FG-01-FP: 煲汤/慢炖（正常长时间开灶）

温度上升后稳定（不持续飙升），住户定期回来检查，烟雾传感器未触发

The kitchen events represent a normal cooking and cleanup routine with no evidence of unattended hazards or device malfunction.

Explanation: The Prosecutor's claim of 'unattended cooking' relies primarily on the absence of explicit `kitchen_occupancy` logs during the 19:43-20:15 window. However, the raw data shows consistent `living_room_occupancy = 1`, indicating household presence, and the sequence of appliance states (Stove ON -> Stove OFF -> Dishwasher ON) forms a coherent, logical culinary workflow.

Explanation: The temperature spike to ~26.8°C is physically consistent with active cooking in a confined space and follows a smooth decay curve after the stove was turned off manually at 19:43. There is no evidence of runaway heat or fire risk, especially given the lack of smoke/CO alarm triggers.

Explanation: The single `None` reading at 19:44:00 is identified by the Defender as a transient telemetry glitch, which is supported by the immediate recovery to a value (26.38°C) that fits perfectly within the cooling trend from the previous reading (26.80°C). This does not constitute a sensor fault or obscure a safety hazard.

Explanation: The 32-minute gap between turning off the stove and starting the dishwasher is explained by normal human behavior (eating, wiping counters, etc.) which does not necessarily trigger specific smart home sensors. The eventual activation of the dishwasher confirms human agency in the kitchen shortly thereafter.

Stove turned OFF manually at 19:43:00, indicating intentional cessation of heating.

Dishwasher turned ON at 20:15:00, confirming subsequent human activity in the kitchen.

Temperature readings show a smooth, expected cooling trajectory (26.89°C -> 22.59°C) without erratic spikes indicative of fire.

Living room occupancy remained constant (1), suggesting the household was present and likely nearby.

No immediate action required; system status is normal.

Consider adding a dedicated kitchen occupancy sensor if granular room-level presence tracking is desired for future audits.

C11 (19:35-21:00): Contains the critical trigger event where `kitchen_cook_surface` turns off at 19:43, followed by a null temperature reading from the kitchen sensor. This chunk also shows high alarmish counts and occupancy in the living room, suggesting potential human presence nearby but not necessarily in the kitchen.

C12 (21:00-22:20): Follow-up context showing continued high alarmish activity and stable temperatures, helping to determine if the null reading was transient or indicative of a deeper issue. It establishes the baseline for the rest of the night.

C13 (22:20-23:45): Late-night context to check for any delayed reactions or persistent anomalies. Occupancy patterns here help distinguish between sleep/absence and active monitoring.

C04 (07:05-08:45): Provides a morning baseline with a similar anomalous raw value (`MeasuredValue = 2750`) for the kitchen temp sensor, which is crucial for evaluating if the sensor has a recurring hardware fault or drift issue (supporting the `device-health` secondary profile).

C10 (18:05-19:35): Pre-trigger context showing the transition into the evening routine, establishing the state of the kitchen and living room before the cook surface was turned off.

Is the null temperature reading in C11 a temporary communication drop or a permanent sensor failure?

Does the high 'alarmish_count' correlate with actual safety alarms (smoke/CO) or just frequent status updates/noise?

Was the cook surface turned off intentionally after use, or did it fail to turn on/off properly?

Is the raw value 2750 in C04 consistent with the 25.18 C reading nearby, or does it indicate a scaling error?

Are the living room occupants aware of the kitchen situation, or is this an unattended appliance scenario?

The kitchen cook surface was turned off at 19:43 while the room temperature remained elevated (26.8°C) and no subsequent occupancy or appliance activity (e.g., dishwasher) occurred in the kitchen until 20:15, creating a 32-minute window of unattended cooking with potential residual heat hazard, compounded by a sensor data gap that obscures the cooling trajectory.

C10/C11 Sequence: The `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON at 19:15:30 and OFF at 19:43:00. This is a ~27 minute active cooking period.

Temperature Anomaly: At 19:30, the `kitchen_temp_sensor` reads 26.89°C, significantly higher than the living room (22.77°C) and bedroom (21.83°C), indicating active heat generation in the kitchen.

Post-Cook Gap: After the cook surface turns OFF at 19:43, the next significant kitchen event is the `kitchen_dishwasher` turning ON at 20:15:00. There are no other kitchen appliance activations or specific 'cooking complete' confirmations in between.

Occupancy Discrepancy: Throughout this period (19:43-20:15), `living_room_occupancy` remains 1 (occupied), but `kitchen_occupancy` is never explicitly logged as occupied during the post-cook phase (only inferred from general house presence). The lack of direct kitchen occupancy confirmation combined with the silence of kitchen appliances suggests the user may have left the kitchen unattended after turning off the stove.

Sensor Data Gap: A `None` reading occurs at 19:44:00, immediately after the cook surface is turned off. While it recovers at 19:45:00 (26.38°C), this gap prevents verification of whether the temperature peaked dangerously high or began dropping immediately, masking the true thermal profile of the unattended period.

A 'normal' explanation would require the user to be present in the kitchen to monitor the cooling stove or move directly to the dishwasher. However, the 32-minute gap between the stove turning off and the dishwasher turning on is unusually long for a standard meal cleanup sequence without intermediate activity logs (like lights being toggled or trash bins opened).

The persistent high temperature (26+°C) in the kitchen relative to other rooms confirms the heat source was active recently. If the user had been actively supervising, we might expect earlier interaction logs or a more rapid temperature drop if ventilation was engaged (no vent log seen).

The sensor `None` event could be dismissed as transient, but in the context of safety, it removes critical evidence needed to rule out a fire risk or excessive heat buildup during the unattended window.

We do not have explicit `kitchen_occupancy` logs for the 19:43-20:15 window, so we cannot definitively prove the user left the room; they could have been standing there doing nothing.

The `kitchen_smoke_co_alarm` status is not explicitly shown as triggered, which lowers the immediate severity of a fire event, though it doesn't rule out the *risk* of one.

The temperature drop from 26.89°C to 22.59°C by 21:00 is gradual, consistent with passive cooling, but doesn't prove negligence.

Explicit kitchen occupancy logs during the 19:43-20:15 window.

Smoke/CO alarm trigger events (to confirm or deny actual ignition).

The kitchen events represent a standard, supervised cooking and cleanup routine. The Prosecutor's claim of 'unattended cooking' relies on the absence of direct occupancy logs rather than positive evidence of negligence, and misinterprets normal thermal inertia as a hazard. The sensor data gap is a transient communication artifact that does not indicate device failure or safety risk.

The 32-minute gap between stove-off (19:43) and dishwasher-on (20:15) indicates unattended cooking with residual heat hazard.

This is an absence-based inference. In modern kitchens, it is common to clear hot dishes into a sink or counter before running the dishwasher, or to engage in other activities (eating, cleaning counters) that do not trigger specific appliance logs. The lack of 'kitchen_occupancy' logs is a limitation of the sensor placement or reporting frequency, not proof of absence. Furthermore, the temperature drop from 26.8°C to 22.6°C by 20:45 is consistent with active ventilation or air circulation, not passive cooling of a dangerous fire source.

Kitchen temp drops steadily from 26.82°C (19:35) to 22.59°C (20:45), indicating effective heat dissipation.

Living room occupancy remains constant at 1 throughout, suggesting the household was present and likely interacting nearby.

The `None` reading at 19:44:00 obscures critical thermal data, masking a potential fire risk.

A single null value immediately following a state change (stove off) is a classic transient telemetry glitch or buffer flush, not a persistent fault. The very next reading at 19:45:00 (26.38°C) is physically consistent with the previous trend (26.80°C -> 26.38°C), proving the sensor was functional and measuring correctly. It does not obscure a 'dangerous peak'; if anything, the continuity suggests no sudden spike occurred.

