Andi Assess

AI-generated draft

Independent living assessment report

Independent living sensor review: where daily activity was detected, 12 August to 6 September 2026

Activity was detected on every day for which data was available, and the overall amount of detected activity did not clearly rise or fall. What did change was where activity was detected: bathroom-area activity reduced steadily while bedroom-area activity increased, mainly during the daytime and early evening. This shift, rather than any change in overall activity levels, is the pattern that warrants discussion.

Assessment at a glance

RAG shows priority for professional review. Confidence shows the strength of the observation.

Amber Moderate confidence

Where activity was detected around the home

The total amount of detected activity was similar across the two halves of the usable period (936 then 893 detected periods), so this is a cha...

Amber Moderate confidence

Movement around the home

Fewer recorded changes of area, at a time when the overall amount of detected activity stayed broadly level and bedroom detections increased, ...

Amber Low confidence

Morning timing and overnight patterns

The start of the day was highly irregular, spanning more than six hours between the earliest and latest first detected activity. An irregular ...

Green Moderate confidence

Home environment context

Most of the home cooled slightly over the period while the kitchen did not, which may simply reflect a warmer room, cooking, or appliance use....

Grey Low confidence

Areas and activities this installation cannot assess

Several everyday areas of independent living — appliance and cooking use, activity in the lounge, and going out of and returning to the proper...

Red prompt review · Amber discuss or check · Green no notable adverse change identified · Grey not assessable or not reportable

Service-user reference: a4d23bb9-ad1a-4db0-a7bb-b2832fa85854_20260908_164909
Assessment period: Requested 1 August to 6 September 2026 (Europe/London). Usable data begins on 12 August 2026: 26 days contained activity-classified telemetry and 11 requested days contain no telemetry at all. All comparisons in this report are made within the 26 usable days.
Generated: September 13, 2026

Executive summary

A general review of independent living sensor data was requested for this address, with no specific focus or background supplied. The report therefore sets out what the available evidence shows about everyday patterns at home — where activity was detected, how the person moved between monitored areas, and morning and overnight patterns — and identifies what the data cannot answer and what a practitioner may wish to explore next.

Detected bathroom-area activity reduced from an average of about 5.7 periods a day in the first half of the usable period to about 3.8 in the second half, and to under 3 a day across the final five days. The same downward direction appeared at every comparison length tested.

Detected bedroom-area activity increased over the same period, from about 18 to about 22 periods a day between the two halves, rising to about 27 a day in the final five days, with the single highest day (34) recorded on 6 September.

Movement between monitored areas reduced, from about 33 changes of area a day in the first half to about 28 in the second, and about 23 a day over the final five days, although day-to-day figures remained very variable (11 to 66).

The time of first detected morning activity varied widely, from 04:10 to 10:30 across the 26 days, averaging about 07:19. No consistent shift towards earlier or later mornings could be identified, because short and broad comparisons disagree.

Changes over time

The total volume of detected activity stayed broadly level: 936 detected periods in the first half of the usable period and 893 in the second. Within that similar total, the bathroom share fell from about 8% to about 6% while the bedroom share rose from about 25% to about 32%, and the bedroom increase fell mainly in the hours between midday and 21:00 rather than overnight.
Whether overall activity rose or fell depends entirely on the comparison chosen: a first-third to final-third comparison gives about a 10% increase, while a first-half to second-half comparison of the same daily data is about 4% lower. No clear change in overall activity volume was identified.

Overall interpretation

The most useful observation for professional discussion is a consistent redistribution of detected activity away from the bathroom area and towards the bedroom area during the day, alongside fewer recorded movements between areas. Passive sensors cannot say why this occurred; changes in washing or personal care routines, use of a different facility, more daytime resting, visitors, or a change in sensor positioning or sensitivity could all produce the same picture. The most important limitation is that the first 11 requested days contain no data at all, continuous sensor availability was not confirmed for any overnight window, and on the final day the hallway sensor produced no movement or presence events despite still sending battery readings — so comparisons across the period are not fully like-for-like. The next step for professional exploration is to check the bathroom and bedroom pattern directly with the individual and anyone supporting them, including any change to washing routine, daytime rest or equipment, before drawing any conclusion from the data alone.

