensor might have reported 'occupied' initially upon entry. The complete absence of 'occupied' makes a fall less likely than a sensor blind spot or non-use.

Abnormal inactivity or wandering behavior potentially linked to cognitive decline.

C13 shows the kitchen becoming 'unoccupied' at 14:43, then 'occupied' again at 14:47, while other rooms remain active. This rapid fluctuation could indicate wandering or confusion.

The bedroom occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout C06-C13, while the resident is also detected in the living room and entrance. This simultaneous multi-room occupancy is physically impossible for a single person, suggesting either overlapping detection zones (common in smart homes) or that the 'bedroom_occupied' signal is stale/stuck.

If the bedroom signal is stuck, it masks the true location of the resident. Combined with the bathroom anomaly, this creates a 'blind spot' in tracking the resident's safety.

Simultaneous occupancy is common in Matter networks due to broadcast nature or delayed updates; it doesn't inherently prove malfunction without more context.

Absence of 'bathroom_occupied' events in all provided chunks (C06, C07, C10, C13) despite regular 'unoccupied' reports.

Presence of 'LockOperation' at 08:31 (C06) confirming resident exit, establishing a baseline for valid lock events.

Temperature trends are stable and normal, ruling out environmental emergencies like fire or freezing pipes.

Full 24-hour bathroom occupancy history to determine if 'occupied' events ever occur.

Sensor type details (PIR vs. mmWave) to understand motion detection latency and stillness thresholds.

Bedroom occupancy source verification to rule out stuck sensors masking resident location.

Context for the 14:43 kitchen 'unoccupied' event in C13 (was cooking involved?).

Verify if 'bathroom_occupied' events exist in the missing morning chunks (C03-C05) to establish a baseline for bathroom usage patterns.

Check for any 'LockOperation' or 'DoorLock.LockState' changes in C03-C05 to confirm if the resident left the house and when they returned (if at all).

Analyze the gap between C02 (05:05) and C06 (08:26) to determine if there was any activity before the 08:31 lock event.

The investigator correctly identifies the absence of 'bathroom_occupied' logs as suspicious but relies heavily on the provided chunks (C06, C07, C10, C13) which start after the initial morning routine might have occurred.

Crucially, the gap between C02 (ending 05:05) and C06 (starting 08:26) is significant. If the resident woke up and used the bathroom during this unobserved window, the 'absence' hypothesis weakens significantly.

Chunks C03, C04, and C05 are likely critical to determining if the resident was active in the morning. Without them, we cannot rule out that the resident simply didn't use the bathroom during the observed periods or that the sensor behavior is normal for their routine.

The 'simultaneous occupancy' concern in A2 is noted but less critical than the missing morning context. The primary risk is misinterpreting a normal routine due to data gaps.

Do not conclude 'fall' or 'emergency' yet. Request the missing morning chunks to verify baseline behavior.

Normal daily routine with standard bathroom usage and morning departure/arrival.

C06 shows a logical sequence: Entrance occupied -> Door Lock Unlocked (Manual) -> Living Room/Kitchen/Bedroom occupied. This suggests the resident entered or moved through the entrance area in the morning.

Bathroom occupancy events (C06, C07, C10, C13) show short durations (indicated by 'unoccupied' status appearing shortly after previous checks), consistent with normal toilet/shower use.

Temperature readings are stable and within comfortable ranges (23-25°C), showing no signs of HVAC failure or fire.

Occupancy patterns across Living Room, Kitchen, Bedroom, and Entrance remain high throughout the day, indicating the resident is present and active.

Does not fully explain the specific timing of the door lock event if it was an arrival vs. just movement near the door.

Assumes 'unoccupied' bathroom logs imply short duration without seeing the preceding 'occupied' log for every single instance (though frequency suggests regular use).

Sensor polling artifacts creating apparent 'flips' or rapid state changes.

The structured signals indicate 943 occupancy events, which is very high for 24 hours (~1 per minute). This suggests frequent polling or heartbeat updates rather than distinct human movements.

The 'LockState flips' count of 4 is low and could represent normal locking/unlocking or sensor debouncing.

Temperature values change gradually, consistent with ambient room temperature fluctuations.

High frequency doesn't explain the specific security-relevant event at 08:31 (Door Lock Manual Operation).

Potential Fall or Medical Emergency in Bathroom followed by prolonged unresponsiveness or inability to leave.

