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 temperature sensor exhibits transient telemetry glitches (null values and raw integer formatting artifacts) that are immediately resolved, while the cooking event was safely terminated by a user who likely ventilated the area; no fire, CO, or unattended hazard is present.

Explanation: Step 1: The Prosecutor identifies three specific data anomalies in the kitchen temperature sensor logs: a null value at 19:44:00 (C11), and two raw-value formatting leaks (2700 at 06:50:00 in C03, and 2750 at 07:15:00 in C04). However, these are isolated incidents within a continuous stream of valid data. The 'malfunction' claim relies on interpreting these transient logging artifacts as evidence of hardware failure, ignoring the immediate recovery in every instance.

Explanation: Step 2: The Defender provides a strongly supported normal narrative. The logs show the cook surface turning OFF at 19:43:00, followed by the window closing at 19:43:30. This sequence indicates active user presence and safe shutdown, directly refuting the 'unattended cooking' risk. Furthermore, the temperature trend (rising during cooking, falling after) validates the sensor's physical accuracy despite the logging glitches. The null reading at 19:44:00 was followed by a valid reading at 19:45:00, confirming the device remained operational.

Explanation: Step 3: Applying the burden-of-proof test, the Prosecutor fails to establish an anomaly chain that compromises safety or indicates persistent device failure. The 'anomaly' is limited to cosmetic/telemetry issues (formatting/nulls) that do not affect the underlying safety state (stove off, no fire/CO alarms). The Defender's explanation of transient network/jitter issues is consistent with the immediate recovery of all signals. Therefore, the case for 'sensor_malfunction' as a significant threat is weak compared to the robust evidence of a safe, user-controlled environment.

C11: kitchen_cook_surface turns OFF at 19:43:00, mitigating fire/unattended cooking risk.

C11: kitchen_window_contact closes at 19:43:30, implying user presence and ventilation.

C11 & C12: kitchen_temp_sensor recovers from null (19:44:00) to valid readings (19:45:00 onwards), showing no permanent failure.

C03 & C04: Raw value leaks (2700, 2750) correspond to physically plausible temperatures (~27°C) during/after cooking, suggesting logging layer artifacts rather than sensor error.

Monitor kitchen temperature sensor for recurrence of null/raw-value leaks; if frequency increases, consider replacing the device or checking Wi-Fi/Zigbee signal strength.

No immediate safety intervention required as the cooking event was safely managed.

C11: Contains the critical trigger event where the cook surface turns off (19:43) and the window contact closes (19:43:30), followed immediately by a null temperature reading from the kitchen sensor (19:44:00). This is the primary evidence for potential device failure or data loss.

C12: Provides immediate follow-up context. The kitchen temperature returns to normal (22.61 C) at 21:05, suggesting the previous null value was a transient glitch or communication error rather than a permanent sensor death. It also shows continued occupancy in the living room.

C04: Shows an earlier anomaly in the kitchen temperature sensor (a raw value of 2750 appearing without the standard format at 07:15:00). Including this helps establish a pattern of intermittent sensor formatting/reporting issues, supporting the 'device-health' secondary profile.

C10: Establishes the baseline behavior leading up to the incident, showing the living room occupancy transitioning to 'occupied' at 18:05, which provides context for who might be present during the kitchen events in C11.

Is the null temperature reading in C11 indicative of a temporary network drop, a sensor power cycle, or a parsing error?

Does the closing of the kitchen window correlate with the stove turning off, suggesting a user action (e.g., opening window for ventilation before leaving)?

Are the temperature spikes/nulls isolated incidents or part of a broader hardware fault affecting multiple sensors?

Was the kitchen actually empty when the stove turned off, or did the occupancy sensor fail to detect the person?

The kitchen temperature sensor exhibits a persistent hardware or firmware malfunction characterized by intermittent data loss (null values) and raw value formatting errors, which compromises the reliability of the safety monitoring system during critical cooking events.

C11: At 19:44:00, immediately after the cook surface turns off and the window closes, the kitchen_temp_sensor reports 'TemperatureMeasurement.MeasuredValue = None'. This indicates a failure to report state during a transition event.

C04: At 07:15:00, the kitchen_temp_sensor reports a raw value of 2750 without the standard Celsius conversion format seen in other logs (e.g., 'raw=2518'), suggesting inconsistent data parsing or transmission protocols.

C03: At 06:50:00, a similar anomaly occurs where the sensor reports 'MeasuredValue = 2700' alongside a valid reading of 25.09 C, indicating sporadic raw-value leakage or buffer errors.

Extractor Output: The 'device-health' secondary profile is explicitly triggered by these patterns, noting that the null reading in C11 is primary evidence for potential device failure.

While network drops are possible, the recurrence of specific raw-value anomalies (2700, 2750) across different times of day (morning vs. evening) suggests a systematic device-level issue rather than random connectivity loss. A simple network drop would not typically produce malformed raw integers; it would result in missing packets or timeouts.

Dismissing this as 'transient glitch' ignores the pattern of three distinct formatting/reporting failures within a single day, which warrants investigation into sensor integrity before assuming normal operation.

The sensor recovers to normal readings shortly after each anomaly (e.g., 19:45:00 in C11), so there is no permanent outage or long-term data gap.

There is no direct evidence of fire or CO hazard; the cook surface was turned off, and temperatures did not spike to dangerous levels before the sensor failed.

The 'unattended cooking' risk is mitigated by the fact that the stove was manually turned off at 19:43:00, even if the user's presence is ambiguous.

CO2 or smoke detector logs to confirm environmental safety despite the temp sensor failure.

Direct user confirmation of whether they were present in the kitchen at 19:43-19:44.

The kitchen temperature sensor exhibits transient telemetry glitches (null values and raw integer leakage) that are immediately followed by valid readings, indicating a non-critical communication or parsing artifact rather than a hardware malfunction. The cooking event was manually terminated, and the subsequent window closing suggests a deliberate user action for ventilation, not an unattended hazard. There is no evidence of fire, CO, or persistent device failure.

The null reading at 19:44:00 indicates a failure to report state during a transition, proving sensor malfunction.

This is an absence-based inference. A single null value in a high-frequency log stream, immediately resolved by a valid reading 60 seconds later, is characteristic of transient network jitter or packet loss, not hardware death. The Prosecutor ignores the immediate recovery.

C11: At 19:45:00, the sensor reports '26.38 C', confirming it remained operational and functional immediately after the null event.

Raw value anomalies (2700, 2750) appearing without standard formatting suggest systematic device-level issues or buffer errors.

These are isolated formatting artifacts, not evidence of physical sensor failure. They appear as distinct log lines alongside valid readings, suggesting a logging layer issue or duplicate message handling rather than a broken sensor. The values themselves (27.00 C, 27.50 C) are physically plausible temperatures for a kitchen with active cooking, further suggesting they are real measurements rendered incorrectly, not garbage data.

C03: At 06:50:00, 'MeasuredValue = 2700' appears alongside '25.09 C'. The room temperature was rising due to cooking (see C10/C11 progression), making 27.00 C a realistic ambient temp near the stove.

C04: At 07:15:00, 'MeasuredValue = 2750' appears. This is consistent with the post-cooking cooling phase where temps might still be elevated but stabilizing.

The pattern of three distinct failures within a single day warrants investigation into sensor integrity.

The Prosecutor conflates 'formatting inconsistency' with 'device health'. In Matter/Smart Home logs, occasional raw-value leaks or nulls due to Wi-Fi/Zigbee interference are common and do not constitute a 'fault' requiring replacement unless they persist or cause data gaps > minutes. Here, all gaps are < 1 minute.

Throughout C10-C13, the sensor provides regular, coherent temperature trends (e.g., rising from 23.16 C to 26.89 C during cooking, then dropping to 22.59 C). This coherent trend proves the sensor is measuring correctly.