Pre-glitch temp: 26.80°C (19:40). Post-glitch temp: 26.38°C (19:45). Trend is smooth decay.

Matter Notes specify that scaled values alone are not enough for fault conclusions; this is a single point anomaly.

High temperature (26.8°C) relative to other rooms confirms active heat generation and potential unsupervised hazard.

A 4-5°C differential in a kitchen during/after cooking is normal due to proximity to the heat source and poor immediate ventilation. It does not prove the user left the room. The Prosecutor assumes that because we don't see 'kitchen_occupancy=1', the user isn't there. However, PIR sensors often have blind spots or require motion to update. The presence of the dishwasher starting shortly after implies human agency in the kitchen.

Dishwasher activation at 20:15 proves someone was in or near the kitchen to initiate it.

Cook surface turned OFF manually at 19:43, implying intent to stop heating.

Sequence: Stove ON (19:15) -> Stove OFF (19:43) -> Dishwasher ON (20:15). This is a logical culinary workflow.

Temperature trajectory: 25.49°C (19:15) -> 26.89°C (19:30) -> 26.38°C (19:45) -> 22.59°C (20:45). Shows heating then controlled cooling.

Occupancy: Living room consistently occupied (1), suggesting household presence without necessarily requiring explicit kitchen PIR updates for every second.

No alarm events (Smoke/CO) were recorded, contradicting the 'fire risk' hypothesis.

The Prosecutor's explanation requires assuming negligence based on missing negative evidence (no kitchen occupancy log) while ignoring positive evidence of routine behavior (dishwasher start, manual stove off).

It over-interprets a single 1-second data gap as a significant security blind spot, whereas the surrounding data points show coherent physical behavior.

It fails to account for normal kitchen dynamics where heat lingers but the user may be engaged in non-appliance tasks (e.g., eating, wiping counters) that don't trigger smart home sensors.

We cannot definitively confirm the user was standing *in* the kitchen during the 19:43-20:15 window, only that they were in the house and later interacted with kitchen appliances.

If the dishwasher was automated/scheduled, the link to human supervision is weaker, though unlikely given the timing relative to cooking.

Direct kitchen occupancy logs for the 19:43-20:15 window would strengthen the case but are not required to rule out danger given the appliance sequence.

## 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: 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": 403,
    "bedroom": 356,
    "kitchen": 301,
    "bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 868,
    "Occupancy": 225,
    "OnOff": 19,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 225,
  "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": "2026-06-01T00:00:00",
    "end_ts": "2026-06-01T01:50:00",
    "event_count": 80,
    "rooms": {
      "living_room": 27,
      "bedroom": 27,
      "kitchen": 22,
      "bathroom": 4
    },
    "top_devices": [
      "li

## 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.

## Structured Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 403,
    "bedroom": 356,
    "kitchen": 301,
    "bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 14
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 868,
    "Occupancy": 225,
    "OnOff": 19,
    "StateValue": 5,
    "LockState": 4,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 2,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1,
    "CurrentLevel": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 4,
  "occupancy_events": 225,
  "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"
  }
}

## Extractor Output
{
  "primary_task_profile": "behavior-sequence",
  "secondary_task_profile": "device-health",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "kitchen",
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "kitchen_cook_surface",
      "kitchen_smoke_co_alarm",
      "kitchen_temp_sensor",
      "living_room_occupancy"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the sequence of events in the kitchen and living room during the evening (19:35-21:00) to determine if there is evidence of unattended cooking, fire risk, or device malfunction, considering the high 'alarmish' count and specific sensor readings."
  },
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C11",
    "C12",
    "C13",
    "C04",
    "C10"
  ],
  "candidate_threats": [
    "unattended_cooking",
    "fire_risk",
    "sensor_stuck",
    "sensor_malfunction",
    "abnormal_inactivity"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C11 (19:35-21:00): Contains the critical trigger e


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

The kitchen temperature sensor experienced a transient data glitch at 18:50:00, but the subsequent cooling trend confirms the cook surface was turned off and no fire risk exists.

Explanation: Step 1: The Prosecutor's case for 'unattended cooking' relies on two weak links: a single `None` telemetry value and the absence of an explicit 'Off' log. The `None` value is immediately followed by a valid reading (26.24 C) in the same timestamp bucket, indicating a transient network/parsing error rather than permanent sensor failure or destruction by heat/smoke. Furthermore, the Prosecutor ignores the thermodynamic evidence.

Explanation: Step 2: The Defender provides a coherent physical explanation. If the cook surface had remained on as alleged, the kitchen temperature would have continued to rise from its peak of ~27°C. Instead, the logs show a steady decline from 26.24°C (18:50) to 24.52°C (19:10). This cooling curve is direct positive evidence that the heat source was removed, refuting the claim of unattended operation.

Explanation: Step 3: The query asks for a safety assessment based on all information. While the lock/occupancy sequence shows normal resident behavior (morning exit, evening presence), the only potential hazard identified by the Prosecutor is disproven by the temperature data. There is no evidence of intrusion, sensor malfunction requiring replacement, or active fire risk.

[C15] 18:50:00 kitchen_temp_sensor reports None, then immediately 26.24 C, proving sensor connectivity.

[C15] Kitchen temp drops from 26.24 C (18:50) to 24.52 C (19:10), proving cook surface was turned off.

[C15] Living room occupancy remains 'occupied' throughout, confirming residents were present.

No immediate action required; system state is safe.

Monitor future logs for similar transient `None` values to assess network stability, but no hardware fault is indicated.

enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code

C05: Captures the morning transition where entrance activity begins (07:52) while other rooms remain unoccupied, establishing the baseline for 'resident leaving' or 'early riser' behavior. It shows the first significant occupancy spikes at the entrance.

C19: Critical evening sequence showing the locking event (22:13:47) and subsequent occupancy states. This chunk contains the direct evidence of the door being locked and the immediate post-lock occupancy readings, which are key to verifying if the house was actually vacated or if someone remained inside.

C15: Shows evening peak activity with simultaneous occupancy in living room and entrance (18:15), providing context for when residents were likely present before the night routine. The kitchen temperature spike here might also be relevant for cooking safety checks.

C06: Provides early morning context (07:50-09:00) with repeated entrance occupancy events, helping to distinguish between a single entry/exit and prolonged presence or tailgating, which informs the interpretation of the evening lock status.

Does the 'unoccupied' status in bedrooms/living room during C19 (post-lock) confirm that all residents left, or could it indicate a sensor failure/stuck value?

Was the lock operation in C19 triggered by an auto-timer or manual action, and does the timing align with typical resident departure?

Are the repeated entrance occupancy events in C05/C06 indicative of a single person moving in/out multiple times, or potential unauthorized access attempts?

Is the kitchen temperature spike in C15 (26.39 C) within normal operating range for cooking, or does it suggest an unattended appliance?

The kitchen cook surface was activated at 18:49:30 while the kitchen temperature sensor reported a transient `None` value at 18:50:00, indicating a potential sensor failure or data gap during active heating. This creates an unmonitored hazard window where the appliance is on but environmental telemetry is missing, preventing detection of overheating or fire progression.

C15 Chunk: At 18:49:30, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON (raw=True).

C15 Chunk: Immediately following activation, at 18:50:00, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None`.

C15 Chunk: Prior to this, at 18:45:00, the kitchen temperature was stable at 26.71 C. The drop to `None` coincides with the start of cooking activity.

C15 Chunk: Occupancy in the living room (adjacent) remains 'occupied' from 18:15 through 19:10, suggesting residents are present in the home but not necessarily in the kitchen.

C15 Chunk: No subsequent logs show the cook surface turning off within the provided chunk duration (ends 19:10), leaving the device in an 'ON' state for over 20 minutes without confirmed supervision or temperature feedback.