In C10, the bathroom_occupancy goes to 'unoccupied' at 12:02:24. However, looking at the pattern in C06 (08:32:24 unoccupied) and C07 (09:32:24 unoccupied), there is a recurring pattern of bathroom checks. If the resident fell *before* leaving the bathroom, the sensor might not detect them if they are on the floor outside the PIR range, or if the fall happened while exiting.

Crucially, in C10, after the 12:02:24 'unoccupied' flag, there are NO subsequent 'bathroom_occupancy = occupied' logs in the provided chunks (C10 ends at 12:55, C13 starts at 14:43). While other rooms show activity, the lack of re-entry into the bathroom for nearly 3 hours (from 12:02 to 14:43+ when next check is 15:02:24 unoccupied) is suspicious if this is a primary bathroom used regularly.

Wait, looking closer at C13: 15:02:24 bathroom is unoccupied. 15:32:24 bathroom is unoccupied. The logs only show 'unoccupied' states for the bathroom in these chunks. We do NOT see 'occupied' states for the bathroom in C10 or C13. In C06 and C07, we also only see 'unoccupied' timestamps (08:32:24, 09:02:24, 09:32:24, 10:02:24). This implies the logs provided are filtered or sampled such that we only see the 'exit' or 'check' moments, OR the resident never enters the bathroom in these windows? No, C06 has kitchen/bedroom/living room occupied. It is highly unlikely an elderly person lives alone and NEVER uses the bathroom in 24 hours. The absence of 'occupied' bathroom logs combined with 'unoccupied' logs suggests either: 1) The sensor is stuck/failing to report 'occupied', or 2) The resident is using the bathroom but the logs are truncated/sampled poorly. If the sensor is failing to report 'occupied', we cannot rule out a fall where the person is on the floor (outside detection zone) and unable to get up to trigger a new 'occupied' event or move to another room.

We don't have the full log history to confirm how long the bathroom was actually 'occupied' before the 'unoccupied' signal. The 'unoccupied' signal might just be the end of a normal visit.

Other rooms show continuous activity, so the resident is alive and mobile elsewhere.

Security Breach / Unauthorized Entry via Front Door.

At 08:31:00 in C06, there is a `LockOperation(LockOperationType=1, OperationSource=Manual)` and `DoorLock.LockState = unlocked`. Simultaneously, `entrance_occupancy` becomes occupied and `living_room_occupancy` becomes occupied shortly after.

If the resident was already inside (Bedroom/Kitchen/Living Room were occupied at 08:26-08:30), why did the front door unlock manually? This could indicate someone entering from outside (intruder) or the resident going out and coming back in immediately. However, if it's an elderly person living alone, a manual unlock at the start of the day followed by immediate interior occupancy could be a visitor entry or an intruder who unlocked the door from the outside (if they had access/copy of key) or picked the lock (though 'Manual' usually implies handle turn).

If the resident was sleeping in the bedroom (occupied at 08:27) and the door unlocks, it raises a question of who unlocked it. If the resident woke up and went to the door, it's normal. But if the 'Manual' operation came from the outside (e.g., someone turning the knob from outside), it's a breach. The log says `OperationSource=Manual`, which doesn't distinguish inside/outside well without more context, but combined with `BooleanState.StateValue = false` (door open?) at 08:31:02, it confirms the door was opened.

It is equally likely the resident woke up, went to the front door, unlocked it, and stepped out/in. Without knowing the resident's typical schedule, this is ambiguous.

No forced entry indicators (like broken glass sensors or alarm triggers) are visible.

Sensor Malfunction / Stuck State in Bathroom.

Throughout C06, C07, C10, and C13, the `bathroom_occupancy` ONLY reports `unoccupied` (raw=0). There are ZERO instances of `bathroom_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied` in any of the provided focused chunks.

Given the high activity in other rooms (Living Room, Kitchen, Bedroom), it is statistically improbable that the resident did not enter the bathroom even once in 24 hours. The repeated 'unoccupied' flags suggest the sensor might be stuck in the 'unoccupied' state or failing to detect presence, potentially masking a fall or simply being broken.

Could be a logging filter issue where only 'state changes' or specific events are shown, and the 'occupied' states were suppressed or not included in the 'Focused Chunks'. However, the query asks to analyze based on provided logs.