C11: The cook surface turns OFF at 19:43:00. This directly mitigates the 'unattended cooking' risk. The user actively stopped the heat source.

C11: The kitchen window contact closes at 19:43:30, just 30 seconds after the stove turned off. This strongly implies a user was present to turn off the stove and open/close the window for ventilation, contradicting the idea of an absent/unaware user.

C11 & C12: After the null reading at 19:44:00, the sensor resumes reporting normal decreasing temperatures (26.38 C -> 25.48 C -> ... -> 22.61 C), showing full recovery and continued monitoring.

C10: The temperature rise from 23.16 C (18:05) to 26.89 C (19:30) correlates perfectly with the time the cook surface was ON (19:15-19:43), validating the sensor's accuracy despite the formatting glitches.

C11: No smoke detector or CO alarm events are logged, supporting the conclusion that no fire or hazardous gas accumulation occurred.

The Prosecutor's claim relies on interpreting transient log artifacts (nulls/raw leaks) as permanent hardware faults. However, the logs show immediate recovery and coherent physical behavior (temperature tracking with appliance usage).

The 'malfunction' narrative fails to account for the user actions (stove off, window closed) that explain the context of the glitch period. The glitch happened *during* a safe shutdown sequence, not during a dangerous unattended one.

There is no evidence of 'persistent' failure. The Prosecutor cites 3 instances over ~16 hours, all self-resolving within minutes. This is statistically insignificant for declaring a device faulty.

If the raw values (2700, 2750) were actually interpreted as 2700°C or 2750°C by a naive parser, they would trigger false alarms. However, the benchmark notes clarify these are centi-degrees, so 2700=27.00°C, which is safe.

We cannot definitively prove the user was in the kitchen at 19:43 based solely on the window/stove sync, though it is highly probable. The living room occupancy confirms someone was home.

Direct video feed confirmation of the user turning off the stove.

CO2 sensor logs (though lack of other alarms makes this redundant).

## 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_window_contact",
      "kitchen_temp_sensor",
      "living_room_occupancy"
    ],
    "target_question": "Analyze the sequence of events in the kitchen and living room around 19:35-20:00 to determine if there is evidence of unattended cooking, a safety hazard (fire/CO), or device malfunction."
  },
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C11",
    "C12",
    "C04",
    "C10"
  ],
  "candidate_threats": [
    "unattended_cooking",
    "sensor_stuck",
    "sensor_malfunction",
    "fire_risk"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C11: Contains the critical trigger event where the cook surface turns off (19:43) and the window contact closes (19:43:30), followed immediately by a null


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 observed behavior is consistent with a single resident entering the home and lingering in the entryway/foyer for an extended period before moving to the living room, with no evidence of unauthorized access or tailgating.

Explanation: Step 1: The Prosecutor's claim of tailgating relies primarily on the 'absence' of occupancy signals in the Living Room and Kitchen during the 8-minute window (07:22-07:30) after the entrance sensor activated. This is an argument from silence rather than positive evidence of a second person. The logs show the Entrance Occupancy remained 'occupied' continuously, which directly contradicts the idea that the door was left open or unmonitored by a second party outside.

Explanation: Step 2: The Defender provides a positively supported normal story: a single resident entered (Entrance Occ=1), manually unlocked the door, closed it (Contact=True), and triggered the auto-lock. The resident then remained in the foyer/entryway zone (sustained Entrance Occ=1) for approximately 8 minutes—plausible for activities like removing shoes, checking mail, or waiting—before moving into the Living Room (Living Room Occ=1 at 07:30). This sequence is internally consistent and requires no assumptions about hidden actors.

Explanation: Step 3: The burden of proof for an intrusion/tailgating anomaly requires evidence that breaks the chain of custody or shows multiple distinct presence events. Here, there is only one continuous presence event at the entrance, followed by a transition to the living room. The lack of intermediate hallway data does not prove a second person; it simply defines the boundary of the entrance sensor. Without contradictory evidence (e.g., a second lock operation, a gap in entrance occupancy while the door was unlocked, or thermal signatures elsewhere), the 'lingering resident' hypothesis is significantly more probable and parsimonious.

C05: Entrance Occupancy transitions to 'occupied' at 07:22:12 and remains '1' until 07:30:00, indicating sustained presence at the threshold.

C05: Lock operations (Manual Unlock -> Auto Lock) occur correctly between 07:22:20 and 07:22:27, securing the perimeter immediately upon door closure.

C05: Living Room Occupancy transitions to 'occupied' at 07:30:00, correlating with the end of the prolonged stay at the entrance, confirming movement into the main house.

Consider installing a dedicated motion sensor in the foyer/hallway if granular path tracking is desired for future behavioral analysis.

enumerated lock state rendered as label + raw code

C05 (06:45-07:48): Captures the morning transition where entrance activity begins (occupancy=1) while other rooms are still unoccupied. This establishes the baseline for 'who is up' and validates the entrance sensor's responsiveness before full house activity.

C06 (07:50-09:00): Shows sustained entrance occupancy with no corresponding movement in bedrooms/living room initially. This is critical for distinguishing between a resident leaving/returning vs. an intruder lingering at the door without entering main living areas.

C19 (22:13-23:10): Contains the specific lock operation event ('LockOperation', 'LockState = locked') and front door contact state change. This is the primary evidence chunk for verifying if the lock engaged correctly after potential entry/exit.

C20 (23:10-23:55): Post-lock activity check. If entrance occupancy remains high or fluctuates after the lock event, it suggests someone is still at the door (tailgating attempt or stuck sensor). If it drops to 0, it confirms the person left or entered and moved away from the entrance sensor.

Does the drop in entrance occupancy in C20 correlate with movement in the living room or kitchen, confirming entry into the home?

Is the 'LockOperation' in C19 triggered by a user action (manual/keypad) or auto-lock, and does it coincide with the last known presence at the door?

Are there any gaps in the entrance occupancy log between C06 and C19 that might indicate missed entries/exits?

Does the kitchen temperature spike in C15/C16 correlate with any entrance activity, suggesting cooking started shortly after arrival?

The sequence of events at the front door between 07:22 and 07:30 indicates a high probability of tailgating (unauthorized secondary entry) or a sensor blind spot allowing an unlogged person to enter. Specifically, the lock auto-locked while the entrance occupancy remained 'occupied', yet no corresponding movement was detected in the main living areas (Living Room/Kitchen) for several minutes, suggesting a second individual may have entered without triggering the primary occupancy sensors or bypassing them.

C05 (07:22:12): Entrance occupancy transitions to 'occupied' (raw=1).

C05 (07:22:20): Manual unlock event occurs; LockState becomes 'unlocked'.

C05 (07:22:26): Front door contact closes (raw=True), indicating the door is shut.

C05 (07:22:27): Auto-lock engages immediately; LockState becomes 'locked'.

C05 (07:22:23 - 07:30:00): Entrance occupancy remains persistently 'occupied' (raw=1) throughout this window.

C05 (07:22:27 - 07:30:00): Living Room and Kitchen occupancy remain 'unoccupied' (raw=0). No temperature spikes indicative of human presence in these rooms occur during this 8-minute gap.

C05 (07:30:00): Living room occupancy finally transitions to 'occupied' (raw=1), implying the person(s) moved into the house only after this timestamp.

If only one person entered, they would likely trigger the Living Room or Kitchen occupancy sensors within seconds of passing through the entrance, especially given the short distance. The 8-minute delay with zero activity in main rooms while the entrance sensor stays active suggests either a stuck sensor (less likely given later recovery) or a second person lingering at the entrance/foyer who did not trigger the main room sensors (tailgating scenario where the second person is obscured or the sensor has limited FOV).

The immediate auto-lock upon door closure confirms the door was secured, but it does not verify that *only* one person passed through before the lock engaged. If someone followed closely behind, the lock would still engage automatically based on the door contact, masking the intrusion.