A normal cooking event would typically involve continuous temperature monitoring or explicit user interaction logs (e.g., light toggles, door locks) confirming presence. The simultaneous loss of temperature data (`None`) suggests the sensor may have failed due to heat or smoke, or simply stopped reporting, removing the primary safety check.

While the living room occupancy confirms someone is home, it does not confirm they are in the kitchen supervising the stove. Smart home safety protocols require verification of the specific hazard zone (kitchen), which is currently blind due to the `None` reading.

The transition from a stable 26.71 C to `None` is not a typical drift; it indicates a break in the data stream exactly when the thermal load increased.

The log ends at 19:10, so we cannot confirm if the stove was eventually turned off or if the sensor recovered.

The `None` value could be a transient network glitch rather than a physical sensor failure, though the timing correlation with cooking makes it suspicious.

No smoke detector or fire alarm events are logged, which might indicate the situation was resolved or the alarms are not part of this dataset.

Logs after 19:10 to confirm stove shutdown.

Direct kitchen occupancy confirmation (only living room and entrance are explicitly tracked as occupied in this chunk).

The kitchen temperature sensor experienced a transient data reporting glitch (likely a network packet loss or parsing error) at 18:50:00, but immediately recovered with consistent readings. The cook surface was likely turned off shortly after activation, as the ambient kitchen temperature began to drop significantly from 26.24 C to 24.52 C by 19:10, indicating no sustained thermal load. There is no evidence of unattended cooking or sensor failure.

The `None` value at 18:50:00 indicates a sensor failure or data gap during active heating, creating an unmonitored hazard.

A single `None` value in a high-frequency telemetry stream is characteristic of transient communication errors, not physical sensor destruction. Crucially, the very next log entry for the same sensor at 18:50:00 shows a valid reading of 26.24 C, proving the sensor remained operational and connected. If the sensor had failed due to heat/smoke, it would likely remain `None` or report an error code, not resume normal function instantly.

[C15] 18:50:00 kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None

[C15] 18:50:00 kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = 26.24 C (raw=2624)

No subsequent logs show the cook surface turning off within the provided chunk duration, leaving the device in an 'ON' state for over 20 minutes without confirmed supervision.

The Prosecutor relies on the absence of an explicit 'Off' event log, ignoring the strong thermodynamic evidence. If the cook surface had remained ON for 20+ minutes, the kitchen temperature would continue to rise or stabilize at a high level. Instead, the temperature peaked at 26.39 C (18:20) and then steadily declined to 24.52 C by 19:10. This cooling curve confirms the heat source was removed well before the end of the log window.

[C15] 18:20:00 kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = 26.39 C (peak)

[C15] 19:00:00 kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = 25.43 C

[C15] 19:10:00 kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = 24.52 C

Living room occupancy does not confirm supervision of the kitchen.

While direct visual confirmation isn't logged, the combination of rapid temperature recovery and the presence of occupants in the adjacent living room strongly implies normal human interaction. Smart home logs often miss short-duration appliance toggles if they happen between polling intervals, but the environmental impact (temperature change) is the definitive proof of state change.

[C15] 18:50:28 living_room_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied (raw=1)

[C15] 19:10:28 living_room_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied (raw=1)

Kitchen temperature dropped from 26.24 C (18:50) to 24.52 C (19:10), proving the heat source was deactivated.

Sensor reported valid data immediately after the `None` glitch, ruling out permanent hardware failure.

Entrance and Living Room occupancy remained stable throughout the evening, indicating residents were present and likely supervising the area.

Lock operations in C05 and C19 follow standard morning departure and evening security routines.

The Prosecutor's claim requires assuming the stove stayed ON despite clear evidence of cooling, which contradicts basic physics.

Attributing a single `None` value to a safety-critical failure ignores the immediate recovery of the sensor, making the 'failure' hypothesis statistically unlikely compared to a transient network glitch.

Relying on missing 'Off' logs while ignoring positive 'Cooling' logs is a selection bias that creates a false sense of danger.

We cannot see the exact timestamp the cook surface was turned off, only that it happened between 18:50 and 19:10 based on temperature trends.

Direct kitchen occupancy sensors are not explicitly listed as 'occupied' in the summary signals, though proximity to living room suggests presence.

Explicit 'cook_surface off' log event.
Smoke detector status logs.

## 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.

## Structured 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"
  }
}

## Extractor Output
{
  "primary_task_profile": "behavior-sequence",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance",
      "living_room",
      "kitchen"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "entrance_occupancy",
      "living_room_occupancy",
      "kitchen_temp_sensor"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the sequence of occupancy and lock events to determine if the home security state (locked/unoccupied) is consistent with normal resident behavior or indicates a potential intrusion/safety risk."
  },
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C05",
    "C19",
    "C15",
    "C06"
  ],
  "candidate_threats": [
    "intrusion",
    "lock_malfunction",
    "sensor_stuck",
    "abnormal_inactivity"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C05: Captures the morning transition where entrance activity begins (07:52) while other rooms remain unoccupied, establishing the baseline for 'resident leaving' or 'early


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 kitchen cook surface activation represents a benign, supervised cooking routine supported by sustained occupancy in adjacent areas and logical device sequencing.

Explanation: Step 1: The Prosecutor's case for 'unattended_cooking' relies entirely on the absence of `kitchen_occupancy` logs. However, the raw data does not confirm the existence of a dedicated kitchen occupancy sensor; it only confirms the presence of entrance, living room, bedroom, and bathroom sensors. Therefore, the claim that the kitchen was 'empty' is an inference from missing data rather than direct evidence of an empty room.

Explanation: Step 2: The Defender provides a coherent normal story supported by direct positive evidence. Specifically, `entrance_occupancy` and `living_room_occupancy` remain strictly 'occupied' (raw=1) throughout the entire 49-minute cooking window. In modern open-plan homes, presence in the living room serves as a valid proxy for supervision of an adjacent kitchen area.

Explanation: Step 3: The sequence of events—light on, stove on, stove off, dishwasher on—is a standard domestic routine. The lack of lock flips rules out intrusion. The continuous temperature readings from the kitchen sensor prove the network was active, making a total sensor failure less likely than simple PIR blind spots or the resident sitting still in the living room. Without direct evidence of the kitchen being unoccupied (e.g., a specific 'kitchen_unoccupied' log), the burden of proof for a safety hazard is not met.

[2026-06-22T18:59:30] kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = on (raw=True)

[2026-06-22T19:48:00] kitchen_cook_surface | OnOff.OnOff = off (raw=False)

[2026-06-22T18:59 - 19:48] entrance_occupancy and living_room_occupancy remain consistently occupied (raw=1)

[2026-06-22T20:04:00] kitchen_dishwasher | OnOff.OnOff = on (raw=True)

Consider adding a dedicated kitchen occupancy sensor if fire risk mitigation is a priority, to provide explicit confirmation of presence during appliance use.

C15: Shows the specific activation sequence upon entry (lights on, AC on), which is critical for distinguishing between an intruder bypassing sensors and a resident using automation.

C16: Provides context for sustained occupancy in the living room during evening hours, helping to rule out transient anomalies.

C19: Covers the late-night period where occupancy persists, allowing for analysis of whether the 'unoccupied' status was correctly maintained earlier or if there were gaps indicating potential unauthorized access.

Does the timing of the lock flips (4 total) correlate with the occupancy transitions in C07 and C15?

Is the high frequency of 'alarmish' events in the living room (e.g., C15, C16) indicative of sensor noise or actual safety triggers like smoke/water leaks?

Are there any gaps in occupancy detection that might suggest a door was left open or a sensor failed to trigger?

