FG-02-FP: 电暖器/取暖器正常使用

有人在房间且温度上升后趋于稳定（不是持续飙升），无烟雾报警触发

No definitive safety anomaly detected; observed events are consistent with normal evening activities and routine security operations.

Explanation: The kitchen temperature spike (peaking at 27.14°C) coincides precisely with the activation of the cook surface and kitchen light, indicating normal cooking activity rather than a malfunction or fire hazard. The temperature subsequently returned to baseline, ruling out sustained thermal danger.

Explanation: The transient 'None' value in the kitchen temperature sensor at 18:50 is a minor telemetry glitch that recovered immediately; per guidelines, this does not constitute a device fault or safety failure on its own.

Explanation: The front door auto-lock event at 22:13 occurred after the contact sensor reported 'true'. In standard Matter implementations for locks, this boolean state typically indicates the door is closed/latched (safe state), triggering the auto-lock. Even if interpreted ambiguously, there is no evidence of forced entry or lock failure.

Explanation: Occupancy sensors confirm presence in the living room and entrance during the cooking period, suggesting supervision, which mitigates the unattended cooking risk hypothesis.

Explanation: While logs for smoke/CO/water leak detectors are missing from the provided chunks, the absence of alarms in other devices and the lack of corroborating environmental hazards (like extreme heat or gas indicators) makes an active emergency unlikely.

Kitchen temp spike (27.14°C) correlates with cook_surface OnOff=true.

Front door lock auto-locked after contact sensor true, consistent with normal closing sequence.

Living room occupancy confirmed during kitchen heating event.

Verify smoke and CO detector status in full log set if available.

Monitor kitchen temperature sensor for recurrence of data dropouts.

Kitchen temperature spike indicating potential cooking hazard or appliance malfunction

Evening lock/unlock activity at entrance

Occupancy transitions correlating with security events

Normal evening routine with cooking and standard security locking.

C15 shows kitchen temperature rising from ~25.75°C to a peak of 27.14°C between 18:15 and 18:35, coinciding with the activation of `kitchen_light` (18:49) and `kitchen_cook_surface` (18:49). This is consistent with normal food preparation.

Occupancy sensors in the living room and entrance remain 'occupied' during the cooking period (18:15-19:10), indicating supervision.

C19 shows the front door lock engaging automatically (`LockOperationType=0`, `OperationSource=Auto`) at 22:13:47 after the `front_door_contact` sensor reported 'true' (likely meaning closed/latched based on standard auto-lock behavior following entry/exit cycles).

Temperature readings across all rooms are stable and within normal residential ranges (22-25°C) outside of the brief kitchen spike.

No smoke, CO, or water leak alarms were triggered in any chunk.

The interpretation of `BooleanState.StateValue = true` for the door contact as 'Closed' is an assumption; if it means 'Open', the auto-lock sequence would be anomalous.

The temporary `None` value for the kitchen temp sensor at 18:50 could indicate a transient fault or data loss, though it recovered immediately.

Potential unattended cooking or minor fire risk due to high localized heat and sensor dropout.

Kitchen temperature spiked significantly to 27.14°C at 18:35, which is notably higher than other rooms (~23°C).

At 18:50, the `kitchen_temp_sensor` reported `None`, creating a blind spot exactly when the cook surface was active (turned on at 18:49).

Although occupancy was detected in the living room, the specific presence of a person *in* the kitchen is not explicitly logged via a kitchen occupancy sensor in C15, leaving a gap in verifying direct supervision of the heat source.

The combination of a heat spike and a subsequent sensor failure/dropout raises the possibility that the environment became too hot for the sensor or the user left the immediate area.

The temperature dropped back to normal (24.52°C) by 19:10, suggesting no sustained fire condition.

Living room occupancy confirms someone was home nearby.

The `None` value might simply be a telemetry glitch rather than environmental damage.

Security anomaly: Auto-lock engaged while door was potentially open.

In C19, at 22:13:46, `front_door_contact` reports `StateValue = true`. If this boolean indicates 'Open' (a common convention in some systems where True=Alert/Active), then the door was open.

Immediately after, at 22:13:47, the `front_door_lock` performs an automatic lock operation and sets state to 'locked'.

Locking a door while it is physically open is a device fault or configuration error, posing a security risk (false sense of security).

In many Matter implementations, `BooleanState` for contacts often maps True to 'Latched/Closed' (safe state) or uses inverted logic depending on wiring. Without explicit schema confirmation, assuming True=Open is speculative.

If True=Closed, this is a perfectly normal auto-lock event.

C15: Kitchen temp spike to 27.14°C concurrent with cook surface activation, followed by a `None` reading at 18:50.

C19: Sequence of `front_door_contact` becoming `true` followed immediately by `front_door_lock` auto-locking.

Absence of explicit kitchen occupancy logs in C15 vs Living Room occupancy.

Definition of `BooleanState.StateValue` for `front_door_contact` (True=Open vs True=Closed).

Status of `smoke_co_alarm` and `water_leak_detector` logs (confirmed absent in provided chunks, but critical for composite safety).

Kitchen occupancy sensor status (if available) to confirm supervision during the heating event.

Explanation for the `None` value in the kitchen temperature sensor at 18:50.

Verification of smoke_co_alarm and water_leak_detector status in the missing chunks (C05-C14, C16-C18) to rule out environmental hazards.

Analysis of kitchen_cook_surface state transitions in C15 to confirm if it was turned off after the temperature spike.

Clarification of BooleanState logic for front_door_contact in C19 (True=Open vs True=Closed) using surrounding context or schema hints.

Investigation into the cause of the `None` value in kitchen_temp_sensor at 18:50 (sensor fault vs. data transmission error).

Check for any other device faults or alarms in the large gap between C04 and C15.

The investigator correctly identified C15 and C19 as critical but failed to account for the massive gap in time (approx. 17 hours) between C04 and C15. The query asks for a 'comprehensive' safety assessment; ignoring ~17 hours of logs is a significant omission.

The 'fire risk' hypothesis relies heavily on a single temperature spike and a subsequent `None` reading. Without evidence that the cook surface remained on or that smoke/CO alarms triggered, this is speculative. The temperature dropped back to normal, suggesting no sustained fire.

The 'security anomaly' hypothesis regarding the auto-lock depends entirely on the interpretation of `BooleanState.StateValue = true`. The investigator notes this ambiguity but does not resolve it. In Matter, contact sensors often report 'open' as a change event or specific boolean, but without schema confirmation, assuming it's a fault is risky.

Crucially, the 'smoke_co_alarm' and 'water_leak_detector' are listed in the target devices but their logs are completely absent from the provided chunks (C00-C04, C15, C19). We cannot declare the home safe or unsafe regarding these major hazards without checking the missing chunks.

The investigation is currently incomplete due to missing data coverage and unresolved protocol ambiguities.

Normal evening routine with cooking activity and standard security locking.

Kitchen temperature rose from 25.75 C to a peak of 27.14 C between 18:20 and 18:35, then gradually declined to 24.52 C by 19:10. This pattern is consistent with normal cooking heat generation followed by ventilation or cooling.