We cannot definitively rule out a single resident moving slowly or stopping in a vestibule/entryway that is not covered by the Living Room/Kitchen sensors.

The 'Entrance Occupancy' sensor might be detecting the resident standing just inside the door, which explains the persistent '1' state, but fails to explain why they didn't move to the Living Room for 8 minutes if they were alone and intending to start their day.

Video footage of the entrance area to visually confirm the number of individuals.

Motion sensor data specifically placed in the foyer/hallway between the entrance and living room to trace the path.

The observed behavior is consistent with a single resident entering the home, lingering in the entryway/foyer for an extended period (likely due to morning routine activities such as putting on shoes, checking mail, or waiting for another household member), and then moving into the living room. There is no evidence of tailgating or unauthorized access; the 'gap' in main-room occupancy is explained by the resident's stationary presence at the entrance sensor.

The 8-minute delay between entrance occupancy and living room movement indicates a second person (tailgating) because one person would move immediately.

This relies on a speculative assumption about human speed rather than device data. A single person can legitimately remain in the foyer for 8 minutes without triggering motion sensors in adjacent rooms if they are standing still or moving minimally within the entrance sensor's field of view. The logs show the entrance sensor remained active ('occupied') throughout this entire window, confirming presence at the door, not absence.

C05: Entrance occupancy remains '1' continuously from 07:22:12 to 07:30:00.

C05: No lock state changes occurred during this interval, indicating the door was closed and secured while the person was inside the threshold.

Zero activity in Living Room/Kitchen implies an unlogged person bypassed sensors.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The lack of temperature spikes or occupancy transitions in other rooms simply means no *other* heat sources or motion events were detected there. It does not prove a second person existed elsewhere. The most parsimonious explanation is that the only person present was occupying the entrance zone.

C05: Kitchen light turned off at 07:22:00, just before entry, suggesting the house was quiet/prepared for the day.

C06: Living room occupancy transitions to '1' at 07:30:00, exactly when the entrance sensor had been active for ~8 minutes, marking the transition from 'entry' to 'living' phase.

The auto-lock logic is triggered by door contact closure, which is standard security behavior. The fact that the lock engaged correctly (Locked state=1) confirms the perimeter was secured. If an intruder had forced entry or lingered outside, we would see different patterns (e.g., repeated unlock attempts, door open states, or entrance occupancy dropping to 0 while lock is locked). Here, entrance occupancy stayed high, implying someone was *inside* the detection zone.

C05: LockState = locked (raw=1) after door contact closed.

C05: Entrance Occupancy = occupied (raw=1) persists after locking, consistent with a resident standing just inside the door.

C05: Entrance occupancy transitions to 'occupied' at 07:22:12, followed immediately by manual unlock and subsequent auto-lock upon door closure. This sequence is typical of a resident returning home.

C05: Entrance occupancy remains '1' for approximately 8 minutes (until 07:30:00). This sustained presence explains the delay in other rooms; the resident was physically located at the entrance.

C05: At 07:30:00, Living Room occupancy transitions to '1'. This correlates with the end of the prolonged entrance stay, suggesting the resident moved from the foyer into the main living area.

C05: No contradictory lock states (e.g., unlocked while door closed) or fault alarms are present.

C04/C05: Temperature readings in the kitchen/living room remain stable and low until after 07:30, consistent with no additional heat sources (people/appliances) being active in those specific zones during the entry delay.

The Prosecutor's 'tailgating' theory requires assuming a second person entered silently, stood in a blind spot for 8 minutes, and then vanished or merged with the first person without any secondary sensor trigger (like a hallway motion sensor, if one existed, or even subtle thermal shifts). This is less probable than the simple explanation of one person lingering.

The Prosecutor assumes immediate movement is mandatory. Human behavior varies significantly (e.g., dealing with coats, pets, children, or phones). The logs support a 'lingering' scenario perfectly well.

There is no evidence of a second person's footprint (no second lock operation, no second distinct occupancy spike in a different zone).

Without a dedicated foyer/hallway motion sensor, we cannot definitively trace the path from the door to the living room, only that the person left the entrance zone eventually.

We assume the entrance occupancy sensor covers the immediate interior threshold accurately.

Video footage of the entrance to visually confirm single vs. multiple persons.

Hallway motion sensor data to bridge the gap between entrance and living room.

## 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 there is evidence of unauthorized access, tailgating, or abnormal behavior patterns that indicate a security risk."
  },
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C05",
    "C06",
    "C19",
    "C20"
  ],
  "candidate_threats": [
    "intrusion",
    "tailgating",
    "lock_malfunction",
    "sensor_stuck"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C05 (06:45-07:48): Captures the morning transition where entrance activity begins (occupancy=1) while other rooms are still unoccupied. This establishes the baseline for 'who is up' and validates the e


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 evening entry sequence represents a normal resident return with consistent sensor persistence and logical automation triggers, showing no evidence of intrusion or device fault.

Explanation: Step 1: The Prosecutor's claim of a 'silent entry' or 'stuck sensor' relies on the assumption that the house was empty between 17:15 and 18:21. However, this is directly contradicted by the kitchen temperature logs in C14, which show a significant rise from ~23.4°C to 26.4°C during this period. This thermal evidence positively supports the presence of a human (likely cooking or preparing food) near the entrance/kitchen zone, explaining why the `entrance_occupancy` sensor remained 'occupied' continuously.

Explanation: Step 2: The Defender correctly identifies that PIR occupancy sensors have hold-times. The continuous 'occupied' state is consistent with a resident lingering at the door or moving slowly into the home before unlocking. The subsequent activation chain (Lock -> Entrance Light -> Living Room Occupancy -> AC) follows a standard, logical automation pattern for a smart home, confirming the system is functioning as intended rather than bypassed.

Explanation: Step 3: The Prosecutor fails to provide direct evidence of a fault (e.g., stuck values unrelated to heat sources) or an intrusion (e.g., lack of internal movement after entry). The 'anomaly' is merely an absence of a state *transition* log, which is expected when a state remains constant due to persistent presence. Without contradictory evidence, the normal behavior story is strongly supported by multi-signal convergence (thermal + occupancy + actuator states).

C14 Kitchen Temperature Rise: Temp increases from 23.40 C (17:25) to 26.44 C (18:20), indicating active human presence/heat source in the vicinity of the entrance/kitchen during the alleged 'gap'.

Continuous Occupancy State: `entrance_occupancy` remains raw=1 from 17:15 through 18:21, consistent with the thermal evidence of a person being present, not a stuck sensor in an empty house.

Logical Automation Sequence: C15 shows a coherent trigger chain: Manual Unlock (18:21:00) -> Entrance Light On (18:21:05) -> Living Room Occupied (18:21:07) -> Living Room Light/AC On (18:21:09-18), confirming successful detection and response.

No immediate action required; system behavior is normal.

Continue monitoring kitchen activity if unattended cooking risks are a concern, though current logs show the cook surface was turned off later.

C15: Captures the critical trigger sequence where entrance occupancy becomes 'occupied', followed immediately by lights turning on and AC activating in the living room. This is the primary evidence for user presence/activity.

C16: Shows the continuation of this occupied state with stable temperature readings, helping to distinguish between a transient sensor glitch and sustained human presence.

C07: Provides a comparative example of 'entrance occupied' during daytime hours (morning routine), allowing for a behavioral comparison to see if the evening pattern matches typical daily rhythms.

C19: Shows the late-night state where occupants remain active/occupied, confirming that the system continues to track presence rather than reverting to an unoccupied error state, supporting the validity of the C15/C16 events.

Does the specific timing of the entrance activation (18:21) align with typical resident schedules?

Are there any corresponding door_lock state changes (unlock/lock) that are missing from the provided chunks but implied by the entry?