The kitchen cook surface was activated at 18:59:30 and remained on for approximately 49 minutes without any corresponding occupancy in the kitchen or adjacent living areas, creating a significant fire hazard window where the appliance was unattended.

At 2026-06-22T18:59:30 (Chunk C15), `kitchen_cook_surface` turns On.

At 2026-06-22T19:48:00 (Chunk C16), `kitchen_cook_surface` turns Off. This is a duration of ~48.5 minutes.

Throughout this entire interval (18:59 - 19:48), `entrance_occupancy` and `living_room_occupancy` remain consistently 'occupied' (raw=1) with no transitions to 'unoccupied'.

Crucially, there are NO `kitchen_occupancy` sensor logs indicating presence during this period. In Matter schemas, if a kitchen occupancy sensor existed and detected people, it would likely log; its absence suggests either no sensor or no detection. Given the high frequency of other occupancy logs, the lack of kitchen-specific presence data while the stove is active is the primary anomaly.

No other device activity (e.g., range hood, dishwasher, microwave) correlates with cooking behavior during this window to suggest automated or supervised use.

The user left the kitchen area (implied by lack of kitchen occupancy logs) while the heat source was active.

A 'benign routine' explanation requires the resident to be present in the kitchen or actively monitoring the stove. The complete absence of kitchen occupancy signals during a nearly 50-minute active heating period strongly contradicts normal supervision.

While the living room is occupied, residents typically do not leave a gas/electric cooktop running for 49 minutes while sitting in the living room without checking, especially given the proximity of the kitchen.

The subsequent activation of the dishwasher at 20:04 suggests the resident returned to the kitchen later, but this does not mitigate the risk of the unattended cooktop event that just occurred.

Sensor malfunction is less likely than human error/negligence because the rest of the home's occupancy sensors (entrance, living room) are functioning correctly and consistently logging, making a total failure of only the kitchen sensor (if it exists) or a total lack of detection more indicative of an empty room than a technical fault.

We cannot definitively confirm the existence of a `kitchen_occupancy` sensor from the provided logs; if one doesn't exist, we rely on the absence of evidence. However, the query anchor targets `entrance_occupancy` and `living_room_occupancy`, implying those are the primary proxies. If the kitchen has no sensor, the risk is inferred from the lack of *any* kitchen activity logs (like lights or hoods) alongside the stove being on.

It is theoretically possible the resident was in the kitchen but the sensor failed to trigger, though this is statistically less probable than the resident leaving the room.

Explicit `kitchen_occupancy` logs to confirm absence.

Range hood status to rule out automated ventilation usage.

The kitchen cook surface activation represents a benign, supervised cooking routine. The Prosecutor's claim of 'unattended' status relies on the false premise that the absence of explicit `kitchen_occupancy` logs equates to an empty room, ignoring the strong contextual evidence of resident presence in adjacent areas and the lack of any intrusion indicators.

The cook surface was active for ~49 minutes with no corresponding occupancy in the kitchen or adjacent living areas.

This is an inference based on missing data (absence of `kitchen_occupancy` logs), not direct evidence of an empty room. The logs explicitly show `entrance_occupancy` and `living_room_occupancy` as consistently 'occupied' (raw=1) throughout the entire window (18:59-19:48). In open-plan or connected home layouts, presence in the living room is a valid proxy for supervision of the kitchen, especially when combined with device usage patterns.

[2026-06-22T18:59:00] kitchen_light | OnOff.OnOff = on (raw=True)

[2026-06-22T19:48:30] kitchen_window_contact | BooleanState.StateValue = false (raw=False)

The complete absence of kitchen occupancy signals strongly contradicts normal supervision.

The logs do not prove the *non-existence* of a kitchen sensor, nor do they prove it failed. More importantly, Matter-style logs often prioritize high-frequency state changes or specific triggers. The consistent 'occupied' status in the Living Room and Entrance suggests the resident is present in the immediate vicinity. A resident sitting in the living room while cooking at an island or adjacent counter is a standard domestic behavior pattern.

Living Room Occupancy remains raw=1 from 18:21 through 20:14.

Entrance Occupancy remains raw=1 from 18:21 through 20:14.

No door lock flips occurred during the cooking window, ruling out unauthorized entry/exit.

Sensor malfunction is less likely than human error because other sensors are functioning.

This is a weak dichotomy. It ignores the most probable explanation: the resident was simply not detected by a PIR sensor due to positioning (e.g., sitting still, blocked line-of-sight) while remaining physically present. This is a common limitation of occupancy sensing, not a system fault or security breach.

Temperature sensors in the kitchen continue to report values (e.g., 24.98 C at 19:05), indicating the device is online and communicating, contradicting a total network failure.

Sequential Device Activation: Kitchen light turned ON at 18:59:00, followed immediately by cook surface at 18:59:30. This tight coupling indicates intentional user interaction, not a random glitch or automated background process.

Sustained Presence Proxies: `entrance_occupancy` and `living_room_occupancy` remain strictly 'occupied' (raw=1) for the entire duration of the cooking event (approx. 50 mins). If the house were truly unattended, these primary sensors would likely have transitioned to 'unoccupied' after a reasonable timeout, or at least shown gaps.

Post-Cooking Routine: At 20:04, the dishwasher turns ON. This confirms the resident returned to or remained in the kitchen area shortly after cooking finished, completing a logical meal-prep/cleanup sequence.

Window Contact State: At 19:48:30 (immediately after stove off), `kitchen_window_contact` reports 'false' (closed). This suggests the environment was stable and controlled, inconsistent with a break-in or chaotic abandonment scenario.

The Prosecutor's theory requires assuming the resident left the kitchen entirely but stayed close enough to turn off the stove and dishwasher later, without triggering any other movement sensors or leaving the entrance/living room occupied zones. This is logically inconsistent.

The 'unattended' label implies negligence or danger. However, the continuous 'occupied' signal in the living room provides sufficient evidence of supervision in a smart-home context where cross-room detection is imperfect.

There is zero evidence of forced entry, lock bypasses, or unusual access times that would support an intrusion hypothesis.

We cannot definitively confirm the physical layout (e.g., if the kitchen is soundproofed or visually isolated from the living room), though this is unlikely given the simultaneous lighting and appliance usage.

If the kitchen has a dedicated occupancy sensor that is known to be highly sensitive, its silence is slightly more notable, but still insufficient to override the positive presence signals elsewhere.

Explicit `kitchen_occupancy` logs to rule out sensor placement issues.

Audio or video confirmation of the resident's location.

## 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.

## Structured 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"
  }
}

## Extractor Output
{
  "primary_task_profile": "behavior-sequence",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance",
      "living_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "entrance_occupancy",
      "living_room_occupancy",
      "door_lock",
      "living_room_ac"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the sequence of occupancy and device activations to determine if the home security state (locked/unoccupied) was compromised or if the activity represents a benign routine."
  },
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C07",
    "C15",
    "C16",
    "C19"
  ],
  "candidate_threats": [
    "intrusion / tailgating",
    "abnormal_inactivity",
    "sensor_stuck"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C07: Captures the transition from night/early morning unoccupied state to daytime occupied state at the entrance, establishing the baseline for 'arrival' behavior.",
    "C15: Shows the specific activation sequence upon entry (ligh


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

The kitchen activity represents a normal morning routine with supervision in the adjacent dining area; no unattended cooking hazard is evidenced.

Explanation: Step 1: The Prosecutor's case for 'unattended cooking' relies primarily on the absence of explicit 'kitchen occupancy' logs and the lack of an explicit 'cook surface off' log. It argues that because the Master Bedroom occupant left the bathroom at 06:52 and no one was logged *inside* the kitchen sensor zone, the stove was unattended. This is an inference based on missing data rather than direct evidence of danger.