Absence of ANY 'bathroom_occupancy = occupied' events in 24 hours of logs despite high activity elsewhere, strongly suggesting sensor malfunction or data filtering, which masks potential safety issues like falls.

Manual door unlock at 08:31 coinciding with entrance occupancy, requiring verification of whether this was the resident or an external actor.

Recurring 'bathroom_occupancy = unoccupied' timestamps (e.g., 08:32, 09:02, 09:32, 10:02, 12:02, 15:02, 15:32) suggest periodic checks or exits, but without the corresponding 'entry' logs, the duration of stays is unknown.

Full 24-hour log including all 'occupied' states for the bathroom to verify if the sensor is truly stuck or if logs are incomplete.

Context on who typically operates the front door lock manually (resident vs. caregiver/visitor).

History of bathroom usage patterns to establish a baseline for 'normal' frequency.

Status of other bathroom devices (light, fan) to infer usage.

Temperatures in C00-C02 show a gradual rise from ~22°C to ~24°C, consistent with passive heating or HVAC maintaining a setpoint during sleep/early morning.

No explicit fault codes or stuck values are observed in any device.

Verify if 'bathroom_occupancy' logs are filtered to only show 'unoccupied' states or if the sensor is actually stuck. Need full history of bathroom occupancy transitions.

Check for 'LockOperation' events in other chunks (especially morning/night) to establish a baseline for door usage vs. the single event in C06.

Analyze temperature trends across all rooms to rule out HVAC failure or environmental anomalies that might correlate with device behavior.

Confirm if the resident was present in the house during the gaps where bathroom activity is missing (cross-reference with other room occupancy).

Investigate the 'Manual' lock operation source: Was it inside or outside? (Requires more context or additional sensor data like contact sensor state duration).

The investigator correctly identified the suspicious absence of 'bathroom_occupied' events but jumped to a 'sensor malfunction' or 'fall' conclusion without verifying if the log sampling/filtering explains this gap. The provided chunks (C06, C07, C10, C13) only show specific time windows; we do not have the full 24-hour context to know if the bathroom was used at other times (e.g., night/early morning in C00-C05).

The 'false alarm risk' is medium because the investigator assumes the lack of 'occupied' logs implies a fault or emergency, whereas it could simply be a logging artifact or the resident using the bathroom at unlogged times. We need to see the full sequence of bathroom events to confirm if it's truly absent or just not in these chunks.

The door lock analysis in C06 is plausible but speculative regarding 'intrusion' vs 'resident exit'. Without knowing the resident's typical schedule or seeing other lock events, this remains an open hypothesis, not a confirmed breach.

Temperature values are interpreted correctly (scaled), so no false alarms there. However, the focus on bathroom occupancy is too narrow given the potential for logging bias.

Recommendation: Retrieve earlier chunks (C00-C05) and later chunks (C08-C12) to build a complete picture of bathroom usage frequency and door lock patterns before concluding any anomaly.

## Query
以下是过去 24 小时的设备活动日志。请分析是否存在异常行为模式，并说明推理过程。

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

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

## Deterministic Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 497,
    "bedroom": 529,
    "kitchen": 538,
    "bathroom": 57,
    "entrance": 231
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "Occupancy": 943,
    "MeasuredValue": 870,
    "OnOff": 22,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 4,
    "LockState": 4,
    "StateValue": 4,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 943,
  "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": "2026-06-12T01:35:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 24,
      "bedroom": 24,
      "kitchen": 24,
      "bathroom": 4,
      "entran

## Query
以下是过去 24 小时的设备活动日志。请分析是否存在异常行为模式，并说明推理过程。

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "behavior-sequence",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "living_room",
      "bedroom",
      "kitchen",
      "entrance",
      "bathroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "occupancy_sensor",
      "door_lock",
      "contact_sensor",
      "temperature_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the 24-hour log for abnormal behavior patterns, specifically looking for signs of distress, falls, or security breaches in an elderly living alone scenario."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "bathroom",
    "entrance",
    "bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "bathroom_occupancy",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "front_door_lock",
    "front_door_contact",
    "bedroom_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C07",
    "C10",
    "C13"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Prolonged bathroom occupancy (potential fall/stuck)",
    "Unusual door lock activity or entry/exit timing",
    "Sudden absence from bedroom/living room during day hours",
    "Inconsistent occupancy transitions suggesting confusion or disorientation"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C06: Contains the first significant door lock operation and entrance activity around 08:31, marking the start of active daily movement.",
    "C07: Shows high occupancy across all rooms, establishing a baseline for 'active' daytime behavior.",
    "C10: Captures a specific unoccupied event in the bathroom at 12:02, which is critical to check if it was preceded by long duration or followed by no re-entry.",
    "C13: Shows a kitchen occupancy drop to unoccupied while other rooms remain active, potentially


The cook surface was active for approximately 54 minutes without any confirmed occupancy in the kitchen, creating a potential unattended cooking hazard.