Is the simultaneous activation of multiple devices (lights, AC) consistent with automated routines or manual override?

Could the 'entrance_occupied' signal be caused by a pet or environmental factor rather than a human?

The evening entry sequence (C15) exhibits a 'silent entry' behavioral anomaly: the front door was manually unlocked and opened, but the entrance occupancy sensor did not register the transition to 'occupied' until after internal lights and AC were activated. This suggests either a delayed sensor response, a bypass of the entrance zone (e.g., tailgating or entering through an unmonitored path), or a system configuration gap where the primary access point's presence detection failed to trigger immediately upon physical entry.

C14 (18:21:00): `front_door_lock` event shows manual unlock (`LockOperationType=1`) and state change to `unlocked`. Immediately after, `front_door_contact` reports `false` (open).

C14 (18:21:02): No corresponding `entrance_occupancy` update is logged at the exact moment of entry/unlock; the last prior log for `entrance_occupancy` was 18:20:12 showing `occupied` (raw=1), which contradicts the 'unoccupied' baseline established in C14 start if interpreted strictly, but more critically, the *transition* logic is broken.

Correction/Refinement based on logs: The logs show `entrance_occupancy` as `occupied` (raw=1) continuously from 17:15:12 through 18:20:12. However, the query anchor asks about the transition from unoccupied to occupied. Let's look closer. In C13/C14, `entrance_occupancy` is consistently `occupied` (raw=1) while other rooms are `unoccupied`. This implies the sensor might be stuck or the person is lingering at the entrance.

Critical Anomaly Point: At 18:21:00, the lock unlocks. At 18:21:03, `entrance_occupancy` is still logged as `occupied` (raw=1) in C15. Then at 18:21:05, `entrance_light` turns ON. At 18:21:07, `living_room_occupancy` turns `occupied` (raw=1).

The anomaly is the **sequence of activation**: The lock opens, but the `entrance_occupancy` sensor does not show a *change* from Unoccupied to Occupied because it was already reading Occupied (or the log doesn't capture the reset). More importantly, the `living_room_occupancy` only updates to `occupied` at 18:21:07, *after* the entrance light and *before* the living room light? No, Living Room Light is 18:21:09.

Let's re-evaluate the 'Unoccupied' premise. In C13 (16:05-17:15), `entrance_occupancy` is `occupied`. In C14 (17:15-18:21), `entrance_occupancy` remains `occupied`. This suggests the sensor has been stuck or the person has been standing there for hours, OR the 'unoccupied' state for the house is defined by bedrooms/living room being empty.

The strongest case for Behavioral Anomaly is the **lack of synchronized entry confirmation**. The door unlocks (18:21:00), contact opens (18:21:02). The `entrance_occupancy` sensor reads `occupied` at 18:21:03. If the sensor was previously `occupied`, this is just a continuation. If it was `unoccupied`, we missed the transition log. However, looking at C13, it was `occupied`. This implies the sensor might be **stuck** or **misplaced** relative to the actual entry flow, or the user entered without triggering the specific entrance PIR (perhaps entering from a garage or side door not covered by `entrance_occupancy`).

Alternative Stronger Case: **Sensor Stuck/Malfunction leading to False Sense of Security**. The `entrance_occupancy` reads `occupied` (raw=1) from 17:15:12 all the way through 18:21:03. Meanwhile, `living_room_occupancy` is `unoccupied` (raw=0) until 18:21:07. If the user entered at 18:21, why was `entrance_occupancy` already `occupied` since 17:15? This indicates the sensor is likely **stuck** in the 'occupied' state or detecting motion elsewhere (e.g., street traffic, pet) persistently. Consequently, the system cannot distinguish between a resident lingering at the door vs. an intruder who simply walks in, because the 'entry' signal is indistinguishable from the 'pre-entry' state.

A normal return would typically show a clear transition from `unoccupied` to `occupied` in the entrance sensor coincident with the lock unlock. Here, the entrance sensor has been `occupied` for over an hour prior to the lock event (since 17:15:12 in C14, and 16:05:12 in C13). This persistent 'occupied' state when the rest of the house is empty (bedrooms/living room are `unoccupied`) strongly suggests a sensor fault (stuck high) or environmental interference, rather than a human presence that then leaves and returns. If the sensor is stuck, the 'entry' event is masked, preventing proper intrusion detection logic from firing based on occupancy changes.

We do not have the raw binary stream to confirm if the sensor actually toggled off and on rapidly, though the log granularity (every ~5 mins for temp, irregular for events) makes this hard to prove definitively without more frequent polling data.

It is possible the user was indeed at the entrance for an hour (e.g., waiting for someone, dealing with packages), making the 'stuck' diagnosis less certain, though unlikely given the lack of activity in adjacent zones.

Raw binary toggle history for `entrance_occupancy` to confirm if it truly stayed high or flickered.

Logs for any secondary entry points (garage, back door) to rule out alternative entry paths.

The evening entry sequence (C15) represents a standard resident return. The 'anomaly' claimed by the Prosecutor is an artifact of sensor polling granularity and routine automation logic, not a security breach or device fault. The `entrance_occupancy` sensor was already in an 'occupied' state due to the resident lingering at the door or the sensor's persistence timer, which is consistent with the manual unlock event occurring while presence was already detected. The subsequent activation of lights and AC follows a logical, automated response to confirmed occupancy.

The entrance occupancy sensor has been 'stuck' on 'occupied' since 17:15 despite no other activity, implying a fault that masks intrusion.

This relies on the assumption that the house was empty between 17:15 and 18:21. However, the logs show the kitchen temperature rising significantly during this period (from ~23.4°C to 26.4°C), indicating heat generation (e.g., cooking prep or appliance use). It is highly probable the resident was present in the kitchen or near the entrance zone during this time, keeping the PIR sensor active. A 'stuck' sensor would not explain the correlated thermal changes in adjacent zones.

C14 (18:00-18:20): Kitchen temp rises from 23.85 C to 26.44 C, suggesting human activity/heat source nearby.

C14 (18:21:00): Manual unlock occurs while `entrance_occupancy` is already 1. This implies the person was already within detection range before unlocking.

The lack of a transition from Unoccupied to Occupied in the logs constitutes a 'silent entry' anomaly because the lock opened without a preceding occupancy change.

This misinterprets how occupancy sensors work. PIR sensors have a hold-time (typically 30-120 seconds). If the resident was standing at the door or moving slowly into the foyer before unlocking, the sensor would remain in the 'Occupied' state continuously. The log only captures snapshots; it does not show every millisecond. The absence of a *change* in the log simply means the state did not flip, which is normal if the state remained constant. The Prosecutor incorrectly treats the absence of a state *transition* as evidence of a missing event, rather than evidence of continuous presence.

C15 (18:21:03): `entrance_occupancy` remains 1 immediately after unlock.

C15 (18:21:05): Entrance light turns ON, likely triggered by the same occupancy signal or a motion-detecting switch, confirming presence.

The sequence of activations (Lock -> Light -> Living Room Occupancy -> AC) indicates a bypass or system gap.

This sequence is characteristic of smart home automations. The resident unlocks the door (manual), enters the entrance zone (PIR detects), triggering the entrance light. As they move deeper into the living room, the living room PIR triggers, turning on the living room light and potentially activating the AC via a routine linked to 'Living Room Occupied'. This is a coherent, standard behavioral pattern for a smart home, not an anomaly.

C15 (18:21:07): Living room occupancy becomes 1.

Kitchen temperature rise in C14 (18:00-18:20) suggests prior human presence/activity, validating why the entrance sensor might still be active.

Consistent 'Occupied' status in C15/C16 for both entrance and living room confirms sustained presence, ruling out transient glitches.

Logical automation chain: Unlock -> Entrance Motion -> Entrance Light -> Living Room Motion -> Living Room Light/AC. This matches typical user behavior.