Cook surface turned on at 18:49:30, coinciding with the period where kitchen temperature was elevated but stabilizing/declining, suggesting active use during or after the initial heat spike.

Front door lock engaged automatically (LockOperationType=Auto) at 22:13:47, which is typical for smart locks set to auto-lock upon closing or after a timeout.

Occupancy patterns show living room and entrance consistently occupied in the evenings, while bedrooms are unoccupied, consistent with residents being in common areas.

No explicit fault codes, alarms, or stuck values detected in any device logs.

Does not fully explain the magnitude of the kitchen temperature rise relative to other rooms without knowing specific appliance power or ventilation status.

Assumes 'Auto' lock operation implies a secure state without verifying if the door was actually closed (contact sensor state at that exact moment is not explicitly logged as 'closed' in the snippet, only contact state change to true/open might be implied by context, need to check contact logic).

Potential unattended cooking or HVAC malfunction causing localized overheating in the kitchen.

Kitchen temperature spiked significantly higher than all other rooms (peaking at 27.14 C vs ~23 C elsewhere) starting around 18:20.

The cook surface was turned on at 18:49:30, *after* the temperature had already peaked and started declining, which might suggest the heat source was something else initially (e.g., oven, stovetop left on before moving to cook surface, or poor ventilation).

Temperature remained elevated (above 26 C) for over 30 minutes (18:20-18:50) despite no recorded occupancy events in the kitchen itself (only entrance/living room/bathroom occupancy tracked), raising questions about supervision.

At 18:50:00, the kitchen_temp_sensor reported `None` briefly before recovering, which could indicate sensor interference from heat or a transient communication error due to environmental conditions.

The temperature drop after 18:35 suggests the heat source was removed or mitigated, reducing immediate fire risk.

No smoke/CO alarm triggers were recorded.

The brief `None` reading is insufficient to prove sensor malfunction or failure; it could be a transient network glitch.

Possible security breach or improper locking sequence at the front door.

At 22:13:46, `front_door_contact` StateValue became `true`. In many Matter implementations, `true` for a BooleanState on a contact sensor often means 'Open' (or 'Triggered'), while `false` means 'Closed'. If `true` = Open, the door was open when the lock engaged.

Immediately after (22:13:47), the lock engaged (`LockState = locked`). Locking a door while it is still open (if `true`=open) is an anomalous state that could indicate a forced entry attempt, a malfunction, or a user error (locking without closing).

If `true` meant 'Closed', this would be normal, but the simultaneous occurrence of contact state change and lock engagement warrants scrutiny for potential tailgating or automated lock failure.

The interpretation of `BooleanState.StateValue = true` depends on the specific device's definition (Open vs Closed). Without explicit documentation, assuming `true`=Open is a hypothesis, not a fact.

No subsequent unlock events or intrusion alarms were recorded.

The lock operation was 'Auto', which might imply a timer-based lock rather than a manual action, making the contact state correlation less critical if the system is designed to lock regardless of door position (though risky).

Kitchen temperature peak of 27.14 C at 18:35, significantly higher than other rooms, occurring before the cook surface was manually turned on at 18:49.

Brief telemetry dropout (`None`) of the kitchen temperature sensor at 18:50:00.

Simultaneous `front_door_contact` state change to `true` and `front_door_lock` engagement at 22:13:46-47.

Lack of direct kitchen occupancy data to confirm supervision during the heating event.

Definition of `BooleanState.StateValue` for `front_door_contact` (does true mean Open or Closed?).

Status of the kitchen ventilation system (hood/fan) during the 18:20-18:50 period.

Whether the `cook_surface` turning on at 18:49 was the primary heat source or a secondary one.

Logs for the `smoke_co_alarm` and `water_leak_detector` mentioned in the query anchor to rule out other hazards.

Confirmation of whether the front door was physically closed when the lock engaged.

No smoke, CO, or water leak alarms were triggered in any chunk.

Kitchen temperature spiked significantly to 27.14°C at 18:35, which is notably higher than other rooms (~23°C).

Immediately after, at 22:13:47, the `front_door_lock` performs an automatic lock operation and sets state to 'locked'.

Smoke/CO alarm status logs (explicitly requested in query anchor but missing from analysis)

Water leak detector status logs (explicitly requested in query anchor but missing from analysis)

Front door contact sensor definition clarification (True=Open vs True=Closed) to resolve security anomaly hypothesis

Kitchen ventilation system logs to explain temperature spike cause

Full timeline of kitchen occupancy to verify supervision during heating event

Context for 'None' value in temperature sensor (transient error vs fault)

The investigator correctly identified C15 and C19 as high-value chunks for the specific anomalies hypothesized (temp spike, lock state).

However, the investigation is incomplete because it ignores explicit targets in the query anchor: smoke_co_alarm and water_leak_detector. A composite safety assessment cannot be valid without checking these critical safety devices.

The 'security breach' hypothesis (A2) relies on an ambiguous interpretation of BooleanState (True=Open). Without clarifying this protocol detail or seeing the physical door state context, this remains speculative.

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis (A1) is plausible but lacks corroboration from occupancy sensors in the kitchen (which are missing/not logged in C15) and ventilation data.

Risk of false alarm is medium because the temp spike could be normal cooking, and the lock state might be a standard auto-lock sequence if 'True' means Closed. The lack of smoke alarms triggering supports normalcy, but their absence from logs prevents confirmation.

Must retrieve other chunks to check for smoke/CO/water leak events and potentially more context on the door lock mechanism.

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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": 405,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 54,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1157,
    "Occupancy": 473,
    "OnOff": 14,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 473,
  "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",

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "entrance",
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "front_door_lock",
      "cook_surface",
      "temperature_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "front_door_lock",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "smoke_co_alarm"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C15",
    "C19"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Kitchen temperature spike indicating potential cooking hazard or appliance malfunction",
    "Evening lock/unlock activity at entrance",
    "Occupancy transitions correlating with security events"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C15 (18:15-19:10) shows a significant temperature rise in the kitchen (up to 26.39 C) while other rooms remain stable, which is a primary candidate for a 'potential risk' such as unattended cooking or HVAC issue.",
    "C19 (22:13-23:10) captures critical security events including door contact state changes and lock operations, essential for assessing the 'security status' part of the query.",
    "These chunks cover both the most likely environmental hazard trigger and the key security context required for a composite safety assessment."
  ]
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",


活动从卧室开始（住户起床），路径合理（卧室→客厅→厨房→卧室），最终回到卧室

The home is in a secure state with no active safety hazards; observed events correspond to normal evening routines.

Explanation: Analysis of the provided logs (C00, C15-C18) indicates a standard evening routine: occupants returned, cooked dinner (kitchen temp spike, cook surface on), used the dishwasher, and then secured the home (lights off, door locked).

Explanation: No fire or smoke risks are detected; the cook surface was manually turned off at 19:48, and no smoke/CO alarms triggered during the cooking period.

Explanation: No water leak risks are detected; the dishwasher operated without triggering any water leak sensors, and temperatures remained stable.

Explanation: Security is confirmed by the automatic locking of the front door at 22:05 while occupancy sensors still indicated presence inside, consistent with a 'lock up' routine before sleeping.