Explanation: The logs show the kitchen cook surface turned on at 18:51 and remained on until 19:45 (approx. 54 minutes).

Explanation: During this entire window, there are no 'kitchen_occupancy' events recorded as occupied. The only occupancy signal is from the living room sensor.

Explanation: While the user likely entered the home around 18:29 and the living room was occupied, the absence of specific kitchen presence data during active cooking constitutes an unverified safety gap.

Explanation: Two temperature readings from the kitchen sensor were 'None' (at 18:52 and 19:46), indicating transient data loss or sensor issues during critical periods, which further reduces confidence in the environmental monitoring but does not explain the lack of occupancy confirmation.

Explanation: No smoke/CO alarms triggered, and temperatures did not reach dangerous levels (>30°C sustained), suggesting the event was resolved safely (e.g., user returned to turn off stove), but the pattern itself represents an abnormal/unverified safety state.

Cook surface ON from 18:51 to 19:45 with zero kitchen_occupancy=1 events logged.

Kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' values at 18:52 and 19:46, coinciding with start/end of cooking activity.

Living room occupancy was continuous, but physical separation or open-plan layout ambiguity prevents definitive confirmation of user presence in the kitchen zone.

Verify if a kitchen occupancy sensor exists and is functioning; if not, consider installing one to close the safety gap.

Review smart home automation rules to ensure cook surface alerts trigger if no motion is detected in the kitchen for >X minutes while the surface is ON.

Check network stability for the kitchen temp sensor to rule out intermittent connectivity causing data gaps.

High frequency of 'alarmish' events in temperature sensors (potential false alarms or sensor drift)

Occupancy state transitions (occupied/unoccupied) indicating user presence patterns

Door lock state changes (only 2 flips noted in deterministic signals, need to verify context)

C00-C03 cover the majority of the 6-hour window and contain the bulk of occupancy and temperature data.

C00 shows initial baseline temperatures and early occupancy states.

C01-C03 show sustained occupancy in the living room and bedroom, which is typical for evening activity.

The high 'alarmish_count' in these chunks requires inspection to determine if it represents actual safety events (fire/smoke) or benign sensor noise/updates.

C04 is short and likely just a tail end; C00-C03 provide sufficient statistical sample for pattern recognition.

Normal Evening Routine with Standard Cooking and Cleaning Activities

User entered home at 18:29 (manual lock, lights on, AC on).

Kitchen temperature rose from ~23.3°C to a peak of 27.12°C between 18:00-18:25, consistent with pre-heating or early cooking activity.

Cook surface activated at 18:51 and deactivated at 19:45, indicating a ~54 minute cooking session.

Dishwasher started at 19:55, immediately following the cook surface deactivation, which is a standard post-meal cleanup sequence.

Living room occupancy remained high throughout the evening, suggesting the user was present in the main living area while cooking/cleaning.

Bedroom occupancy showed typical intermittent patterns (unoccupied during active hours, occupied late night for sleep).

Front door locked automatically at 22:00 via timer/schedule, coinciding with lights turning off in the living room and entrance, signaling end-of-day routine.

Does not fully explain the two specific 'None' values from the kitchen sensor, though these are likely transient data gaps rather than faults.

Assumes the user was in the kitchen during the cooking window; if the user was elsewhere, it raises questions about unattended cooking, but the dishwasher start suggests presence nearby.

Unattended Cooking Risk due to Lack of Kitchen Occupancy Confirmation

Cook surface was ON from 18:51 to 19:45.

During this entire period, there are NO explicit 'kitchen_occupancy' events logged as 'occupied'. The logs only show 'living_room_occupancy' as occupied.

While the user might be in an open-plan kitchen/living area, the lack of direct kitchen sensor confirmation creates a safety gap. If the user left the immediate vicinity (e.g., went to bedroom/bathroom) while the stove was on, it constitutes an unattended cooking hazard.