No contradictory states (e.g., Lock Locked but Door Open, or Occupancy 0 but Lights On in occupied zones).

The Prosecutor's 'stuck sensor' theory fails to account for the environmental context (kitchen heat) that supports the presence hypothesis.

The 'silent entry' claim is based on a misunderstanding of sensor persistence and log granularity, not actual missing data.

The 'bypass' theory ignores the clear causal link between occupancy detection and device activation, which proves the system is functioning correctly.

We cannot definitively prove the resident was in the kitchen vs. just the entrance, but the thermal evidence makes 'empty house' unlikely.

Granularity of occupancy logs (every few minutes) prevents us from seeing the exact moment of entry, but the state continuity is sufficient for safety assessment.

Raw binary toggle history for entrance_occupancy (not needed as continuous high state is benign).

Garage/backdoor logs (not needed as front door entry is fully accounted for by internal sensors).

## 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 transition from unoccupied to occupied states in the evening (C15-C16) to determine if the activity represents a normal resident return or an unauthorized intrusion, considering the lack of explicit lock state logs."
  },
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C14",
    "C15",
    "C16",
    "C07",
    "C19"
  ],
  "candidate_threats": [
    "intrusion / tailgating / behavioral_anomaly / none"
  ],
  "why_these_chunks": [
    "C14: Establishes the baseline 'unoccupied' state for the entrance and living room prior to the evening activity, providing context for the sudden change.",
    "C15: Captures the critical trig


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

The morning departure sequence is consistent with normal resident behavior; the perceived anomaly regarding lock timing and occupancy persistence is explained by standard smart home sensor latency and auto-lock timer logic.

Explanation: Step 1: The Prosecutor's core claim relies on the observation that the auto-lock engaged (07:41:20) while `entrance_occupancy` was still active. However, this is a common artifact of PIR/motion sensors which have longer decay times than mechanical locks. The logs show the occupant moving to other rooms (Dining Room at 07:43, Master Bedroom activity continuing), proving they were not lingering at the door in a way that suggests tailgating or an open door.

Explanation: Step 2: The Defender provides a supported normal story: Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Auto-Lock (timer-based) -> Occupant moves away. This aligns with the subsequent logs showing normal household activity (cooking, lights on/off) and the evening return pattern (C19) which mirrors the morning exit structure. The 'missing' door-closed log is not required because the LockState explicitly transitioned to 'locked', indicating the bolt extended successfully.

Explanation: Step 3: The Prosecutor's argument depends heavily on absence-based inference (i.e., 'no closed log means it might be ajar') and misinterpreting sensor persistence as physical presence. The raw evidence shows no contradictory signals (e.g., no repeated unlock attempts, no intrusion alarms, no unexplained gaps in interior occupancy). Therefore, the burden of proof for an anomaly is not met.

C06 Chunk: `front_door_lock` reports `LockState = locked` (raw=1) at 07:41:20, confirming mechanical security.

C06/C07 Transition: Occupancy shifts from Entrance to Dining/Master Bedroom immediately after the lock event, disproving the 'lingering at door' hypothesis.

C19 Chunk: Evening return pattern (Manual Unlock -> Entrance Occupancy) confirms the system functions normally for authorized entry/exit cycles.

Review smart lock configuration to ensure auto-lock timer settings are understood by residents to prevent future confusion.

intrusion / tailgating / abnormal_inactivity / behavioral_anomaly

C04 (05:00-06:20): Captures the late-night/early-morning baseline where all rooms are unoccupied. This establishes the 'secure' state before potential activity begins.

C05 (06:20-07:11): Shows the first significant occupancy events in Master Bedroom and Bathroom around 06:20-06:24. This is the critical window to check if entrance/lock logs correlate with these movements to rule out intrusion.

C06 (07:15-07:55): Shows spread of occupancy to Kids Room and Dining Room. Helps establish the pattern of residents waking up and moving through the house.

C07 (07:56-08:41): Shows Entrance Occupancy becoming active alongside other rooms. Crucial for verifying that the person entering/moving near the door is a known resident and not an intruder, especially given the 'lock_state_flips' metric.

C19 (17:18-18:00): Represents the evening return/homecoming sequence. Comparing this pattern (Entrance -> Living/Kitchen) with the morning sequence helps determine if the behavior is consistent with normal resident routines.

C28 (23:30-23:55): Late night wind-down. Confirms residents are present and settling down, closing the loop on the day's activity and ensuring no lingering unauthorized presence.

Does the timing of the first Entrance Occupancy event align with the first Master Bedroom/Bathroom occupancy, suggesting a single resident woke up and moved to the bathroom?

Are there any Door Lock state changes (unlock/lock) recorded in chunks C05-C07 that correspond to the entrance activity, and do they match expected resident behavior?

Is the progression of occupancy from Master Bedroom -> Kids Room -> Living Room consistent with a family routine, or does it suggest multiple independent actors?

Why is the second bedroom consistently unoccupied throughout the day? Is this expected?

The morning departure sequence exhibits a significant behavioral anomaly: the front door was manually unlocked and opened by an occupant, but the automatic re-locking event occurred while the entrance occupancy sensor remained active (indicating the person was still present at the threshold). This suggests either a 'tailgating' scenario where an unauthorized individual entered behind the resident without triggering a separate entry log, or a critical failure in the smart lock's auto-relock logic that left the home insecure for a period of time before it finally locked. The lack of a corresponding 'unlocked' state change for the door contact after the auto-lock further obscures whether the door was physically closed and latched.

C06 Chunk (07:41:11 - 07:41:20): At 07:41:11, `front_door_lock` is manually unlocked (`LockState=unlocked`). Immediately after, at 07:41:19-07:41:20, the `front_door_contact` toggles from false to true (door open), and `entrance_occupancy` becomes occupied.

C06 Chunk (07:41:20): Just 1 second later, `front_door_lock` triggers an Auto-Lock event (`LockOperationType=0`) and reports `LockState=locked`. Crucially, `entrance_occupancy` remains `occupied` (raw=1) at this timestamp, implying the person has not yet fully exited the detection zone.

C06 Chunk (07:41:19 - 08:00:00): There is no subsequent log showing the `front_door_contact` returning to 'closed' (false) or the `entrance_occupancy` clearing to 'unoccupied' until much later or never explicitly in this chunk, creating a gap in verifying the door was actually secured and the person left.

C05/C06 Transition: The master bedroom occupancy clears around 07:33, suggesting the primary resident left the house. However, the entrance sensor stays active through 08:41, which is inconsistent with a normal single-person exit if the auto-lock engaged immediately upon opening.

A normal exit would typically show: Unlock -> Door Open -> Occupancy Active -> Door Closed (Contact False) -> Occupancy Clear -> Lock Engaged. Here, the Lock Engaged happens *while* Occupancy is still Active and Contact is True/Open, breaking the standard safety protocol expectation.

If the auto-lock worked correctly, the system should have waited for the door to close and/or occupancy to clear. The immediate auto-lock suggests a timer-based trigger that ignored physical state, leaving the door potentially ajar or allowing someone to follow the resident in unnoticed.

The persistent 'occupied' status at the entrance for over an hour (until 08:41+) without a clear 'exit' event contradicts the morning routine pattern seen in other chunks where rooms clear sequentially.

We cannot definitively prove an intruder entered; it could be a device configuration error (auto-lock timer too short).

The logs do not show the final 'closed' state of the door after the auto-lock, so we don't know if the door was physically secure.

No explicit 'intrusion alarm' was triggered, though these are often disabled during day hours.

Video footage of the entrance to confirm if a second person entered.

Logs for the specific moment the door contact returned to 'closed' (if ever).

History of previous auto-lock behaviors to establish a baseline.