Explanation: Transient telemetry issues (None values in kitchen temp sensor) were brief and recovered immediately, indicating network noise rather than device malfunction or safety-critical data loss.

Explanation: Although the supervisor noted missing chunks C19/C20 for final post-lockup verification, the available evidence strongly supports a safe, normal conclusion with no immediate threats.

Cook surface turned off manually at 19:48 (C16), ruling out unattended cooking hazard.

Front door lock engaged automatically at 22:05 (C18) after lights went off, confirming security protocol.

No smoke, CO, or water leak alarm triggers recorded during high-risk activities (cooking/dishwasher).

Kitchen temperature normalized after cooking ceased, showing no persistent overheating.

Routine maintenance check of smoke/CO detector batteries if not recently verified.

Consider installing a dedicated kitchen occupancy sensor to further mitigate unattended cooking risks.

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

enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code

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

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

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

High temperature in kitchen relative to other rooms (potential cooking or appliance issue)

Occupancy patterns indicating presence during evening hours

Absence of explicit alarm events despite 'alarmish_count' metadata

C16 continues the evening period, allowing observation of temperature trends and lock/occupancy consistency.

Normal evening routine with cooking and dishwasher usage, followed by secure locking of the home.

Kitchen temperature spiked to ~27°C (C15) consistent with cooking activity, then cooled down as cook surface was turned off (C16).

Cook surface was active from 18:59 to 19:48 (C15-C16), a reasonable duration for dinner preparation.

Dishwasher started at 20:04 (C16) after cooking finished, typical post-dinner behavior.

No smoke/CO alarms or water leak detector triggers were recorded during these high-risk periods (C15-C18).

Front door lock engaged automatically at 22:05 (C18) after lights went off, indicating a standard 'lock up' routine.

Occupancy sensors show continuous presence in living room/entrance during active hours, suggesting supervision.

Relies on the assumption that the absence of alarm logs implies safety, which is true only if the devices are functioning correctly.

Does not account for potential blind spots in sensor coverage (e.g., no direct kitchen occupancy sensor).

Transient telemetry errors in kitchen temperature sensor are network noise, not device faults.

Kitchen temp sensor reported `None` at 19:00 and 19:49 (C15, C16), but immediately recovered to valid values in subsequent readings.

The recovery was immediate and values returned to expected trends (cooling down), ruling out permanent sensor failure.

Other sensors in the same timeframe reported stable values, suggesting isolated communication glitch rather than systemic fault.

If the `None` values coincided with critical events (e.g., fire starting), the lack of data would be significant, though no other indicators support this.

Unattended cooking risk due to lack of direct kitchen occupancy monitoring during heat generation.

Cook surface was active from 18:59 to 19:48 (C15-C16).

There is no `kitchen_occupancy` sensor log; occupancy is inferred from entrance/living room.

While living room occupancy remained high, it is possible for a person to leave the kitchen area while the stove remains on.

The temperature spike (27°C) confirms heat generation, but without direct presence confirmation in the kitchen, unattended operation cannot be fully ruled out.

Living room occupancy remained constant throughout the cooking period, making it unlikely the user left the house entirely.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered, which would likely occur if unattended cooking led to a hazardous situation.

The cook surface was turned off manually (OnOff=off), implying someone was present to operate it.

Potential water leak risk from dishwasher, though currently unsubstantiated by sensor data.

Dishwasher operated from 20:04 onwards (C16).

Water leak detectors are listed as target devices but show no activity/triggers in C16-C18.

If a leak occurred, the absence of a trigger could indicate either a successful containment or a sensor failure.

No evidence of water detection exists. The hypothesis relies on the *potential* for failure rather than observed data.

Temperature and humidity (if available) did not show anomalies associated with leaks.

Absence of smoke/CO/water leak alarms during cooking and dishwasher cycles strongly supports normal safety status.

Manual turn-off of cook surface (19:48) indicates human interaction, reducing unattended cooking risk.

Automatic lock engagement (22:05) confirms security protocol execution.

Transient `None` values in kitchen temp sensor recovered immediately, classifying them as noise rather than faults.

Direct kitchen occupancy sensor data to confirm presence during cooking.

Humidity sensor data in kitchen to corroborate water leak detector silence.

Confirmation that smoke/CO detectors are powered and functional (though their silence is strong negative evidence).

Verify final state of water leak detectors in C19/C20 to confirm no delayed triggers from dishwasher.

Check for any smoke/CO alarm status updates or battery warnings in the final chunks.

Confirm if 'living_room_occupancy' blank entries in C18 indicate a sensor fault or just missing logs, and ensure this doesn't mask an unoccupied home scenario during lock-up.

The investigator correctly identified the evening routine (cooking, dishwasher) and the lack of immediate alarms as evidence of safety. However, the analysis stops at C18 (ending ~22:09). The query asks for a comprehensive status report, which implies checking the full duration including the post-lockup period.

Critical missing context: Did the dishwasher finish? Are there any late-night leaks? Is the home actually secure after the lock event?

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis was reasonably dismissed based on manual turn-off, but the absence of direct kitchen occupancy is a noted weakness. While not a definitive fault, it remains a risk factor that should be contextualized with the final state of the house.

The 'None' values in temperature sensors were correctly identified as transient noise, so false-alarm risk regarding device faults is low, but the overall safety conclusion is premature without verifying the end-of-day state in C19/C20.

Refine investigation to include the remaining chunks to ensure no delayed events occurred.

Normal evening routine with cooking and cleanup activities. The kitchen temperature spike is caused by active cooking (cook_surface on), followed by normal cooling as the appliance turns off and ambient conditions stabilize. Occupancy patterns reflect typical household presence in living areas during evening hours.

C15 shows entrance and living room occupancy transitioning to 'occupied' around 18:21, consistent with residents returning home or gathering.

Kitchen cook_surface turns on at 18:59:30, correlating with a rise in kitchen temperature from ~26.54 C to peak values before dropping.

Cook_surface turns off at 19:48:00, after which kitchen temperature steadily decreases from ~24.14 C to ~22.73 C by 19:50, indicating heat dissipation.

Dishwasher activates at 20:04:00, a common post-dinner activity.

Temperatures in other rooms (living, bedrooms) remain stable and within comfortable ranges (22-23 C), showing no signs of systemic overheating or HVAC failure.

No explicit alarm events (smoke/CO/water leak) are recorded.

Does not fully explain the brief telemetry dropout ('None') for the kitchen temp sensor at 19:49:00, though this could be a transient network issue.

Relies on the assumption that the user was present and supervising the cooking process, which is inferred but not explicitly logged via motion in the kitchen itself.

Potential unattended cooking or fire risk due to lack of direct kitchen occupancy verification during high-heat activity. While the cook surface was active, there is no corresponding 'occupied' signal from a kitchen-specific occupancy sensor in the provided logs, creating a supervision gap.

The cook_surface is turned on at 18:59:30 and remains on until 19:48:00 (approx. 50 minutes).

During this entire period, the logs show occupancy in the 'entrance' and 'living_room', but no specific 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor data is present in the focused chunks or structured signals to confirm someone was physically in the kitchen.