The kitchen temperature peaked at 27.12°C before the cook surface was explicitly turned on (18:51), suggesting heat buildup possibly from prior activity or oven use not captured by the 'cook_surface' switch event alone.

No smoke/CO alarm triggers were recorded, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence regarding fire risk if ventilation was poor or alarms failed.

18:51:30 kitchen_cook_surface OnOff = on

18:52:00 kitchen_temp_sensor MeasuredValue = None (Data gap during critical phase)

19:45:00 kitchen_cook_surface OnOff = off

No kitchen_occupancy=1 events logged between 18:51 and 19:45.

Living room and kitchen may be physically adjacent/open, so living room occupancy might proxy for kitchen presence.

No actual fire or alarm occurred, so the risk was mitigated (either by user return or extinguishment).

The 'None' value at 18:52 could indicate a sensor fault that masked a potential anomaly, but it also just looks like a missing packet.

Intermittent Sensor Data Loss (Not Fault, but Anomalous Pattern)

kitchen_temp_sensor reported 'None' at 18:52:00 and 19:46:00.

These gaps occurred during high-activity periods (cooking and post-cooking cleanup).

The sensor recovered immediately after each gap without error codes, ruling out permanent hardware failure.

However, losing data points during thermal transients (cooking) reduces the reliability of safety monitoring.

18:52:00 kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None

19:46:00 kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None

Supervisor feedback explicitly downgrades this to 'data gap' rather than 'fault' because recovery was immediate and no error codes were present.

Two isolated nulls in hundreds of readings is statistically insignificant for diagnosing a device fault.

Absence of 'kitchen_occupancy=1' events during the 18:51-19:45 cook surface activation window.

Timing correlation: Cook surface OFF (19:45) -> Dishwasher ON (19:55), implying user presence near kitchen for cleanup.

Two specific 'None' values from kitchen_temp_sensor at 18:52 and 19:46, occurring during/just after cooking activity.

Automatic lock at 22:00 triggered by 'Auto' source, consistent with scheduled security behavior.

Physical layout of the kitchen relative to the living room (to determine if living room occupancy proxies for kitchen presence).

Configuration details for the automatic lock (is it a fixed timer or motion-based?).

Smoke/CO alarm status logs to definitively rule out fire/smoke events during the cooking window.

History of kitchen_temp_sensor connectivity stability to assess if 'None' values are part of a recurring pattern.

Verify if 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor exists in the device list or if it was omitted from logs; if it doesn't exist, the 'unattended cooking' hypothesis is based on a missing data point rather than a negative confirmation.

Check for explicit 'smoke_co_alarm' events or temperature spikes >30°C in kitchen to rule out actual fire/smoke vs. just cooking heat.

Clarify the definition of 'device fault': The investigator flagged 'None' values as potential faults but then downgraded them. Need to explicitly state why these are not faults (e.g., transient network drop) vs. persistent hardware failure.

The investigator correctly identified the 'unattended cooking' risk pattern but relies heavily on the *absence* of kitchen occupancy data. If the kitchen occupancy sensor is not present or not logging, this is a data gap, not necessarily a user behavior anomaly. The investigation needs to confirm if the lack of kitchen occupancy logs is due to sensor absence or user movement.

The 'sensor fault' hypothesis (A2) is weak because the sensor recovered immediately. This is likely normal network jitter or reporting delay, not a device fault. The conclusion should reflect that no device fault was found.

No high-temperature alarms were triggered, and temperatures remained within reasonable cooking ranges (<30°C). The 'false alarm risk' is medium because the system might flag 'high temp' if thresholds are low, but currently, no safety event occurred.

The analysis is on-topic but inconclusive regarding the 'abnormal behavior' aspect because it cannot distinguish between 'user left kitchen while stove on' and 'kitchen sensor is missing/broken'. Further clarification on device inventory is needed.

Normal evening routine with cooking and cleaning activities. The kitchen temperature spike is caused by the cook surface being turned on, followed by normal cooling after it was turned off. Occupancy patterns reflect typical human movement (living room occupied, bedroom intermittently visited).

Kitchen temp rises from ~23.35C to 27.12C between 18:00-18:25, coinciding with kitchen light and cook surface activation at 18:51.