Explanation: Step 2: The Defender provides a coherent alternative explanation supported by positive telemetry. The `dining_room_occupancy` shows sustained presence from 06:51 to 07:46. In open-plan smart home layouts, presence in the dining room constitutes supervision of the adjacent kitchen. Furthermore, the `kitchen_light` turned on at 06:52 and off at 07:19, correlating perfectly with human activity. The temperature sensor recovery (from None to ~25C) disproves the thermal saturation theory.

Explanation: Step 3: Applying the burden-of-proof standard, the anomaly claim requires a meaningful hazard window with missing supervision. Here, supervision was present (Dining Room). The 'missing' cook surface off-log is likely due to batching or implicit state changes common in Matter devices, especially given the lights turning off shortly after. Without evidence of the device remaining on indefinitely while the house was empty (which it wasn't), the fire risk is not established.

[2026-06-17T06:51:06] dining_room_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied (raw=1)

[2026-06-17T07:16:06] dining_room_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied (raw=1)

[2026-06-17T06:52:03] kitchen_light | OnOff.OnOff = on (raw=True)

[2026-06-17T07:19:05] kitchen_light | OnOff.OnOff = off (raw=False)

Monitor future logs to see if the cook surface explicitly logs 'off' states to refine automation rules.

C04 (05:00-06:20): Captures the late-night/early-morning baseline where most rooms are unoccupied. The entrance shows low activity (3 events), establishing a 'secure/sleeping' baseline before the main wake-up sequence.

C05 (06:20-07:05): Marks the critical transition period. Occupancy flips to 'occupied' in master bedroom and kids room. This is the primary window for detecting the initial entry event or wake-up routine. High alarmish count suggests significant state changes.

C06 (07:05-07:47): Shows sustained occupancy across multiple rooms (dining, master, kids). Helps distinguish between a single person moving around vs. multiple people present. Entrance activity is still relatively low compared to later chunks.

C07 (07:49-08:35): Entrance occupancy becomes consistently 'occupied' (10 events). This chunk is crucial for analyzing the 'commute' or 'morning routine' phase at the entry point, checking for lock interactions or door sensor triggers that might indicate leaving or returning.

C08 (08:35-09:21): Continues the high-occupancy pattern. Used to verify if the entrance activity stabilizes or if there are repeated entries/exits that might suggest irregular behavior or device glitches.

Does the door_lock log show any unlock/lock transitions during C05-C07 that correlate with the entrance occupancy spikes?

Is the increase in entrance occupancy in C07/C08 due to residents leaving for work/school, or could it be an intruder entering after the initial wake-up?

Are the temperature sensors showing any anomalies (e.g., rapid heating) in the entrance area during these chunks that might indicate a malfunction or external heat source?

Is there any evidence of water leaks or smoke alarms triggering during this transition period?

A high-risk unattended cooking event occurred in the kitchen between 06:51 and 07:19, where the cook surface was activated while the primary occupant (Master Bedroom) had already vacated the immediate vicinity, creating a fire hazard window of approximately 28 minutes with no evidence of supervision.

At 06:51:03, `kitchen_cook_surface` is turned ON. Simultaneously, `dining_room_occupancy` becomes occupied (06:51:06), suggesting a resident entered the kitchen/dining area to begin cooking.

However, at 06:52:33, `master_bathroom_occupancy` transitions to UNOCCUPIED (raw=0). This indicates the person who was in the master bedroom/bathroom suite has left that zone.

Crucially, from 06:52 onwards, there are NO subsequent occupancy events recorded for the `kitchen`, `dining_room`, or `entrance` until the lock interaction at 07:19. The `kitchen_temp_sensor` returns `None` at 06:52 and 06:53, likely due to heat saturation or sensor error, but critically, no human presence is logged in the cooking zone.

The `kitchen_cook_surface` remains ON from 06:52:33 through the end of Chunk C06 (07:47) and into C07. There is no log entry showing the cook surface being turned OFF before 07:19.

At 07:19:20, the `front_door_lock` is manually unlocked, followed by an auto-lock at 07:19:23. This sequence strongly suggests the resident left the house. If the cook surface was still on (which it appears to be, as it never logs 'off' in the provided chunks), this constitutes an unattended cooking scenario where the appliance is left running while the home is effectively empty or the user is absent from the kitchen.

A normal morning routine would involve either turning off the stove after use or remaining in the kitchen/dining area while it is active. The data shows the occupant leaving the bathroom/master bedroom zone at 06:52 but provides no evidence of them entering or staying in the kitchen/dining room during the critical 06:52-07:19 window.

The absence of any `OnOff = off` event for the cook surface in the entire dataset (C03-C08) makes it highly probable the device remained active. Even if it was turned off manually without logging (unlikely in Matter semantics which usually log state changes), the lack of occupancy signals in the kitchen during the heating phase is a significant safety gap.

The temperature sensors returning `None` could indicate extreme heat, further supporting the theory that the stove was on and potentially overheating, rather than just idle.

We do not have explicit confirmation that the cook surface was still ON at 07:19, only that it was turned ON at 06:52 and never explicitly logged as OFF. It is possible it was turned off between 06:53 and 07:19 without a specific log capture in these chunks, though the lack of any 'off' log is suspicious.

It is theoretically possible another household member entered the kitchen (not logged in the focused chunks or missed by sensors) to supervise, but the `dining_room_occupancy` does not show sustained occupancy consistent with someone standing in the kitchen for 28 minutes.

The `kitchen_temp_sensor` failure (`None`) prevents confirming thermal runaway, but also removes a key piece of corroborating evidence for the intensity of the usage.

Smoke detector or CO alarm logs to confirm if a hazard actually materialized.

Explicit `OnOff = off` log for the cook surface to definitively rule out manual shutdown.

Occupancy logs for the kitchen itself (only dining/entrance are consistently tracked in the summary, though `kitchen_temp_sensor` exists).

The kitchen cook surface was operated normally by a resident present in the adjacent dining area. The Prosecutor's claim of 'unattended cooking' relies on a false dichotomy between 'direct occupancy logs in the kitchen' and 'absence of supervision,' ignoring that the dining room is functionally part of the cooking zone and shows sustained occupancy during the entire heating period.

The cook surface was unattended because there were NO subsequent occupancy events recorded for the `kitchen` or `dining_room` from 06:52 onwards until 07:19.

This is factually incorrect regarding the dining room. The logs explicitly show `dining_room_occupancy` transitioning to occupied at 06:51:06 and remaining occupied (with periodic updates) through 07:46:06. The dining room is immediately adjacent to the kitchen; presence here constitutes supervision of the cooking activity.

[2026-06-17T07:01:06] dining_room_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied (raw=1)

[2026-06-17T07:06:06] dining_room_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied (raw=1)

[2026-06-17T07:11:06] dining_room_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied (raw=1)

The `kitchen_temp_sensor` returning `None` indicates heat saturation or sensor error due to extreme heat, supporting the theory of an overheating stove.

The sensor recovers immediately after the device is turned off. At 06:55:00, just minutes after the cook surface is turned off (06:51:03 - note: Prosecutor misread the initial state, see below), the temperature reads 24.96 C. If the sensor had suffered thermal damage or saturation from a fire hazard, it would not return to normal ambient readings within 3 minutes. The `None` values are likely transient communication drops or brief initialization delays common in Matter devices, not evidence of thermal runaway.

[2026-06-17T06:52:00] kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None

[2026-06-17T06:53:03] kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None

[2026-06-17T06:55:00] kitchen_temp_sensor | TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = 24.96 C (raw=2496)

The cook surface remained ON from 06:52 through 07:19 because no 'off' log was captured.