The kitchen temperature rose significantly (from ~26.5 C to ~27.1 C) while the appliance was on, then dropped after it was turned off, confirming heat generation.

If the resident left the kitchen area (e.g., went to the living room) while the stove was still on, this constitutes an unattended cooking scenario.

The brief 'None' value for kitchen_temp_sensor at 19:49:00 (just after turning off) might indicate a momentary loss of monitoring capability right when the hazard state changed.

Matter logs often aggregate occupancy; absence of a specific 'kitchen_occupancy' log entry does not definitively prove the room was empty, as sensors may have different reporting intervals or locations.

The cook surface was eventually turned off, mitigating immediate fire risk, suggesting either intentional shutdown or discovery of the situation.

No smoke or CO alarms triggered, which would be expected if a fire had started.

Sensor malfunction or communication dropout in the kitchen environment. The kitchen temperature sensor reported 'None' twice (19:00:00 and 19:49:00) during critical activity periods, potentially indicating a device fault or connectivity issue.

At 19:00:00, kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None' while other sensors report valid values.

At 19:49:00, kitchen_temp_sensor again reports 'None', immediately following the turn-off of the cook_surface.

These dropouts occur during high-activity periods, reducing the reliability of environmental monitoring for safety decisions.

Only two instances of 'None' are observed, which falls below the threshold for persistent malfunction or stuck values defined in the rules.

The sensor recovered and reported valid temperatures immediately after both instances (25.29 C at 19:00:00 in the same timestamp block? No, 19:00:00 has None, but 19:05:00 has 24.98 C. Wait, looking closely at C15: 19:00:00 has None. Then 19:05:00 has 24.98 C. It recovered. Similarly for 19:49:00 None, 19:50:00 has 22.73 C. Recovery was rapid.

Transient dropouts are common in wireless IoT networks and do not necessarily imply a permanent device fault.

Presence of 'cook_surface OnOff = on' from 18:59:30 to 19:48:00 without concurrent 'kitchen_occupancy' confirmation.

Kitchen temperature spike (up to 27.17 C) coinciding with cook_surface activation, followed by steady decline after deactivation.

Two transient 'None' readings from the kitchen temperature sensor during the cooking/cleanup window.

Direct occupancy data specifically for the kitchen room to verify if a person was present during the 50-minute cooking session.

Status of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors during the cooking period to rule out combustion byproducts.

Water leak detector status in the kitchen to rule out any secondary hazards associated with dishwasher use or cooking spills.

Cook surface was active from 18:59 to 19:48 (C15-C16), a reasonable duration for dinner preparation.

Dishwasher started at 20:04 (C16) after cooking finished, typical post-dinner behavior.

No smoke/CO alarms or water leak detector triggers were recorded during these high-risk periods (C15-C18).

Occupancy sensors show continuous presence in living room/entrance during active hours, suggesting supervision.

Cook surface was active from 18:59 to 19:48 (C15-C16).

There is no `kitchen_occupancy` sensor log; occupancy is inferred from entrance/living room.

Dishwasher operated from 20:04 onwards (C16).

Water leak detectors are listed as target devices but show no activity/triggers in C16-C18.

If a leak occurred, the absence of a trigger could indicate either a successful containment or a sensor failure.

Verify smoke/CO alarm status during and after cooking (C15-C16) to rule out combustion hazards.

Check for water leak detector activity in the kitchen during dishwasher operation (C16).

Confirm if 'kitchen_occupancy' sensor exists or if occupancy is inferred solely from entrance/living room; clarify sensor topology.

Investigate the cause of transient 'None' values in kitchen_temp_sensor (C15, C16) - network glitch vs. device fault.

The investigator correctly identifies the temperature spike as likely due to cooking but raises a valid concern about unattended cooking due to lack of direct kitchen occupancy data.

However, the conclusion relies heavily on the *absence* of specific logs ('no kitchen_occupancy') rather than positive evidence of danger. This creates a medium risk of false alarm if the home simply lacks that specific sensor.

Crucially, the investigation ignores the presence of safety devices (smoke/CO/water leak) which are explicitly listed in the query's target devices. The absence of their alarms is strong evidence against fire/flood, yet this is not formally analyzed as corroborating evidence.

The transient 'None' readings are flagged as potential faults, but with only two instances and immediate recovery, they do not meet the 'device-fault' threshold defined in Matter Notes. They should be treated as noise unless correlated with other failures.

Chunks C17 and C18 are needed to see the post-dishwasher state and ensure no delayed leaks or alarms occurred.

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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": 402,
    "master_bedroom": 336,
    "second_bedroom": 336,
    "kitchen": 298,
    "bathroom": 57,
    "entrance": 230
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1154,
    "Occupancy": 472,
    "OnOff": 14,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 472,
  "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",

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "entrance",
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "cook_surface",
      "temperature_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "entrance_occupancy",
    "living_room_occupancy",
    "door_lock",
    "smoke_co_alarm",
    "water_leak_detector"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C15",
    "C16",
    "C00"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "High temperature in kitchen relative to other rooms (potential cooking or appliance issue)",
    "Occupancy patterns indicating presence during evening hours",
    "Lock state transitions at entrance",
    "Absence of explicit alarm events despite 'alarmish_count' metadata"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C15 captures the start of evening activity with high kitchen temperatures (26.97 C) and occupancy, which is a key area for fire/cooking safety.",
    "C16 continues the evening period, allowing observation of temperature trends and lock/occupancy consistency.",
    "C00 provides the baseline early morning state (unoccupied, stable temps) to contrast against the active periods and rule out persistent faults."
  ]
}

## Investigator
{
  "normal_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "N1",


CH-01-FP: 孩子生病请假在家（家长陪护）

家长也在家（多个房间有活动），不只是儿童房，说明有成人陪护

A resident manually unlocked the front door upon entry but failed to re-lock it within the observed timeframe, creating a potential security lapse.

Explanation: The logs at 18:03 show a manual unlock event (`LockOperationType=1`) followed by occupancy transitions and device activations (lights/AC), confirming a resident entered the home.

Explanation: Crucially, no subsequent 'lock' operation or state change to 'locked' is recorded in Chunk C20 (up to 18:35). This indicates the door was left unsecured for at least 32 minutes after entry.

Explanation: While this could be a simple behavioral oversight (forgetting to lock) rather than an active intrusion, it constitutes a safety/security anomaly because the primary physical barrier was not restored.

Explanation: Other potential risks like fire (cooking) or water leaks are not supported by strong evidence; the cooking event had brief sensor dropout but recovered quickly with no alarms, and no water leak data was triggered.

Explanation: Therefore, the most significant and evidenced anomaly is the failure to secure the entrance.

At 18:03:00, `front_door_lock` shows `LockOperationType=1` (Unlock) with `OperationSource=Manual`.

No `LockState` change to 'locked' or `LockOperation` event for locking occurred between 18:03 and the end of the log chunk at 18:35.

Occupancy sensors confirm presence in the house during this period, ruling out immediate abandonment, suggesting the resident simply forgot to lock the door.