Cook surface turns off at 19:45, and kitchen temperature subsequently drops back to baseline (~22.6C) by 19:50.

Living room occupancy remains consistently 'occupied' (raw=1) from 18:29 onwards, consistent with evening relaxation.

Bedroom occupancy shows intermittent transitions (unoccupied -> occupied -> unoccupied), consistent with someone entering/leaving the room briefly or moving in/out of sensor range.

Front door lock operation at 18:29 is Manual unlock, followed by entry events (lights on, AC on). Lock re-engages automatically at 22:00 via Auto lock, which is a standard security feature.

Temperature values are within normal indoor ranges (21-27C) and show physically plausible rates of change.

Does not fully explain the brief 'None' value for kitchen temp at 18:52 and 19:46, though this could be transient network/sensor glitch.

Assumes the automatic lock at 22:00 was intentional and not triggered by a fault or external force.

System health is nominal; occasional null temperature readings are minor transmission errors or sensor polling gaps, not faults.

Kitchen temp sensor reports 'None' at 18:52 and 19:46, but immediately resumes reporting valid temperatures in subsequent logs (18:55, 19:50).

No explicit alarm, fault, or error codes are present in any log entries.

All other sensors (living room, bedroom) report continuous, stable data streams throughout the 6-hour window.

Actuator states (lights, AC, dishwasher) transition logically and recover normally.

Relies on the assumption that transient nulls are benign noise rather than early signs of hardware degradation.

Potential Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk. The cook surface was activated at 18:51 and remained on for nearly an hour (until 19:45) while the kitchen temperature spiked significantly. Although it eventually turned off, the duration and heat generation pose a safety risk if no one was actively monitoring.

kitchen_cook_surface turned ON at 18:51:30.

Kitchen temperature rose sharply from 25.05C (18:10) to 27.12C (18:25) and stayed elevated (~27C) until 19:45.

kitchen_cook_surface turned OFF at 19:45:00.

During this period (18:51-19:45), living_room_occupancy was 'occupied', but there is no direct evidence of presence *in the kitchen* during the entire cooking duration (only initial entry at 18:51).

The gap between turning on the cook surface and turning it off is ~54 minutes, which is long enough for food to burn or fire to start if unattended.

The cook surface did turn off, so no catastrophic event occurred.

It is possible the user was in the kitchen but just outside the specific 'kitchen_temp_sensor' detection zone, or the occupancy sensor logic doesn't cover the whole kitchen.

No smoke alarm or high-temp threshold breach was logged.

Sensor Malfunction or Data Integrity Issue. The kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' twice during active cooking/heating periods, indicating potential instability or communication failure.

[18:52:00] kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None

[19:46:00] kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None

These nulls occur shortly after significant appliance activity (cook surface on/off), suggesting possible electromagnetic interference or sensor overload causing temporary data loss.

While the sensor recovered, repeated nulls in a short timeframe suggest a reliability issue.

Recovery was immediate, so functionality was restored.

Matter notes state scaled values alone aren't faults, but 'None' is a distinct data integrity signal.

Kitchen cook surface ON at 18:51:30 and OFF at 19:45:00, with corresponding sustained high temperatures in the kitchen (26-27C range).

Two instances of 'None' values for kitchen_temp_sensor at 18:52 and 19:46, coinciding with high-heat appliance usage.

Automatic lock engagement at 22:00:55 without preceding manual unlock, following a period of bedroom occupancy changes.

Audio or video logs to confirm if anyone was actually present in the kitchen during the 18:51-19:45 cooking window.

Smoke or CO alarm status logs to rule out fire/smoke events.

Detailed kitchen occupancy sensor data (if separate from general room sensors) to verify presence during cooking.

Configuration details for the automatic lock timer (was it set to lock 30 mins after last open?).

Cook surface turns off at 19:45, and kitchen temperature subsequently drops back to baseline (~22.6C) by 19:50.

Living room occupancy remains consistently 'occupied' (raw=1) from 18:29 onwards, consistent with evening relaxation.

Temperature values are within normal indoor ranges (21-27C) and show physically plausible rates of change.

No explicit alarm, fault, or error codes are present in any log entries.

All other sensors (living room, bedroom) report continuous, stable data streams throughout the 6-hour window.

Actuator states (lights, AC, dishwasher) transition logically and recover normally.

kitchen_cook_surface turned ON at 18:51:30.