Assessment finding

Where activity was detected around the home

Amber Moderate confidence

What was detected

Detected bathroom-area activity reduced across the period: about 5.7 periods a day in the first half compared with about 3.8 in the second, and about 2.8 a day over the final five days. Every comparison length tested pointed the same way.
Daily minutes of detected bathroom-area activity fell alongside the count, from about 16 minutes a day in the first half to about 10 minutes in the second, and about 5 minutes a day across the final five days.
Detected bedroom-area activity moved in the opposite direction, from about 18 periods a day in the first half to about 22 in the second and about 27 a day over the final five days, with the highest single day (34) recorded on 6 September.
Detected minutes in the bedroom area rose with the count, from about 64 minutes a day in the first half to about 73 in the second, and about 81 minutes a day across the final nine days.
Kitchen-area activity showed no clear sustained change: detected minutes were about 17% lower and detected periods about 9% lower (about 37 to about 33 a day) in the second half than the first, but recent short-window comparisons were higher in both, so the direction depends on the comparison chosen.

Pattern identified

The total amount of detected activity was similar across the two halves of the usable period (936 then 893 detected periods), so this is a change in where activity was detected rather than in how much was detected. The bathroom share fell from about 8% to about 6% of all detected periods while the bedroom share rose from about 25% to about 32%, and the bedroom increase was concentrated between midday and 21:00 rather than overnight. This may matter because it could reflect a change in washing or personal care routine, more daytime time spent in the bedroom, or a change in the sensors themselves.

Why this may matter

Detected room-area activity reflects sensor triggering in that area; it is not the same as a completed task, a wash, or the full time spent in a room.
A reduction in bathroom detections may be consistent with a changed washing routine, use of another facility, help from another person, or altered sensor position or sensitivity; the data cannot distinguish between these.
More daytime bedroom detections may be consistent with resting, dressing, a changed daily rhythm, or use of the room for other activities.
There is no sensor in the lounge that records movement, so any activity there is not represented in these room comparisons.
Sensor continuity across the comparison periods has not been independently verified, so part of the change could reflect the installation rather than the person.

What to explore

Has anything changed in the individual's washing or personal care routine, or in who supports them with it, since late August?
Is more daytime time now being spent in the bedroom, and if so, is that a preference, a response to discomfort or fatigue, or something else?

What the data cannot tell us The evidence cannot establish why the distribution of detected activity changed, and cannot confirm that any particular activity did or did not take place., Absence of a detected event does not prove that an activity did not occur., Only 26 of the 37 requested days contain telemetry, so the period available for comparison is short., and Sensor installation continuity and like-for-like coverage across comparison periods have not yet been independently verified.

Assessment finding

Movement around the home

Amber Moderate confidence

What was detected

Recorded changes between monitored areas reduced from about 33 a day in the first half of the usable period to about 28 in the second, and to about 23 a day over the final five days; the direction was the same at every comparison length tested. Daily values remained very variable, ranging from 11 to 66, and averaged about 31 across the whole period.
Overall detected activity showed no clear direction: a first-third to final-third comparison gives about a 10% increase, while a first-half to second-half comparison of the same daily data is about 4% lower, so the result depends on the cutoff chosen.
The longest daytime period with no detected activity anywhere in the home was about four and a half hours (267 minutes). Because there is no door sensor, such a period cannot be distinguished from time spent out of the home.

Pattern identified

Fewer recorded changes of area, at a time when the overall amount of detected activity stayed broadly level and bedroom detections increased, may be consistent with more activity happening within a single area and less moving between areas. This may matter for understanding mobility and daily routine, but day-to-day variation is large and the hallway sensor — which contributes heavily to recorded changes of area — produced no detections at all on the final day.

Why this may matter

Long daytime periods without detected activity cannot be distinguished from time spent out of the home, because there is no door or entrance sensor in this installation.
Fewer detected changes of area should be considered alongside any known change in mobility, pain, fatigue, mood or daily structure, and alongside the unexplained final-day hallway result.
Detected movement counts depend on sensor placement and sensitivity as well as on the person's movement.