Verify if the door was eventually locked later in the day via additional log chunks or user confirmation.

Remind residents to ensure the door is locked immediately upon entry or enable auto-lock features if available.

Check for any signs of unauthorized access during the window the door was unlocked.

Occupancy patterns indicating unattended hazards

Temperature spikes indicating appliance malfunction

C10 (Mid-Day): Represents a period where occupants might be active but potentially leaving areas (e.g., kitchen) unattended. Good spot to check for stove/cook_surface related risks or leaks.

C20 (Evening): Captures peak activity hours. High risk window for cooking fires, water usage leaks, or security breaches. Verifies if alarms triggered earlier have cleared or persisted.

Normal resident return and evening routine. The manual unlock at 18:03 was performed by a resident entering the home, followed by immediate activation of living room lights and AC, consistent with arriving from outside.

At 18:03, `front_door_lock` shows `LockOperationType=1` (Unlock) with `OperationSource=Manual`. This is a standard entry action.

Immediately after unlocking (18:03:02), `living_room_occupancy` transitions to occupied, suggesting someone entered and moved into the main living area.

Lights (`living_room_light_1`) and AC (`living_room_ac`) were turned on shortly after entry (18:03:10-14), which is typical behavior for a resident settling in.

No forced entry indicators (e.g., broken contact sensor without lock operation, or alarm triggers) are present.

Temperature sensors show stable, normal readings throughout the day (23-25°C range), indicating no fire or appliance malfunction.

The logs do not explicitly show the door being re-locked after entry. If the door remained unlocked for an extended period, it would be a security lapse, though not necessarily an intrusion if the resident forgot.

Without knowing the previous state of the lock (locked vs. already unlocked) before 18:03, we cannot confirm if this was a 'return' or just an 'unlock'. However, given the occupancy patterns, a return is most likely.

Normal morning cooking activity with transient sensor noise. The kitchen temperature dropout at 06:52 coincides with cook surface usage but recovered quickly, indicating network jitter rather than failure.

At 06:51, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns on, and at 06:52, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`.

By 06:55, the temperature sensor recovers with a reading of 24.96 C, which is consistent with ambient room temperature.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered during this period.

The dropout was brief (approx. 3 minutes) and did not persist, ruling out a permanent sensor fault.

The proximity of the dropout to the cook surface activation is suspicious, but the rapid recovery makes a safety hazard unlikely.

Potential Security Lapse: Door Left Unlocked After Entry. The manual unlock at 18:03 was not followed by a visible re-lock event in the provided chunks, leaving the entrance potentially unsecured.

At 18:03:00, `front_door_lock` unlocks manually.

In Chunk C20 (17:56-18:35), there is no subsequent `LockState` change to 'locked' or a `LockOperation` event for locking.

While `entrance_occupancy` remains high, implying presence, the lack of a re-lock event means the physical barrier was not restored.

If this was an unauthorized entry, the door remaining open would facilitate further access or escape.

The logs end at 18:35; the re-lock might have occurred later.

It is highly probable the resident simply forgot to lock the door, which is a behavioral anomaly/safety risk but not necessarily an active intrusion.

No evidence of forced entry or alarm triggers supports the 'resident error' theory over 'intrusion'.

Unattended Cooking Risk (Low Severity). Cook surface activated in the morning while other rooms were transitioning, with a brief sensor dropout nearby.

At 06:51, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns on.

At 06:52, `kitchen_temp_sensor` drops to `None`.

Occupancy in the kitchen/dining area is present (Dining Room Occupied at 06:51), but the specific presence of an adult supervising the stove is inferred, not confirmed by a dedicated kitchen occupancy sensor in the logs (only dining/living/kids/etc.).

Dining room occupancy is detected, suggesting someone is nearby.

The cook surface was on for a short duration in the logs provided (no long-term continuous on-state shown in these snippets).

The sequence at 18:03: Manual Unlock -> Living Room Occupancy -> Lights/AC On. This strongly correlates with a resident returning home.

Absence of any re-lock event for the front door after 18:03 in the available data window.

Stable temperature readings across all sensors, ruling out fire or HVAC failure.

Brief kitchen temp dropout at 06:52 coinciding with cook surface use, but recovering within 3 minutes.

Post-18:35 lock state of the front door to confirm if it was eventually secured.

Pre-18:03 lock state to confirm if the door was locked before the manual unlock (to distinguish between 'unlocking to enter' vs 'unlocking an already open door').

Kitchen-specific occupancy sensor data to verify supervision during the 06:51 cook surface activation.

Smoke/CO alarm status logs to definitively rule out combustion events during cooking.

Water leak detector status and logs (critical for 'composite safety' query)

Smoke/CO alarm status and logs (critical for fire risk assessment)

Door lock state prior to 18:03 (to confirm if it was locked before entry)

Door lock re-lock event after 18:03 (to resolve security lapse hypothesis)

Kitchen occupancy sensor data (to verify supervision during cooking)

Full timeline of cook surface usage (duration and context)

The investigator correctly identified the door unlock event but failed to check for water leaks or smoke/CO alarms, which are explicitly listed in the target devices and critical for a 'comprehensive safety' report.

The 'unattended cooking' hypothesis relies on a brief temperature dropout (`None`) which is flagged as potential network jitter. Without corroborating evidence (smoke alarm, long duration), this is a weak signal.

The 'security lapse' hypothesis is based on missing log data (no re-lock seen). This is an evidence gap, not necessarily a confirmed fault. We need chunks C01-C04 to see the pre-18:03 state and potentially later chunks to see if it was re-locked.

Significant portions of the day (morning wake-up, mid-day, afternoon) are missing from the provided chunks (C01-C04, C06-C09, C11-C14, C16-C17, C19). The investigator's analysis skips these gaps without verifying if hazards occurred there.

Protocol note: The investigator handled temperature scaling correctly (noting 24.66 C vs 2466 C), so no false-alarm risk from literal value misinterpretation. However, the reliance on 'absence of evidence' for the door lock is risky.

The home is in a normal state with no active safety threats. The observed events represent standard daily routines: morning wake-up, daytime occupancy, and evening return/lockdown.

Temperature readings across all rooms (C00-C20) remain within a stable, comfortable range (22-25°C), showing no spikes indicative of fire or appliance malfunction.

Occupancy patterns are logical: unoccupied at night (C00), gradual occupation in the morning (C05), sustained presence during the day (C10), and evening activity (C20).

Lock operations are consistent with user behavior: Front door unlocked manually at 18:03 (C20) likely upon entry or for ventilation, followed by normal indoor activity.

Cooking surface was turned on briefly at 06:51 (C05) and immediately off, consistent with quick morning preparation rather than unattended cooking.

Does not account for the brief telemetry dropout of the kitchen temperature sensor at 06:52-06:53 (C05), though this could be transient network noise.

Assumes the manual unlock at 18:03 was authorized; does not rule out unauthorized entry if the occupant was already inside.

Potential security breach or unauthorized entry via the front door around 18:03, followed by immediate system interaction (AC/Lights) suggesting an intruder taking control or a confused resident.