The Prosecutor misidentified the timeline. The log at 06:51:00 shows `OnOff = off`. The log at 06:52:33 shows `OnOff = on`. There is no explicit 'off' log *after* 06:52:33 in the provided chunks, BUT the context proves supervision. More importantly, the Prosecutor claims the device was on while the house was empty/unattended. Since the dining room was occupied, the 'unattended' premise fails regardless of the final state in this specific window. Furthermore, standard Matter logging often batches state changes; the lack of an explicit 'off' log does not prove it stayed on indefinitely, especially given the lights turned off shortly after.

[2026-06-17T07:19:20] front_door_lock | Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=1, OperationSource=Manual)

Dining Room Occupancy: Sustained occupancy from 06:51 to 07:46 confirms a person was present in the immediate vicinity of the kitchen throughout the cooking event.

Lighting Sequence: Kitchen light turned on at 06:52:03 (start of cooking) and off at 07:19:05 (end of routine). This correlates perfectly with human presence and activity.

Temperature Recovery: Kitchen temp sensor returns to normal ambient (~25C) by 06:55, disproving thermal saturation/failure theories.

Lock State: Front door locks at 07:19:23, consistent with residents leaving for work/school after completing morning routines (cooking, bathroom, etc.).

The Prosecutor's core argument rests on the absence of 'kitchen-specific' occupancy logs. However, smart home semantics treat open-plan areas (Kitchen/Dining) as overlapping zones. Presence in the Dining Room is sufficient supervision for Kitchen activities.

The claim of 'heat saturation' is contradicted by the rapid recovery of the temperature sensor data.

The claim of 'unattended' status is directly refuted by the continuous stream of occupancy events in the Dining Room.

The Prosecutor incorrectly interprets the initial `off` state at 06:51:00 as the start of the event, whereas the active heating phase begins at 06:52:33.

We do not have an explicit `OnOff = off` log for the cook surface after 06:52:33. While highly probable it was turned off before the residents left (given the lights went off), we rely on behavioral inference rather than direct device state confirmation for the exact moment of shutdown.

No smoke/CO alarm logs are available to definitively confirm air quality, though none are triggered.

Explicit `OnOff = off` log for the cook surface post-06:52.

## 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.

## Structured 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,
    "StateValue": 7,
    "LockState": 5,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 3,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 5,
  "occupancy_events": 1097,
  "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"
  }
}

## Extractor Output
{
  "primary_task_profile": "behavior-sequence",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance",
      "living_room",
      "master_bedroom",
      "kids_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "entrance_occupancy",
      "door_lock",
      "living_room_occupancy",
      "master_bedroom_occupancy",
      "kids_room_occupancy"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the transition from night-time unoccupied state to morning occupied state, specifically focusing on entrance activity and lock state changes to determine if the occupancy is consistent with normal resident behavior or potential unauthorized access."
  },
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C05",
    "C06",
    "C07",
    "C08"
  ],
  "candidate_threats": [
    "intrusion / tailgating",
    "sensor_malfunc


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

The kitchen activity represents a normal morning routine; the alleged unattended cooking is unsupported by thermal data and relies on an absence-of-evidence fallacy regarding sparse occupancy logs.

Explanation: Step 1: The Prosecutor's case for 'unattended cooking' rests primarily on the absence of explicit `kitchen_occupancy = occupied` logs between 06:33 and 07:56. However, Matter occupancy sensors are event-driven and often have debounce periods; the simultaneous activation of `kitchen_light` (06:32:08) and `kitchen_cook_surface` (06:32:38) provides direct evidence of user presence and intent at the start of the sequence.

Explanation: Step 2: The Defender successfully demonstrates that the core claim depends on interpreting missing log entries as proof of emptiness. Crucially, the `kitchen_temp_sensor` recovers to a stable baseline (24.85 C) just 3 minutes after the glitch, showing no thermal accumulation consistent with an appliance left running unchecked for 13+ minutes. If the stove had been unattended, ambient temperature would likely rise significantly or trigger high-temp alarms.

Explanation: Step 3: The sequence of events (Wake -> Bathroom -> Kitchen Light/Stove -> Bedroom/Kids Room) aligns perfectly with a standard household morning routine. The lack of continuous occupancy telemetry is a known limitation of IoT sensor reporting intervals, not evidence of abandonment. Without direct fault evidence (stuck values, alarms) or contradictory thermal/behavioral data, the anomaly hypothesis fails the burden of proof.

[C05] kitchen_light turns ON at 06:32:08, immediately preceding cook surface activation, indicating user presence.

[C05] kitchen_temp_sensor reports 24.85 C at 06:35:00, showing no heat buildup from an unattended appliance over the subsequent period.

[C05] Subsequent occupancy signals in Master Bedroom (06:36) and Kids Room (06:45) confirm human movement consistent with a post-kitchen routine.

No immediate action required; system behavior is within normal parameters.

Consider reviewing sensor placement or reporting frequency if occupancy gaps cause frequent false positives in future audits.

C00: Establishes the baseline 'unoccupied' state for all rooms at midnight, confirming the house was empty and secure initially.

C05: Captures the first transition from unoccupied to occupied in the master bedroom and bathroom around 06:20, marking the start of human presence.

C07: Shows a rapid spread of occupancy signals to entrance, dining, and living areas shortly after waking (07:56-08:00), establishing the morning routine pattern.

C19: Represents the evening return/transition phase (17:18+), where occupancy shifts back to common areas and bedrooms, allowing comparison with morning patterns.

C23: Covers the late-night period (20:02+) showing sustained occupancy in living/entrance areas before settling, helping to distinguish between normal evening activity and potential lingering intrusion or security lapses.

Is there any discrepancy between the door lock state flips and the occupancy sensor activations at the entrance (e.g., lock open but no occupancy, or vice versa)?

Are the transitions between rooms (e.g., Master Bedroom -> Bathroom -> Living Room) temporally consistent with normal human movement speeds?

Does the 'alarmish_count' correlate with specific device states that might indicate false positives or actual safety events rather than just data volume?

Is there any period where high occupancy is detected in private areas (bedrooms/bathrooms) without corresponding activity in common areas during night hours?

A high-risk unattended cooking event occurred in the kitchen during the early morning routine (06:32–06:45), where the cook surface was activated but occupancy sensors indicated the room was empty, creating a fire hazard window of at least 13 minutes with no human presence detected.

At 06:32:38 (C05), `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON. Simultaneously, `kitchen_light` turns ON, indicating user intent to use the kitchen.

Immediately after activation, at 06:33:07 (C05), `master_bathroom_occupancy` transitions to UNOCCUPIED, and critically, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `None`, suggesting a potential sensor disconnect or rapid environmental change, but more importantly, there is NO subsequent `kitchen_occupancy` signal recorded in the provided chunks for this time period.

The next available occupancy data point for the kitchen area is not explicitly logged as 'occupied' until much later or inferred from other rooms; however, the `entrance_occupancy` remains unoccupied until 07:56 (C07), and `living_room_occupancy` remains unoccupied until 17:47 (C19).

Between 06:33 and 07:56, the only occupied zones are `master_bedroom`, `kids_room`, and `master_bathroom` (briefly). The kitchen shows no occupancy signals despite the cook surface being on.

This creates a sequence where an ignition source (cook surface) is active while the primary zone (kitchen) is reported as unoccupied, fitting the definition of unattended cooking.

A normal explanation would require the user to be in the kitchen without triggering the occupancy sensor, which is unlikely given the simultaneous light activation. If the user left the kitchen immediately after turning on the stove, it constitutes unattended cooking. If the sensor failed, the risk remains because the system cannot verify safety.

The absence of any `kitchen_occupancy = occupied` log between 06:33 and the next morning's activity blocks suggests the system did not detect anyone in the kitchen during the critical heating phase.

While the user might have been present, the lack of evidence contradicts the safety assumption that the appliance is supervised.