What to explore

Has the individual noticed any change in how easily or how often they move around the home?
Are the longer quiet daytime periods explained by being out of the home, by rest, or by activity in an area without sensors?

What the data cannot tell us The evidence describes detected events only and cannot establish mobility, walking ability, falls risk or reasons for any change., Without door or entrance telemetry, time spent away from the property cannot be identified or excluded., and Comparability across the period is limited because sensor continuity is not independently confirmed.

Assessment finding

Morning timing and overnight patterns

Amber Low confidence

What was detected

The first detected morning activity ranged from 04:10 to 10:30 across the 26 days, averaging about 07:19. Short and broad comparisons disagreed about whether mornings were becoming earlier or later, so no consistent directional shift was identified.
Overnight bathroom-area activity was detected on only one of the 19 nights that could be analysed, and no night recorded three or more such periods; only 19 of the 38 overnight windows in the requested dates contained any activity evidence to analyse.
Overnight evidence rests on partial coverage: 19 of the 38 overnight windows that intersect the requested dates contained activity evidence, and continuous sensor availability was not confirmed for any window.

Pattern identified

The start of the day was highly irregular, spanning more than six hours between the earliest and latest first detected activity. An irregular start time may be relevant to planning any support, visits or services that depend on the individual being up and about, and is worth checking against what the individual and those who know them describe.

Why this may matter

Overnight movement and periods without detected activity are not evidence about sleep, waking, sleep quality or rest.
The very low count of overnight bathroom-area detections should be read alongside the limited number of analysable nights rather than as an established pattern.
Variation in first morning activity may be consistent with a flexible routine, differing daily commitments, or days when the individual was elsewhere, and the data cannot distinguish these.

What to explore

Does the individual describe a regular or a flexible start to the day, and does anything currently depend on a predictable morning routine?
Are there nights when the individual is away from home, which would explain missing overnight evidence?

What the data cannot tell us The evidence can describe overnight activity and quiet periods but cannot confirm sleep, waking, sleep quality or restorative sleep., The assessment contains 36 complete local 22:00–06:00 calendar windows and 2 partial boundary windows. Activity was observed in 19 complete windows. Continuous sensor availability was confirmed in 0 of 38 intersecting overnight windows., and Seven days on which activity was observed had no overnight quiet-period value, so overnight comparisons rest on an incomplete and uneven set of nights.

Assessment finding

Home environment context

Green Moderate confidence

What was detected

Ambient temperature in the kitchen averaged slightly higher in the second half of the period (about 24.4°C, with a peak of 29.0°C), while the bathroom, bedroom and hallway each averaged about 1.3°C to 1.7°C cooler than in the first half. The lowest temperature recorded anywhere in the monitored areas was about 19°C.

Pattern identified

Most of the home cooled slightly over the period while the kitchen did not, which may simply reflect a warmer room, cooking, or appliance use. No reading suggested a cold home during this late-summer period. This is offered as background context for the room-based findings rather than as a finding about the individual.

Why this may matter

Temperature readings describe the environment near each sensor and cannot establish comfort, heating use or cooking.
The period assessed is late summer, so these readings say nothing about how the home performs in colder months.

What to explore

Is the individual comfortable with the temperature in the home, and would a review before the colder months be useful?

What the data cannot tell us Environmental readings cannot establish how warm or cold the individual felt, or whether heating or cooking was used. and Only four areas have temperature sensing; the lounge is not covered.

Assessment finding

Areas and activities this installation cannot assess

Grey Low confidence

What was detected

The hallway movement and presence streams recorded nothing on 6 September, their last reading being late on 5 September, while the bathroom, bedroom and kitchen sensors continued to report that day.
On that same day the hallway device still sent 52 battery readings, the day after recording 17 movement detections, so the device remained in contact. The data cannot show whether this was a fault in the movement sensing or a genuine absence of detections, and the final-day hallway zero should not be treated as established evidence either way.
Appliance-related streams recorded readings throughout the period, but no usage evidence could be derived from them; the lounge stream stopped reporting after 31 August while the kitchen and bedroom streams continued to 6 September. Neither result should be read as an absence of appliance use or of lounge activity.
There is no door or entrance sensor in this installation, so leaving and returning home cannot be assessed, and quiet daytime periods cannot be distinguished from time spent out of the home.