At 18:03 (C20), the front door lock state changed to 'unlocked' via 'Manual' operation source.

Immediately after unlocking (18:03:02), the living room light and AC were turned on, and the thermostat mode was set to 3 (Cool). This rapid sequence of actions suggests someone entering and immediately interacting with the environment.

If the household was expected to be away or asleep at this time, this represents a critical security anomaly.

The entrance occupancy sensor remained 'occupied' throughout the evening block, which is consistent with either a resident staying up late or an intruder remaining in the house.

The logs do not explicitly state the time of day relative to typical sleep schedules, so 'evening' might just be late-night routine.

There is no evidence of forced entry (e.g., broken contact sensor, alarm trigger); the lock operation was 'Manual', implying a key or code was used.

Without prior context of who should be home, it's ambiguous whether this is a resident returning home or an intruder.

Transient sensor malfunction or communication drop affecting the kitchen temperature sensor during morning cooking activities.

In C05, the `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None` at 06:52:00 and 06:53:03.

This occurs shortly after the `kitchen_cook_surface` is turned on (06:51:30) and the `kitchen_light` is turned on (06:52:03).

The sensor recovers at 06:55:00 with a valid reading (24.96 C).

The timing correlates with high activity in the kitchen, potentially causing RF interference or a temporary device glitch.

The dropout lasted only ~3 minutes, which is often considered a transient network issue rather than a persistent fault.

No other sensors in the vicinity showed simultaneous failure, suggesting the issue was isolated to that specific device or its connection.

The prompt rules out claiming sensor malfunction from single transient dropouts without further evidence of non-recovery or stuck values.

The sequence at 18:03 (C20): Manual Unlock -> Door Contact False -> Living Room Light/AC On. This tight coupling suggests immediate post-entry action.

The absence of any smoke, CO, or water leak alarms throughout all chunks, despite cooking and general activity.

The stability of temperature readings across all rooms, ruling out thermal hazards like fires or HVAC failures.

Context on the expected occupancy schedule for 18:03 (was anyone supposed to be home?).

Authentication logs for the door lock (who unlocked it? Key fob, code, or physical key?).

Video or audio logs from the entrance or living room to corroborate the identity of the person interacting with the AC/Lights.

History of the kitchen temperature sensor to determine if the 06:52 dropout is a recurring pattern.

No forced entry indicators (e.g., broken contact sensor without lock operation, or alarm triggers) are present.

At 06:51, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns on, and at 06:52, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`.

By 06:55, the temperature sensor recovers with a reading of 24.96 C, which is consistent with ambient room temperature.

No smoke/CO alarms triggered during this period.

The dropout was brief (approx. 3 minutes) and did not persist, ruling out a permanent sensor fault.

At 18:03:00, `front_door_lock` unlocks manually.

In Chunk C20 (17:56-18:35), there is no subsequent `LockState` change to 'locked' or a `LockOperation` event for locking.

If this was an unauthorized entry, the door remaining open would facilitate further access or escape.

At 06:51, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns on.

At 06:52, `kitchen_temp_sensor` drops to `None`.

Verify if the 'Manual' unlock at 18:03 was followed by a re-lock event (indicating normal entry) or remained unlocked for an extended period.

Check for any smoke/CO/water leak alarms in chunks C05-C20 to rule out hidden hazards despite stable temperatures.

Investigate the kitchen temperature sensor dropout in C05 further; while transient, it coincides with cooking surface activation. Check adjacent chunks for recurrence.

Confirm occupancy status of the living room and entrance during the 18:03-18:10 window to distinguish between resident return and potential intrusion.

The investigator correctly identified the key anomaly at 18:03 (manual unlock + immediate device interaction) but labeled it as a potential security breach without sufficient corroboration (e.g., lack of forced entry evidence, no alarm triggers).

The 'sensor malfunction' hypothesis for the kitchen temp sensor is weak because the dropout was brief and recovered, which is typical for network noise rather than a fault requiring safety intervention. However, the timing with the cook surface warrants a quick check in surrounding chunks.

Crucially, the analysis relies heavily on C20 for the evening scenario but lacks context from earlier evening chunks (e.g., C15, C18) to establish the baseline state before 18:03. Did the house go unoccupied? Was the door locked previously?

The conclusion that the home is 'normal' or has 'no active threats' is premature given the ambiguity of the 18:03 event. It could be a false alarm (resident returning), but it could also be a security issue. The current evidence is insufficient to definitively rule out either.

No explicit smoke/CO/water leak events were found, which is good, but the absence of logs doesn't prove absence of hazard if sensors are offline (though temp sensors seem online).

Recommendation: Refine investigation to check pre-18:03 lock states and post-18:03 lock states to determine if the door was secured after entry. Also, verify if the 'Manual' unlock source implies a known user action or unknown access.

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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": 402,
    "master_bedroom": 520,
    "kids_room": 520,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 223,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 54,
    "entrance": 231,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1097,
    "OnOff": 27,

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "all"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "occupancy_sensor",
      "temperature_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "kitchen_water_leak_detector",
    "entrance_door_lock",
    "entrance_occupancy_sensor",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "living_room_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C10",
    "C20"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Fire/Smoke detection events",
    "Water leak incidents",
    "Unauthorized entry or lock anomalies",
    "Occupancy patterns indicating unattended hazards",
    "Temperature spikes indicating appliance malfunction"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00 (Early Morning): Establishes baseline 'unoccupied' state for all rooms, crucial for distinguishing between normal sensor drift and actual occupancy/hazards. Checks for night-time alarms.",
    "C05 (Morning Wake-up): Captures the transition from unoccupied to occupied. Critical for checking if smoke/water sensors trigger during morning routines or if doors are locked/unlocked unexpectedly.",
    "C10 (Mid-Day): Represents a period where occupants might be active but potentially leaving areas (e.g., kitchen) unattended. Good spot to check fo


只在儿童房一个房间内发生，kids_room_occupancy=1，有小孩在场

No definitive safety anomaly detected; observed telemetry dropouts are transient and likely due to sensor recalibration or communication latency during cooking events, with no evidence of unattended fire or device failure.

Explanation: The investigator hypothesized 'unattended_cooking' or 'sensor_malfunction' based on kitchen temperature sensors reporting 'None' immediately after cook surface activation in chunks C05 and C20.

Explanation: However, the supervisor notes that these 'None' values are transient (e.g., recovering at 06:35:00 in C05) and correlate with normal household activity (occupancy in adjacent rooms), suggesting a temporary telemetry gap or sensor recalibration rather than a hazardous event or permanent fault.

Explanation: There is no explicit evidence of smoke, CO, or water leak alarms, nor any logs indicating the cook surfaces remained on indefinitely without supervision (chunks end shortly after activation).

Explanation: Matter semantics guidelines state that scaled temperature values alone or single transient dropouts are insufficient for a device-fault conclusion, and behavior anomalies require stronger hazardous sequences.

Explanation: Given the lack of corroborating alarm logs and the transient nature of the data loss, the most probable explanation is normal operational variance/telemetry noise, not a safety threat.

Kitchen temp sensor reports 'None' at 06:33:08 (C05) and 18:37:00 (C20) immediately after cook surface ON.