The logs do not explicitly show a `kitchen_occupancy` transition to 'unoccupied' at 06:33, only the absence of 'occupied' signals. However, in Matter semantics, if occupancy is not reported as 1, and other sensors indicate movement elsewhere, the default inference for safety analysis is unoccupied unless proven otherwise.

The `kitchen_temp_sensor` going to `None` could imply a device fault rather than just absence, but this does not mitigate the risk of the cook surface being on without verified supervision.

We do not see the cook surface turn off in the provided chunks, leaving the state ambiguous but dangerous.

Explicit `kitchen_occupancy` sensor logs showing 'unoccupied' status during the gap.

Smoke detector or CO2 sensor readings to confirm if a fire actually started.

Logs showing the cook surface turning off to define the end of the hazard window.

The kitchen activity at 06:32 represents a normal, supervised morning routine. The claim of 'unattended cooking' is an artifact of sparse occupancy logging and sensor latency, not evidence of absence. The cook surface was activated in conjunction with lighting, and the subsequent temperature recovery confirms the device did not run unchecked for hours.

The cook surface was ON while the kitchen was reported as unoccupied (no occupancy signal) between 06:33 and 07:56.

This relies on an 'absence of evidence' fallacy. Matter occupancy sensors often have debounce timers or report only on state transitions. The simultaneous activation of `kitchen_light` at 06:32:08 strongly implies human presence intent. The lack of a continuous 'occupied' log stream does not prove the room was empty; it proves the sensor did not trigger a new event packet during that specific interval.

[C05] kitchen_light turns ON at 06:32:08, immediately preceding the cook surface activation, indicating user presence.

[C05] kitchen_temp_sensor recovers to 24.85 C at 06:35:00, just 3 minutes after the glitch, showing the environment stabilized quickly rather than drifting due to long-term unattended heating.

The kitchen_temp_sensor going to None indicates a disconnect or rapid change, supporting the idea that no one was there to stabilize the environment.

A single transient `None` value is a common telemetry glitch or temporary occlusion, not proof of abandonment. If the stove had been left on unattended for 13+ minutes, we would expect a significant, sustained rise in ambient temperature or a specific high-temperature alarm, neither of which occurred. The temperature remained stable (~24.8-25.0 C).

[C05] At 06:35:00, kitchen_temp_sensor reports 24.85 C, consistent with the pre-event baseline (24.83 C), indicating no heat buildup from an unattended appliance.

No subsequent kitchen_occupancy signal was recorded until much later.

Occupancy logs are event-driven. The user likely moved to other rooms (Master Bedroom, Kids Room) as part of a standard morning routine (waking up -> bathroom -> kitchen -> bedrooms/living area). The absence of a *new* occupancy event in the kitchen doesn't mean the person wasn't there briefly; it means they didn't re-enter or leave in a way that triggered the sensor's threshold again within the logged window.

[C05] Master bedroom and kids room occupancy signals appear shortly after (06:36, 06:45), consistent with a user moving through the house after using the kitchen.

Simultaneous activation of kitchen light (06:32:08) and cook surface (06:32:38) indicates intentional use by a present user.

Kitchen temperature remained stable (24.83 C -> 24.85 C) after the brief sensor glitch, contradicting the thermal signature of an unattended heating element over 13 minutes.

Subsequent occupancy patterns show movement to other private rooms (Master/Kids), consistent with a post-kitchen morning routine.

No fire alarms, smoke detectors, or extreme temperature spikes were recorded.

The Prosecutor's theory requires assuming the user left the stove on and walked away for 13 minutes without any further interaction, yet the temperature data shows no thermal accumulation. A normal explanation (user present, sensor missed reporting, or user moved out of detection zone briefly) fits all data points including the stable temperature.

Relying on missing log entries as proof of absence ignores the probabilistic nature of IoT sensor reporting intervals.

We do not see the explicit 'Off' command for the cook surface in the provided chunks, leaving the exact duration ambiguous, but the thermal stability suggests it was either turned off quickly or was a low-power device (like a kettle or toaster) that doesn't raise ambient temp significantly.

The gap in occupancy logs is real, but its interpretation as 'empty' is unsupported by the concurrent light usage and subsequent thermal data.

Explicit cook surface 'Off' event to close the loop on duration.

Continuous occupancy stream to definitively rule out sensor failure, though not required given the thermal evidence.

## 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.

## Structured 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,
    "StateValue": 7,
    "LockState": 5,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 3,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 5,
  "occupancy_events": 1082,
  "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"
  }
}

## Extractor Output
{
  "primary_task_profile": "behavior-sequence",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance",
      "living_room",
      "master_bedroom",
      "kids_room"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "entrance_occupancy",
      "living_room_occupancy",
      "master_bedroom_occupancy",
      "kids_room_occupancy",
      "door_lock"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the occupancy and access patterns to determine if the home is secure, identifying any unauthorized entry or unusual activity sequences."
  },
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C00",
    "C05",
    "C07",
    "C19",
    "C23"
  ],
  "candidate_threats": [
    "intrusion",
    "abnormal_inactivity",
    "behavioral_anomaly"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C00: Establishes the baseline 'unoccupied' state for all ro


CH-04-FP: 家长在玄关操作门锁

The kitchen activity represents a normal morning routine with no evidence of unattended cooking or device failure.

Explanation: Step 1: The Prosecutor's case relies primarily on the 'absence of evidence' (missing `kitchen_occupancy` logs) to infer an unattended hazard. While the cook surface was ON for ~9 minutes, this duration is consistent with standard cooking tasks (boiling water, heating oil) and does not inherently constitute a fire risk without evidence of escalation (smoke, high temp) or prolonged abandonment.

Explanation: Step 2: The Defender provides a coherent alternative narrative supported by direct evidence: the kitchen light turned ON immediately before the stove, indicating intent and presence. The sequence of lights turning off in bedrooms/bathrooms aligns with a morning wake-up/cleanup routine where the user moves from private to common areas. The temporary `None` reading from the temperature sensor recovered quickly (within 4 minutes) and did not persist, ruling out a critical safety system failure or stuck sensor as defined by the Matter Notes.

Explanation: Step 3: Under the burden-of-proof standard, the Prosecutor has not established a concrete anomaly chain because the key link (unattended status) is inferred from sparse telemetry rather than direct contradiction or explicit fault events. The Defender successfully demonstrates that the observed behavior fits within normal household patterns, making the 'anomaly' claim unsupported.

C06: Kitchen light turned ON at 07:10:05, just 30 seconds before the cook surface activated, confirming user intent and likely presence.

C06: Temperature sensor reported valid values (25.18 C) at 07:15:00, only 4 minutes after the transient `None` error, proving it was a brief glitch, not a malfunction.

C06: Cook surface turned OFF at 07:20:00, ending the event within a reasonable timeframe for supervised cooking.

No immediate action required; system state is normal.

Monitor future occurrences of `None` temperature readings to ensure they remain transient glitches and do not indicate developing network issues.

C06: Captures the morning wake-up sequence. Key evidence includes the kitchen cook surface turning ON, followed by a temperature sensor reading 'None' (potential fault/missing data), and a manual lock operation at the entrance. This is critical for assessing unattended cooking risk and sensor reliability.

C18: Shows an afternoon/evening event where the front door is manually unlocked and the contact sensor reports 'false' (open). This provides context for normal entry/exit behavior or potential security gaps compared to the morning event.

C27: Captures the nighttime routine. The master bedroom window opens, the front door contact becomes 'true' (closed), and the lock engages automatically. This establishes the baseline 'secure' state before the next day's events.

C05: Represents the early morning transition (06:20-07:10). Occupancy sensors start triggering in bedrooms and kids' room, providing the human presence context that might explain or contradict the kitchen activity seen in C06.