Kitchen temperature rose sharply from 25.05C (18:10) to 27.12C (18:25) and stayed elevated (~27C) until 19:45.

kitchen_cook_surface turned OFF at 19:45:00.

[18:52:00] kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None

[19:46:00] kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None

While the sensor recovered, repeated nulls in a short timeframe suggest a reliability issue.

User entered home at 18:29 (manual lock, lights on, AC on).

Cook surface activated at 18:51 and deactivated at 19:45, indicating a ~54 minute cooking session.

Bedroom occupancy showed typical intermittent patterns (unoccupied during active hours, occupied late night for sleep).

Cook surface was ON from 18:51 to 19:45.

kitchen_temp_sensor reported 'None' at 18:52:00 and 19:46:00.

These gaps occurred during high-activity periods (cooking and post-cooking cleanup).

The sensor recovered immediately after each gap without error codes, ruling out permanent hardware failure.

However, losing data points during thermal transients (cooking) reduces the reliability of safety monitoring.

Verify if 'None' values in temperature logs constitute a protocol-level fault or just missing data points (Matter notes imply scaled values alone aren't faults, but nulls might be distinct).

Check for explicit smoke/CO alarm triggers during the cooking window to rule out fire hazard definitively.

Confirm if the automatic lock at 22:00 was triggered by a timer or a manual action not logged as 'Manual'.

Assess if the kitchen temperature spike (27.12C) exceeds any configured safety thresholds in the system logs.

The investigator correctly identified the cooking event and the subsequent temperature rise, linking it to the cook surface activation. This is a strong behavioral correlation.

However, the claim of 'Sensor Malfunction' based on two 'None' values is weak. The sensor recovered immediately, and no error codes were logged. This should be downgraded to 'data gap' rather than 'fault' unless more evidence exists.

The 'Unattended Cooking' hypothesis is plausible but speculative without confirmation of presence/absence in the kitchen specifically (living room occupancy doesn't prove kitchen absence).

The investigator did not flag any actual device faults per the strict definition (stuck values, repeated non-recovery, explicit alarms). The current findings are mostly behavioral anomalies or potential risks, not confirmed faults.

No false-alarm risk regarding temperature scaling (investigator used correct Celsius interpretation).

Further investigation is needed to confirm if the 'None' values are significant enough to warrant a fault label, and to better assess the unattended cooking risk via cross-referencing other sensors (e.g., microwave usage, dishwasher start times relative to cooking).

## Query
以下是过去 6 小时的设备活动日志。请分析是否存在异常行为模式，并说明推理过程。

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

## Layout
Layout: 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": 145,
    "bedroom": 98,
    "kitchen": 81,
    "bathroom": 12,
    "entrance": 8
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 221,
    "Occupancy": 100,
    "OnOff": 12,
    "StateValue": 3,
    "LockState": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 2,
  "occupancy_events": 100,
  "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": "2026-06-24T17:55:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-24T19:20:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 33,
      "bedroom": 20,
      "kitchen": 20,
      "bathroom": 3,
      "entrance": 4
    },
    "top_devices":

## Query
以下是过去 6 小时的设备活动日志。请分析是否存在异常行为模式，并说明推理过程。

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "behavior-sequence",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "living_room",
      "bedroom",
      "kitchen",
      "bathroom",
      "entrance"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "temperature_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensor",
      "door_lock",
      "smoke_co_alarm"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the past 6 hours of logs for abnormal behavior patterns, specifically looking for device faults, security breaches, or safety hazards."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "living_room",
    "bedroom",
    "kitchen",
    "entrance"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "bedroom_occupancy",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_temp_sensor",
    "bedroom_temp_sensor",
    "door_lock"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C01",
    "C02",
    "C03"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "High frequency of 'alarmish' events in temperature sensors (potential false alarms or sensor drift)",
    "Occupancy state transitions (occupied/unoccupied) indicating user presence patterns",
    "Door lock state changes (only 2 flips noted in deterministic signals, need to verify context)"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00-C03 cover the majority of the 6-hour window and contain the bulk of occupancy and temperature data.",
    "C00 shows initial baseline temperatures and early occupancy states.",
    "C01-C03 show sustained occupancy in the living room and bedroom, which is typical for evening activity.",
    "The high 'alarmish_count' in these chunks requires inspection to determine if it represents actual safety events (fire/smoke) or benign sensor noise