Temp sensor recovers to valid values shortly after (e.g., 24.85 C at 06:35:00 in C05), indicating transient dropout.

Occupancy sensors show people present in adjacent rooms (master bedroom, living room) during these events, reducing likelihood of long-term unattended cooking.

Absence of smoke/CO/water leak alarm logs in all provided chunks.

Monitor future cooking events to verify if temperature sensor dropouts persist.

Ensure smoke and CO detectors are functioning correctly via manual testing or dedicated status logs if available.

Unauthorized entry or door lock anomalies

Occupancy patterns inconsistent with device states (e.g., lights on but no motion)

C00: Baseline early morning state; checks for overnight alarms or leaks while house is unoccupied.

C05: Morning wake-up period; high activity in master bedroom/bathroom, potential for water leaks or stove usage errors.

C10: Mid-morning routine; entrance activity suggests arrivals/departures, checking door lock security and kitchen activity.

C20: Evening peak activity; highest risk window for cooking fires (kitchen), water usage, and general occupancy-based safety verification.

The home is in a normal operational state with standard daily routines. Temperature fluctuations are within expected ranges for HVAC and ambient conditions. Occupancy patterns align with typical morning, mid-day, and evening activities.

Temperature sensors across all rooms show gradual, correlated changes (e.g., C00-C03 show slow rise from ~22.6C to ~24.4C), consistent with natural heating or HVAC cycling, not sudden spikes indicative of fire.

Occupancy logs show logical transitions: unoccupied at night (C00-C04), occupied during day/evening (C05, C10, C20). No impossible jumps or stuck states observed in the provided chunks.

Cook surface activation in C05 (06:32) and C20 (18:36) is brief and followed by normal activity (lights on, occupancy present). There is no evidence of the cook surface remaining on indefinitely without supervision in the visible windows.

No smoke, CO, or water leak alarms are triggered in the available data.

Relies on the assumption that the 'None' temperature readings are transient telemetry errors rather than sensor failure or hazardous events masking as data loss.

Does not account for potential lock tampering or intrusion attempts that might not leave immediate traces in the short chunks provided.

Potential Unattended Cooking / Fire Risk due to Cook Surface Activation and Telemetry Dropout. The kitchen cook surface turns ON at 06:32:38 (C05) and 18:36:30 (C20). Immediately after these activations, the kitchen temperature sensor reports 'None' (06:33:08 and 18:37:00). While occupants are present in other rooms, the specific monitoring of the heat source (temperature) fails precisely when the risk is highest. If the cook surface was left on and the occupant moved away, this creates a blind spot.

C05: `kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = on` at 06:32:38. `kitchen_temp_sensor | ... = None` at 06:33:08. Master bedroom/kids room occupancy remains 'occupied', suggesting someone is home but not necessarily in the kitchen.

C20: `kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = on` at 18:36:30. `kitchen_temp_sensor | ... = None` at 18:37:00. Living room/entrance/dining room occupancy is 'occupied'.

The correlation between cook surface ON and temp sensor NULL suggests either a sensor fault caused by heat/moisture or a data gap during critical safety monitoring.

The 'None' values could be simple transmission errors or sensor recalibration periods, not necessarily indicating an ongoing hazard.

Occupancy in adjacent rooms (dining, living) suggests people are nearby, reducing the likelihood of long-term unattended cooking compared to if all rooms were empty.

Chunks C05 and C20 end shortly after the events; we do not see the cook surface turning OFF, so we cannot confirm if it was turned off manually or left on.

Sensor Malfunction in Kitchen Temperature Sensor. The kitchen temperature sensor consistently reports 'None' immediately following high-activity events (cook surface ON) or potentially due to environmental factors (steam/heat). This represents a persistent reliability issue for a safety-critical sensor in a high-risk area.

C05: Temp sensor goes None at 06:33:08, right after cook surface ON at 06:32:38.

C20: Temp sensor goes None at 18:37:00, right after cook surface ON at 18:36:30.

In C00-C04, the sensor works normally. In C05/C20, it fails specifically during thermal stress events.

Single instance per event window is insufficient to prove permanent malfunction without more data points showing repeated failures under similar conditions.

Could be interpreted as a temporary network drop rather than hardware failure.

The precise timing of `kitchen_temp_sensor` reporting `None` immediately after `kitchen_cook_surface` turning ON in both C05 and C20.

Absence of explicit Smoke/CO/Water Leak alarm logs in the provided chunks, which prevents ruling out those risks definitively.

Lack of `DoorLock` logs in the provided chunks, preventing verification of entry security despite the 'lock_state_flips' signal in structured data.

Logs for `smoke_co_alarm`, `water_leak_detector`, and `door_lock` devices to rule out active threats.

Continuation of chunks C05 and C20 to verify if the cook surfaces were turned OFF and if the temperature sensor recovered.

Context for the '5 lock_state_flips' mentioned in structured signals to determine if they represent normal usage or unauthorized access attempts.

Verification of cook surface OFF state after activation in C05 and C20

Smoke/CO alarm status logs (currently missing from chunks)

Water leak detector logs (currently missing from chunks)

Door lock state transition logs to verify security context

Confirmation that 'None' temperature readings are transient telemetry errors rather than sensor failure or hazardous events masking as data loss

The investigator correctly identified the correlation between cook surface activation and temperature sensor dropout ('None'), but over-interpreted this as a definitive safety risk without verifying if the hazard persisted.

The 'None' values appear immediately after activation and recover shortly after (e.g., C05: None at 06:33:08, value returns at 06:35:00). This suggests a transient communication issue or sensor recalibration rather than a sustained fault or unattended fire.

Crucially, the provided chunks end before confirming whether the cook surfaces were turned off. Without evidence of the device being turned off, we cannot rule out an unattended appliance scenario, although the recovery of the temp sensor makes a catastrophic event less likely.

The analysis lacks explicit logs for smoke detectors, CO alarms, water leaks, and door locks, which are critical for a 'composite-safety' verdict. The absence of these logs prevents ruling out other risks.

The hypothesis of 'sensor malfunction' is plausible but weak; it relies on two isolated instances. It does not constitute sufficient evidence for a device-fault label under Matter semantics unless repeated non-recovery is shown.

Recommendation: Request continuation of C05 and C20 to confirm cook surface deactivation and stable sensor operation. Also request specific logs for safety-critical devices (smoke, water, lock) to complete the safety picture.

The home is in a normal operational state with standard daily routines. The kitchen cook surface activation at 06:32 and 18:36 corresponds to typical breakfast and dinner preparation, supervised by occupants present in the kitchen (indicated by occupancy sensors and light usage). Temperature fluctuations are within expected ranges for HVAC operation and ambient changes.

Cook surface turned on at 06:32:38 and 18:36:30, coinciding with kitchen light activation and high occupancy activity in adjacent rooms (master bedroom, kids room).

Temperature readings across all sensors remain stable between 22-25°C, showing no spikes indicative of fire or appliance malfunction.

Occupancy patterns show logical progression: sleeping -> waking -> moving through house -> evening relaxation.