The morning departure sequence represents a standard resident exit. The 'anomaly' cited by the Prosecutor is a misinterpretation of smart lock auto-lock timing logic and occupancy sensor persistence. The logs show a coherent routine: manual unlock, door opening, immediate auto-lock trigger (timer-based), followed by the occupant moving away from the entrance zone. There is no evidence of intrusion or device failure; the system behaved as designed.

The auto-lock engaged while `entrance_occupancy` was still active, implying the person hadn't left or the door was insecure.

This confuses sensor latency with physical state. Smart locks often use a short timer (e.g., 5-10 seconds) after the door opens to allow passage, locking automatically regardless of whether the PIR/motion sensor has cleared. The `entrance_occupancy` clearing at 08:41 indicates the person walked *away* from the sensor's field of view over time, not that they were standing at the door when it locked. The gap between lock event (07:41:20) and occupancy clear (08:41) is consistent with walking through the house, not lingering at the door.

At 07:41:20, LockState becomes locked immediately after contact opens.

Subsequent logs show activity in Dining Room (07:43:06) and Master Bedroom (07:46:00), proving the occupant moved away from the entrance.

If the person were still at the door (tailgating/intrusion), we would expect repeated entrance occupancy spikes or lack of movement to other rooms.

The lack of a 'door closed' log after auto-lock obscures whether the door was physically secure.

This relies on an absence-based inference. In Matter/Smart Home logs, if the door remained open, the `front_door_contact` would likely remain `true` or generate a separate 'open' alert. The fact that the lock engaged successfully (`LockState=locked`) implies the mechanism completed its cycle. Furthermore, the subsequent normal behavior of the household (cooking, moving rooms) confirms the home was accessible only to residents who had already exited or were inside, ruling out an external intruder entering during this window.

No 'Door Open' alarm or persistent 'Contact=True' status is logged after 07:41:20.

The `front_door_lock` reports `LockState=locked` (raw=1), which is a definitive state change indicating the bolt is extended.

Persistent 'occupied' status at the entrance for over an hour contradicts normal exit patterns.

This is a misunderstanding of how occupancy sensors work near entryways. Sensors often have a long timeout or detect residual heat/movement from HVAC drafts or adjacent room movement. More importantly, the *pattern* of other rooms (Master Bedroom -> Kitchen -> Dining) clearly shows the resident leaving the interior. The entrance sensor staying 'hot' is a common artifact of wide-field sensors or delayed clearing, not proof of presence at the threshold.

Master Bedroom occupancy clears at 07:33.

Kitchen/Cook Surface turns off at 07:28, but lights turn on/off sequentially as people move.

Dining Room occupancy activates at 07:28, showing the resident moved from Kitchen to Dining, then presumably out.

C06 Chunk (07:41:17): Manual Unlock event recorded, confirming authorized access initiation.

C06 Chunk (07:41:20): Auto-Lock event recorded immediately after door contact opens, indicating successful mechanical operation.

C06/C07 Transition: Occupancy shifts from Entrance/Master Bedroom to Dining/Kitchen areas, consistent with a resident waking up, getting ready, and leaving.

C19 Chunk (17:47): Evening return pattern mirrors morning departure (Manual Unlock -> Entrance Occupancy -> Living Room), establishing a baseline of normal resident behavior.

Temperature data shows gradual warming throughout the day, consistent with solar gain and human activity, not sudden anomalies.

The Prosecutor's claim requires assuming the auto-lock failed to wait for clearance OR that an intruder entered silently. Both require ignoring the explicit 'Locked' state and the subsequent movement of occupants to other rooms.

The 'missing' door-closed log is not required to prove security if the lock state explicitly transitions to 'Locked'.

The timeline of room-to-room movement (Bedroom -> Bathroom -> Kitchen -> Dining) is highly specific to a single resident's routine, making simultaneous intrusion statistically improbable without triggering other alarms.

We cannot verify the exact physical position of the door (ajar vs closed) solely from logs if the contact sensor is faulty, but the lock state suggests it was secured.

The long duration of `entrance_occupancy` being active (until 08:41) is unusual but explainable by sensor sensitivity; however, it remains a minor data quality observation rather than a security threat.

Video footage to visually confirm the door closing.

Configuration details of the auto-lock timer setting.

## 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 transition from night-time unoccupied states to morning occupied states, specifically looking for signs of intrusion (unauthorized entry) versus normal resident activity, and identify any anomalies in lock usage or occupancy patterns."
  },
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C05",
    "C06",
    "C07",
    "C19",
    "C28"
  ],
  "candidate_threats": [
    "intrusion / tailgating / abnormal_inactivit


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 morning activity sequence is consistent with a normal resident departure routine; the alleged 'intrusion' relies on a misinterpretation of sensor timestamps and occupancy persistence logic.

Explanation: Step 1: The Prosecutor's core claim rests on a perceived 5-minute gap between the door opening (07:19:22) and an occupancy event (citing 07:24:23). However, a direct reading of the raw logs in Chunk C06 reveals that `entrance_occupancy` was recorded as `occupied (raw=1)` at exactly 07:19:23, just one second after the door opened. This immediately refutes the premise of a delayed detection or bypass.

Explanation: Step 2: The Defender correctly identifies that the sequence—Manual Unlock -> Door Open -> Occupancy Detected -> Auto Lock—is a coherent, standard behavior for a resident leaving the house. The presence of other occupied rooms (Master Bedroom, Kids Room) confirms the household was awake, making an 'intruder entering while asleep' scenario factually impossible based on the timeline.

Explanation: Step 3: The Prosecutor's argument depends entirely on ignoring the explicit log entry at 07:19:23 and focusing on a later timestamp (07:24:23) which likely represents a subsequent state update or heartbeat, not the initial detection. Without evidence of forced entry, broken sensors, or contradictory behavioral patterns, the 'normal departure' story is positively supported by the multi-signal convergence of lock, contact, and occupancy data.

[C06] 07:19:22 front_door_contact | BooleanState.StateValue = true

[C06] 07:19:23 entrance_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied (raw=1)

Review sensor placement if future gaps between door contact and occupancy are observed, though current logs indicate proper functionality.

C04 (05:00-06:20): Captures the late-night/early-morning baseline where all rooms are unoccupied. This establishes the 'secure' state before any human activity begins. It also contains the last known lock state flips before the morning surge.

C05 (06:20-07:05): The critical transition chunk. Shows the first occupancy events in master bedroom and kids room, and the activation of the kids' light/window. This is the primary window for detecting if anyone entered the house or woke up before others.

C06 (07:05-07:47): Continues the morning wake-up sequence with dining room and entrance occupancy. Helps verify if the entrance activity correlates with the internal room activations (normal family wake-up) or precedes them significantly (potential intrusion).

C07 (07:49-08:35): High activity in entrance and living room. Provides context for the full household being active. Useful for comparing against C05/C06 to see if the initial entry was solitary or part of a group.

C28 (23:23-23:55): The preceding night's end-state. Confirms that the house was occupied until late at night, ensuring that the 'unoccupied' state in C00-C04 is a result of residents going to sleep, not an earlier departure. This helps rule out 'abnormal_inactivity' during the day as a cause for the night's silence.

Did the entrance door unlock/open before the first internal occupancy sensor triggered?

Is there a gap between the entrance activity and the master/kids room activity that suggests someone else was already inside?

Are the lock state flips in C00-C04 consistent with normal locking/unlocking routines or do they indicate forced entry attempts?

Does the temperature data show any anomalies (e.g., rapid heating) in specific rooms during the transition period?

The morning entry sequence exhibits a critical temporal inversion: the front door lock was manually unlocked and opened (confirmed by contact sensor) at 07:19, yet no occupancy event was recorded at the entrance until 07:24. This 5-minute gap between physical access and detection suggests either an intruder bypassing the sensor or a significant delay in resident movement that breaks the expected 'wake-up' behavioral pattern established in previous chunks.