C07: Follows C06 closely, showing continued occupancy and temperature readings. It helps determine if the 'None' reading in C06 was a transient glitch or part of a broader communication issue, and tracks the status of the kitchen after the cook surface was turned on.

Was the kitchen cook surface left unattended? The logs show it turning on in C06, but do not explicitly show it turning off in the provided chunks, raising a fire risk question.

Why did the kitchen temperature sensor report 'None' in C06? Is this a device malfunction, network drop, or simply a missing log line?

In C18, the door was manually unlocked and the contact sensor showed 'false'. Was this a legitimate entry, or does it indicate a security vulnerability during that period?

Does the automatic locking in C27 function correctly as a safety measure when occupants are still present (window open)?

Is there a correlation between the 'None' temperature reading and the high alarmish count in C06/C07?

The kitchen cook surface was activated at 07:10:35 and remained in the 'ON' state for a minimum of 9 minutes (until 07:20:00) with no evidence of active supervision or immediate deactivation, creating a fire hazard window. This is compounded by a concurrent sensor malfunction (`None` reading) that likely prevented automated safety interventions.

C06 Chunk: At 07:10:35, `kitchen_cook_surface` turns ON. Immediately after, at 07:11:05, `kitchen_temp_sensor` reports `TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None`, indicating a potential communication failure or device fault during the critical early phase of heating.

C06 Chunk: The cook surface remains ON until 07:20:00. During this ~10 minute interval, there are no logs showing the user entering the kitchen, interacting with the stove, or turning it off manually.

C06 Chunk: Occupancy sensors show `master_bathroom_occupancy` transitioning to unoccupied at 07:11:26 and `entrance_occupancy` becoming occupied only at 07:14:38 (coinciding with door lock activity). There is no `kitchen_occupancy` log entry confirming presence in the kitchen during the cooking window.

C06 Chunk: Lights in the dining room turn OFF at 07:14:00 and master bedroom/kids room lights turn OFF shortly after, suggesting occupants may have left their rooms without attending to the kitchen appliance.

A normal cooking event typically involves either continuous occupancy logs in the kitchen or a rapid transition from ON to OFF (seconds/minutes) as the user monitors the food. A 10-minute gap with no occupancy confirmation and a simultaneous sensor failure suggests the user may have been distracted or absent, relying on the faulty temperature sensor which failed to provide data.

While the stove eventually turned off, the lack of intermediate 'off' events or occupancy checks makes the 'unattended' hypothesis stronger than 'briefly stepped away', especially given the sensor blackout period.

The exact duration of the 'unattended' state is bounded by the next logged event; if the user was present but not logged (e.g., sensor blind spot), the risk is lower.

We do not see the final state of the food or smoke detectors, so actual ignition is not confirmed, only the hazard condition.

Smoke detector logs
Direct voice assistant interaction logs
Camera footage verification

The kitchen activity represents a standard, supervised morning routine. The 'unattended' claim is an artifact of sparse occupancy logging and sensor telemetry gaps, not actual human absence. The cook surface was active for only ~9 minutes with no temperature spike or secondary alarms, consistent with brief food preparation (e.g., boiling water/heating pan) rather than fire hazard.

The cook surface remained ON for ~10 minutes with no evidence of supervision.

Absence of logs does not equal absence of presence. Smart home occupancy sensors often have debounce times or blind spots. The user likely moved between the kitchen and adjacent areas (dining/living) which are logged as occupied. A 9-minute duration is typical for heating oil/water, not unattended negligence.

Dining room occupancy remains 'occupied' from 07:20 onwards, immediately following the kitchen event.

Entrance occupancy triggers at 07:14, suggesting movement through the house, but the user returns to common areas.

No smoke detector or high-temperature alarm events occurred during this window.

The `None` reading from the kitchen temp sensor indicates a fault that prevented safety interventions.

A single transient `None` value in Matter logs is typically a network jitter or polling gap, not a persistent device failure. It did not prevent the stove from being turned off manually later. There is no evidence of a 'stuck' state or repeated failures requiring intervention.

At 07:15:00, just 4 minutes after the glitch, the sensor reports a valid temperature (25.18 C).

At 07:20:00, when the stove turns off, the sensor reports 25.06 C.

The sensor continues to report valid temperatures throughout the rest of the day (C07, C17, C18), proving it is not broken.

Lights turning off suggests occupants left rooms without attending to the kitchen.

This is a correlation fallacy. Turning off lights in bedrooms/bathrooms is part of the morning wake-up/cleanup routine. It does not imply leaving the house or ignoring appliances. The user can be in the kitchen while bedroom lights are off.

Kitchen light turned ON at 07:10:05, directly preceding the stove activation, indicating intent to use the space.

Master bathroom light turned OFF at 07:10:00, coinciding with the start of kitchen activity, suggesting the user moved from bathroom to kitchen.

Sequence coherence: Kitchen Light ON (07:10:05) -> Stove ON (07:10:35) -> Stove OFF (07:20:00). This tight clustering indicates intentional use.

Duration analysis: 9 minutes 25 seconds is a plausible duration for cooking tasks like boiling pasta, heating milk, or searing meat, which require monitoring but not constant staring.

Sensor recovery: The temperature sensor recovered quickly (within 4-10 minutes) and functioned normally thereafter, ruling out a critical safety system failure.

Occupancy continuity: While specific 'kitchen_occupancy' logs are missing in the snippet, 'dining_room_occupancy' and 'entrance_occupancy' show continuous human presence in the immediate vicinity, making total abandonment unlikely.

The prosecutor relies on 'absence of evidence' (no explicit kitchen occupancy log) to prove 'presence of risk'. In smart home data, occupancy sensors are probabilistic and often miss short-duration movements or transitions between adjacent zones.

The 'sensor fault' argument is weakened by the fact that the sensor worked perfectly before and after the incident, and the stove was manually controlled regardless of the sensor's status.

There is no escalation path (smoke alarm, temperature threshold breach) to support the 'fire hazard' claim.

We do not have direct video confirmation of the user's location inside the kitchen during the 07:10-07:20 window.

The exact reason for the `None` reading is unknown, though likely benign.

Smoke detector logs (none triggered)
Camera footage
Voice assistant interaction logs

## 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": 398,
    "master_bedroom": 517,
    "kids_room": 519,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 219,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 236,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1089,
    "OnOff": 26,

## 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.

## Structured Signals
{
  "room_activity": {
    "living_room": 398,
    "master_bedroom": 517,
    "kids_room": 519,
    "kitchen": 303,
    "dining_room": 219,
    "second_bedroom": 48,
    "master_bathroom": 56,
    "entrance": 236,
    "second_bathroom": 1
  },
  "attribute_frequency": {
    "MeasuredValue": 1156,
    "Occupancy": 1089,
    "OnOff": 26,
    "StateValue": 9,
    "LockState": 5,
    "CurrentPositionLiftPercent100ths": 3,
    "SystemMode": 1,
    "OperationalState": 1
  },
  "lock_state_flips": 5,
  "occupancy_events": 1089,
  "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"
  }
}

## Extractor Output
{
  "primary_task_profile": "behavior-sequence",
  "secondary_task_profile": "none",
  "query_anchor": {
    "target_rooms": [
      "entrance",
      "kitchen",
      "living_room",
      "master_bedroom"
    ],
    "target_devices": [
      "front_door_lock",
      "front_door_contact",
      "kitchen_cook_surface",
      "kitchen_temp_sensor",
      "occupancy_sensors"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the transition from night to morning activity, specifically focusing on the security state of the entrance (lock/contact) and any potential hazards in the kitchen (unattended cooking or sensor failure)."
  },
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C18",
    "C27",
    "C05",
    "C07"
  ],
  "candidate_threats": [
    "intrusion / tailgating",
    "unattended_cooking",
    "sensor_stuck",
    "lock_malfunction",