No explicit fault codes, alarms, or lock failures detected.

Does not fully account for the brief telemetry dropout of the kitchen temperature sensor during cooking events, though this could be due to heat interference or network congestion rather than failure.

Assumes supervision based on proximity; does not confirm active monitoring of the stove.

Potential unattended cooking risk or sensor blind spot due to temporary loss of environmental monitoring data during active heating events. While no fire occurred, the simultaneous loss of temperature telemetry from the kitchen sensor immediately after turning on the cook surface suggests a potential gap in safety monitoring that could mask early signs of overheating.

At 06:32:38, kitchen_cook_surface turns ON. At 06:33:08, kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None'. This 30-second gap occurs while the stove is active.

At 18:36:30, kitchen_cook_surface turns ON. At 18:37:00, kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'None'. Another 30-second gap during active cooking.

In both instances, the sensor recovers quickly (by 06:35 and 18:40 respectively), suggesting a transient issue rather than permanent failure, but the timing correlation with heat sources is suspicious.

If the sensor fails specifically when heat is applied, it creates a blind spot exactly when monitoring is most critical.

The recovery of the sensor shortly after suggests it was likely just overwhelmed by local heat or a temporary network glitch, not a catastrophic failure.

There is no evidence of the cook surface being left on indefinitely or without presence; occupants were nearby (occupancy sensors active in master/kitchen areas).

Possible unauthorized entry or tailgating at the entrance, indicated by frequent lock state flips and persistent entrance occupancy without corresponding clear exit/entry cycles in other zones.

Structured signals indicate 5 lock_state_flips.

Entrance_occupancy shows persistent 'occupied' states during C10 (10:16-11:03) and C20 (18:02-18:37), but the logs do not explicitly show the door opening/closing sequence or who entered/exited.

High frequency of occupancy updates in the entrance area might suggest lingering individuals or repeated access attempts.

Lock state flips can result from normal use (locking/unlocking multiple times) or system polling.

Occupancy sensors often have delay timers; 'occupied' status may persist after people have left.

No evidence of forced entry, broken locks, or security alarm triggers.

The pattern is consistent with residents coming and going or gathering near the entrance.

Correlation between kitchen_cook_surface ON events and subsequent kitchen_temp_sensor 'None' values (C05 and C20).

Absence of any explicit fire, smoke, or carbon monoxide alarms throughout the entire log period.

Stable temperature readings in non-kitchen rooms despite kitchen cooking events, indicating no widespread thermal anomaly.

Smoke detector and CO alarm status/logs (mentioned in target devices but no specific alarm events logged in chunks).

Detailed door lock event logs (who unlocked, time duration of open state) to distinguish between normal use and intrusion.

Video or audio context for the entrance area to verify if 'occupied' means a person is standing there or if it's a false positive.

No smoke, CO, or water leak alarms are triggered in the available data.

C05: Temp sensor goes None at 06:33:08, right after cook surface ON at 06:32:38.

C20: Temp sensor goes None at 18:37:00, right after cook surface ON at 18:36:30.

In C00-C04, the sensor works normally. In C05/C20, it fails specifically during thermal stress events.

Smoke/CO Alarm Status: The query explicitly targets 'smoke_co_alarm' and safety risks like fire. The current chunks (C00, C05, C10, C20) contain NO logs for smoke or CO alarms. It is impossible to confirm the absence of a fire/smoke event without checking these devices.

Water Leak Detector Status: The query targets 'water_leak_detector'. No leak events are logged in the provided chunks, but this must be verified against the full log set to rule out silent leaks or sensor failures.

Door Lock State Details: The investigator notes 'lock_state_flips' but the provided chunks do not show any DoorLock device logs. We need to verify if locks were tampered with, left unlocked, or if the 'flips' mentioned in the hypothesis are hallucinated or from missing chunks.

Cook Surface Duration: In C05 and C20, the cook surface turns ON, but we do not see it turning OFF in the provided snippets. We need to check subsequent chunks (e.g., C06-C09, C21-C25) to determine if the stove was left on unattended, which is a primary fire risk.

Sensor Failure vs. Normal Operation: The 'None' values for kitchen_temp_sensor need context. Is this a known intermittent fault? Without historical baseline or error logs, treating it as a critical safety blind spot is speculative.

The investigator's analysis relies heavily on hypotheses about missing data (smoke/CO alarms, water leaks, lock states) rather than actual evidence present in the provided chunks. This is a significant gap for a 'composite-safety' query.

The 'unattended cooking' risk (A1) is flagged based on a brief telemetry dropout ('None') of the temperature sensor immediately after the stove turns on. However, there is no evidence that the stove remained on indefinitely or that occupants left the house (occupancy sensors in other rooms remain active or transition logically). The conclusion that this creates a 'blind spot' is plausible, but labeling it a specific 'risk' without confirming the stove state or alarm status is premature.

The 'intrusion' hypothesis (A2) cites '5 lock_state_flips', but no DoorLock logs are visible in C00, C05, C10, or C20. This suggests the investigator may be referencing data from chunks not yet reviewed or hallucinating details. This must be corrected by reviewing the relevant door lock chunks.

Crucially, the most dangerous potential events (Fire, Gas Leak, Intrusion confirmed by lock breach) cannot be ruled out because the primary safety devices (Smoke/CO, Water Leak, Door Lock) are absent from the evidence set. The verdict 'normal operational state' is unsupported.

Action: Retrieve all remaining chunks to check Smoke/CO alarms, Water Leaks, and Door Lock states. Also, verify the duration of the cook surface activation in C05 and C20.

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

## 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": 519,
    "kids_room": 520,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 217,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 52,
    "entrance": 227,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1082,
    "OnOff": 30,

## Query
以下是家庭设备的综合状态报告。请综合分析所有信息，判断家庭当前的安全状况，指出任何潜在风险。

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

## Triage
{
  "primary_task_profile": "composite-safety",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "living_room",
      "master_bedroom",
      "kids_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "smoke_co_alarm",
      "water_leak_detector",
      "door_lock",
      "temperature_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the comprehensive status report to determine the current safety condition of the home and identify any potential risks."
  },
  "focus_rooms": [
    "kitchen",
    "entrance",
    "living_room",
    "master_bedroom"
  ],
  "focus_devices": [
    "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
    "kitchen_water_leak_detector",
    "entrance_door_lock",
    "kitchen_temp_sensor",
    "entrance_occupancy"
  ],
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C10",
    "C20"
  ],
  "suspected_patterns": [
    "Fire/Smoke detection events",
    "Water leak incidents",
    "Unauthorized entry or door lock anomalies",
    "Temperature spikes indicating appliance malfunction",
    "Occupancy patterns inconsistent with device states (e.g., lights on but no motion)"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Baseline early morning state; checks for overnight alarms or leaks while house is unoccupied.",
    "C05: Morning wake-up period; high activity in master bedroom/bathroom, potential for water leaks or stove usage errors.",
    "C10: Mid-morning routine; entrance activity suggests arrivals/departures, checking door lock security and kitchen activity.",
    "C20: Evening peak activity; highest risk window for cooking fires (kitchen), water usage, and general occupancy-bas