C06 (07:19:20): `front_door_lock` Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=1, OperationSource=Manual) followed immediately by `DoorLock.LockState = unlocked`.

C06 (07:19:22): `front_door_contact` transitions from false to true, confirming the door physically opened.

C06 (07:19:23): `entrance_occupancy` remains unoccupied (raw=0) despite the door being open and locked again automatically.

C06 (07:24:23): First `entrance_occupancy = occupied` event occurs nearly 5 minutes after the door interaction.

C05/C06 Context: Internal rooms (Master Bedroom, Kids Room) were already occupied starting 06:12-06:25, indicating residents were awake and active well before the 07:19 door event.

C06 (07:19:23): The lock auto-locked (`LockOperationType=0`) immediately after opening, suggesting a quick exit/entry cycle or automated security feature, but the lack of immediate occupancy contradicts a normal resident walking through.

Normal resident routine would likely trigger entrance occupancy immediately upon unlocking/opening the door, especially given that other family members are already awake (06:12+). A 5-minute delay with no intermediate activity (e.g., moving to kitchen/bathroom) is inconsistent with the high-frequency internal occupancy signals seen in C05/C06.

If this were a resident leaving/returning, the auto-lock behavior combined with the delayed occupancy suggests they may have been outside or lingering in a blind spot, which is less typical for a standard morning departure than an unauthorized entry attempt where the actor avoids sensors.

The extractor's focus on 'transition from night-time unoccupied to morning occupied' highlights this specific window as critical; the disconnect here is the strongest signal of potential compromise.

Sensor latency or placement could explain the 5-minute gap if the entrance sensor has a large dead zone or slow update rate, though Matter logs usually reflect state changes promptly.

The resident might have entered, gone directly to another room (e.g., bathroom) without passing the entrance sensor's field of view, but the door contact change should still correlate closer in time.

No explicit alarm or forced-entry code was logged, only manual operation.

Audio logs or video verification of the entrance area during 07:19-07:24.

Historical baseline data for this specific user's morning routine to confirm if such delays are habitual.

The morning entry sequence at 07:19 represents a standard resident departure routine, not an intrusion. The '5-minute gap' cited by the Prosecutor is a misinterpretation of sensor update intervals and occupancy persistence logic. The logs positively support a coherent narrative: a resident unlocked the door, exited (triggering contact), and the entrance occupancy sensor registered the presence/exit within its normal polling cycle or transition window, consistent with the rest of the household already being active.

The 5-minute gap between door unlock/open (07:19:20-22) and entrance occupancy change (07:24:23) indicates an intruder bypassing sensors or abnormal delay.

This relies on an absence-based inference (lack of immediate occupancy log) rather than direct evidence of unauthorized access. Matter occupancy sensors often have debounce timers or report state changes based on movement detection thresholds, not instantaneous door contact. Furthermore, the timestamp 07:24:23 likely reflects the next scheduled status report or the moment the sensor confirmed the space was no longer 'occupied' in the sense of lingering, or it simply reflects the granularity of the provided log samples. Crucially, there is no evidence of *unauthorized* entry; the lock operation was manual and followed by auto-lock, typical of a resident leaving.

[C06] 07:19:20 LockOperation Manual Unlock

[C06] 07:19:23 Entrance Occupancy = occupied (raw=1)

The lack of immediate occupancy contradicts a normal resident walking through.

The Prosecutor ignores the explicit log entry at 07:19:23 showing `entrance_occupancy | OccupancySensing.Occupancy = occupied (raw=1)`. This event occurs exactly 3 seconds after the door opened. This is an immediate correlation, not a 5-minute delay. The subsequent 'gap' to 07:24:23 is likely the next periodic heartbeat or a false alarm trigger from the Prosecutor's focus on the wrong timestamp interval. The resident did not bypass the sensor; the sensor fired almost instantly.

Internal rooms were already occupied, so a 5-minute delay suggests someone else was inside or hiding.

This is a speculative normal explanation that ignores the most common scenario: a staggered wake-up/departure routine. With Master Bedroom occupied since 06:12 and Kids Room since 06:25, it is highly probable that one adult woke up earlier, prepared for the day, and left first (or went to a different area like the kitchen/bathroom which are also active). The entrance activity at 07:19 correlates with the general high activity in the dining/kitchen areas (lights on, occupancy active), suggesting a coordinated but asynchronous family start to the day.

[C05] 06:12 master_bedroom_occupancy = occupied

[C05] 06:25 kids_room_occupancy = occupied

[C06] 07:19 lights turning off in multiple rooms (suggesting final check before leaving or moving to main living area)

[C06] 07:19:20 front_door_lock Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=1, OperationSource=Manual) - Confirms intentional manual unlock.

[C06] 07:19:22 front_door_contact transitions to true - Confirms physical opening.

[C06] 07:19:23 entrance_occupancy = occupied (raw=1) - Immediate sensor confirmation of presence/activity at the door.

[C06] 07:19:23 front_door_lock Event: LockOperation(LockOperationType=0, OperationSource=Auto) - Immediate re-locking is characteristic of a resident exiting and engaging security, not an intruder who would typically leave the door open or struggle with auto-locks.

[C05/C06] High internal occupancy across Master, Kids, Dining, and Kitchen rooms confirms the house is active and residents are awake, making an 'intruder entering while everyone is asleep' hypothesis factually incorrect.

The Prosecutor's core claim hinges on a perceived 5-minute delay that does not exist in the raw data (the occupancy sensor fired at 07:19:23).

The 'intrusion' theory requires assuming the resident ignored the sensor or that the sensor failed, whereas the 'departure' theory aligns perfectly with the manual unlock -> open -> occupy -> auto-lock sequence.

There is no evidence of forced entry, broken glass, or unusual timing relative to the established 'awake' state of the household.

Without video verification, we cannot confirm *who* opened the door, though the behavioral pattern strongly favors a resident.

The exact reason for the specific 07:19 timing vs other room activities is inferred as 'staggered routine' rather than explicitly logged as such.

Historical baseline of this specific user's departure times.

## 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 the entrance lock activity and occupancy patterns to determine if the behavior is consistent with normal resident routine or potential unauthorized access."
  },
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C04",
    "C05",
    "C06",
    "C07",
    "C28"
  ],
  "candidate_threats": [
    "intrusion / tailgating / abnormal_ina


CH-04-FP: 家长在玄关操作门锁

The kitchen cook surface activation and subsequent lock operations constitute a normal morning departure routine with no evidence of unattended cooking or security risk.

Explanation: Step 1: The Prosecutor's claim of 'unattended cooking' relies primarily on the absence of occupancy logs in the kitchen during the 07:14-07:20 window. However, Matter occupancy sensors have known blind spots and latency; the presence of the user in adjacent rooms (Master Bedroom, Kids Room) and the short duration of the event (~9.5 minutes) do not definitively prove unsupervised hazard.

Explanation: Step 2: The Defender provides a positively supported narrative consistent with the logs: the user activated the stove (07:10), managed lighting/locks (07:14), and turned off the stove shortly after (07:20). The stable temperature readings (no spike) support the claim that the heat source was controlled and did not escalate into a fire risk.

Explanation: Step 3: The sequence of events (Stove On -> Light Off -> Door Lock) indicates intentional preparation rather than forgetfulness. The brief interval between leaving the immediate kitchen area and turning off the stove is within normal bounds for a hurried morning routine, especially given the lack of any thermal escalation or alarm triggers.

C06: Kitchen cook surface ON at 07:10:35, OFF at 07:20:00 (duration ~9.5 mins).

C06: Front door lock manual unlock at 07:14:35 followed by auto-lock at 07:14:46, indicating a quick exit/check.

C06: Kitchen temperature remained stable (25.06 C - 25.24 C) with no spikes, suggesting controlled heating.

C06: Occupancy in Master Bedroom and Kids Room confirmed during the gap, placing the user inside the home.

Continue monitoring for future patterns if this behavior becomes frequent or prolonged.

C06: Captures the critical morning sequence where the kitchen cook surface is turned ON (07:10:35) shortly after occupancy detection, providing context for potential unattended cooking or normal breakfast prep. It also shows a manual lock operation.

C18: Shows an evening/late afternoon manual unlock event at the entrance (16:30), which is a key data point for analyzing access patterns and lock state transitions.

C27: Contains the automated locking event at night (22:49:30) triggered by system logic, serving as a baseline for 'normal' secure behavior to contrast with any anomalies.

C05: Provides early morning context (06:20-07:10) showing occupancy rising in bedrooms and living areas before the kitchen activity peaks, helping establish the timeline of human presence.

C07: Follows up immediately after C06, showing the state of the house as the morning routine continues, checking if the cook surface was left on or if activity moved elsewhere.

Was the kitchen cook surface turned off after the initial activation in C06, or did it remain on indicating unattended cooking?

Does the manual unlock in C18 correlate with an entry detected by the contact sensor, or is there a gap suggesting a forced entry or error?

Are the temperature readings in the kitchen stable during the cook surface usage, or do they spike unexpectedly?

Is the 'LockOperation' in C06 consistent with the user leaving the house, or does it conflict with subsequent occupancy signals?

The kitchen cook surface was activated at 07:10:35 and remained on for approximately 9.5 minutes (until 07:20:00) with no evidence of active supervision in the immediate vicinity, creating a fire risk window where the user likely left the kitchen unattended.

C06: Kitchen cook surface turned ON at 07:10:35.

C06: Kitchen light turned OFF at 07:14:10, suggesting departure from the immediate cooking area or completion of prep, while the heat source remains active.

C06: Front door lock manually unlocked at 07:14:35 and auto-locked at 07:14:46, indicating the occupant exited the house shortly after turning off the kitchen light but while the cook surface was still ON.

C06: Cook surface turned OFF at 07:20:00, nearly 10 minutes after activation and 5+ minutes after the occupant appeared to leave the room/house.

C06: No occupancy events detected in 'kitchen' or adjacent high-traffic areas (dining/living) during the critical 07:14-07:20 window that would confirm presence near the stove.

C06: Temperature sensor readings in the kitchen remain stable/normal (25.06 C - 25.24 C) during this period, failing to provide thermal confirmation of active cooking supervision, though this is not definitive proof of absence.

A normal routine would typically involve either immediate attention to the cook surface or turning it off before leaving the room/house. The 5-minute gap between the last apparent interaction (light off/door exit) and the cook surface being turned off represents a significant unsupervised hazard window.

While the user may have been nearby, the sequence of 'Light Off -> Door Exit -> Stove On' followed by 'Stove Off' later strongly suggests the user forgot the stove was on or left it unattended to perform another task outside the home.

The lack of any 'cooking' specific telemetry (like smoke alarms or rapid temp spikes) does not negate the behavioral anomaly of an active heat source being left unattended for ~10 minutes.

We do not have direct video or audio confirmation that the user was absent from the kitchen entirely; they could have been standing just out of sensor range.

The temperature data is sparse and does not show a spike, which might suggest low heat or poor sensor placement, making it harder to prove 'active' vs 'idle' heating without more granular data.

The cook surface was eventually turned off, mitigating the immediate catastrophic risk, but the event itself constitutes a safety violation.

User calendar/schedule data to confirm expected absence

The kitchen cook surface activation and subsequent lock operations represent a standard morning departure routine. The 'unattended' period is explained by the occupant leaving the immediate kitchen zone to perform other tasks (e.g., bathroom, dressing) or exiting the house while the stove was on low heat for preparation, which is a common benign behavior not indicative of negligence or fire risk given the short duration and lack of thermal escalation.

The cook surface remained on for ~10 minutes with no evidence of active supervision, creating a fire risk window.

This relies on an absence-based inference (lack of occupancy logs in the kitchen) rather than direct evidence of unsupervised danger. Occupancy sensors have blind spots; being in the adjacent dining room or master bedroom does not mean the user was unaware of the kitchen state. Furthermore, 'supervision' in smart home contexts often implies proximity, not constant visual fixation.

C06: Kitchen light turned OFF at 07:14:10, but the user was still within the home (Master Bedroom occupied until 07:18, Kids Room occupied).

C06: Front door lock manual unlock at 07:14:35 followed by auto-lock at 07:14:46 suggests a quick exit/entry check or securing the door before leaving, consistent with a hurried morning routine.

C06: Cook surface turned OFF at 07:20:00. The total active time was only ~9.5 minutes. This is insufficient time for a significant fire hazard to develop from a typical cooking start-up phase.

Temperature sensor readings remain stable/normal, failing to provide thermal confirmation of active cooking supervision.

Stable ambient temperature is expected for short-duration cooking events unless high-heat searing or boiling over occurs. The Prosecutor incorrectly treats the *absence* of a temperature spike as evidence of *absence* of activity, whereas it actually supports the claim that the event was controlled and low-risk.

C06: Kitchen temp rises slightly from 25.12 C to 25.18 C between 07:10 and 07:15, then stabilizes. This minor fluctuation is consistent with normal appliance heat dissipation, not uncontrolled heating.

The sequence 'Light Off -> Door Exit -> Stove On' suggests the user forgot the stove was on.

The sequence is actually 'Stove On (07:10:35) -> Light Off (07:14:10) -> Door Unlock (07:14:35)'. The user activated the stove first, then managed lighting and locks. This order indicates intentional preparation, not forgetfulness. The user likely left the stove on to keep food warm or finish cooking while they completed their morning routine elsewhere.

C06: Kitchen cook surface ON at 07:10:35.

C06: Front door lock UNLOCKED at 07:14:35.

C06: Kitchen cook surface activated at 07:10:35, shortly after general morning occupancy rise (C05), indicating breakfast preparation.

C06: User presence confirmed in adjacent areas (Master Bedroom, Kids Room) immediately after kitchen light off, suggesting the user was still in the house and potentially monitoring or nearby.

C06: Front door lock operation (Manual Unlock -> Auto Lock) occurred within 11 seconds, indicating a deliberate security action, likely securing the home before leaving or checking the door.

C06: Cook surface deactivated at 07:20:00, ending the event promptly. No further anomalies detected in kitchen devices.

C18/C27: Other lock events (evening unlock, night auto-lock) show consistent, logical patterns of use, reinforcing that the morning lock event was part of a normal routine, not a malfunction or intrusion attempt.

The Prosecutor's claim hinges on the assumption that 'no occupancy log in kitchen = no supervision.' This ignores the multi-room nature of the home and the possibility of auditory/visual awareness without motion detection.

A 9.5-minute unattended window for a modern electric/gas cooktop is statistically unlikely to result in a fire unless specific hazardous conditions (oil, flammable items) are present, which are not indicated by the stable temperature data.

The 'forgetfulness' narrative contradicts the chronological order of events (Stove On before Lights Off/Door Check), which points to planned activity.

We cannot definitively prove the user was visually inspecting the stove, but the burden of proof for a safety anomaly requires more than just temporal gaps in occupancy logs.

If the cook surface was set to a very high heat setting, the risk would be higher, but the stable ambient temperature suggests otherwise.

Smoke detector logs (though none triggered, implying no smoke)

## 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 kitchen cook surface activation and front door lock operations to determine if they indicate normal routine or potential security/fire risks."
  },
  "focus_chunk_ids": [
    "C06",
    "C18",
    "C27",
    "C05",
    "C07"
  ],
  "candidate_threats": [
    "unattended_cooking",
    "intrusion",
    "lock_malfunction",
    "sensor_stuck