Pattern identified

Several everyday areas of independent living — appliance and cooking use, activity in the lounge, and going out of and returning to the property — cannot be described from this installation, and one area (the hallway) produced an unexplained result on the final day. Any professional reading of the room-based findings should allow for the fact that a substantial part of daily life falls outside what these sensors can capture.

Why this may matter

Do not interpret the absence of derived appliance use as evidence that appliances were not used.
Do not interpret the lounge reporting gap as evidence that the lounge was unused.
A single day's absence of hallway detections is not a sufficient basis for any conclusion about movement on that day.
If exits and returns are relevant to the assessment, additional entrance telemetry or a direct account from the individual would be needed.

What to explore

Should the installation be checked, particularly the hallway sensor and the lounge stream, before any further data-based review?
Is information about going out, cooking and lounge use needed for this assessment, and how else could it be obtained?

What the data cannot tell us 5 appliance-classified source streams contain 21685 readings, but usage sessions were not derived because approved activity-state and sessionisation policies are not yet available. This must not be interpreted as zero appliance use., Average property exits per behavioural day could not be checked because the evidence metric is unavailable., and Reporting gaps and unexplained sensor results cannot be distinguished from genuine absence of activity using this data alone.

Potential anomalies

Patterns for closer review

Two days stood out from the rest of the period: 21 August with 106 detected periods of activity and 24 August with 103, against a typical 70 a day. On both days hallway detections were about 25 and 24, compared with roughly 10 on other days, with kitchen detections also raised.

Days with unusually high hallway detections may be consistent with visitors, a delivery or appointment, household tasks, or more coming and going than usual.
A period of sensor over-triggering could produce a similar pattern and cannot be ruled out from this data.
These are isolated days and do not form part of the longer-term pattern described elsewhere in this report.

Question for review Is anything known about 21 and 24 August — for example visitors, appointments or household activity — that would explain the unusually high level of detected movement on those days?

On 6 September the hallway sensor produced no movement or presence events at all, having recorded 17 detections the previous day, while continuing to send 52 battery readings that day; the data cannot show whether this reflects a fault in the movement sensing or a genuine absence of detections.

A fault or obstruction affecting the movement element of the device, while the device itself remained in contact, could produce this result.
A genuine day with no hallway detections cannot be excluded, particularly as bedroom detections were at their highest that day.
The available evidence cannot determine which explanation applies.

Question for review Can the hallway sensor be checked for a fault or obstruction, and is anything known about the household on 6 September?

Review and limitations

Professional review

Questions for professional review

Has anything changed since late August in the individual's washing or personal care routine, or in the support they receive with it, that could relate to fewer and shorter periods of detected bathroom-area activity?
Is the increase in daytime bedroom-area activity consistent with what the individual and those close to them describe, for example more resting during the day?
Does the individual report any change in moving around the home, which might relate to fewer recorded changes between areas?
Would a check of the hallway sensor and the lounge stream, and consideration of entrance telemetry, be worthwhile before any further data-based review?
Is a predictable morning routine important for any planned support, given that the first detected activity of the day ranged from 04:10 to 10:30?

Quality warnings

Average property exits per behavioural day could not be checked because the evidence metric is unavailable.
11 assessment days contain no telemetry.
5 appliance-classified source streams contain 21685 readings, but usage sessions were not derived because approved activity-state and sessionisation policies are not yet available. Do not interpret this as zero appliance use.

Data limitations

Passive telemetry describes detected events and behavioural patterns; it cannot establish diagnosis, subjective experience, intention or causation.
The evidence can describe overnight activity and quiet periods but cannot confirm sleep, waking, sleep quality or restorative sleep.
Absence of a detected event does not prove that an activity did not occur.
The assessment contains 36 complete local 22:00–06:00 calendar windows and 2 partial boundary windows. Activity was observed in 19 complete windows. Continuous sensor availability was confirmed in 0 of 38 intersecting overnight windows.
Sensor installation continuity and like-for-like coverage across comparison periods have not yet been independently verified.

This AI-generated draft supports professional judgement and requires human review. It describes patterns in independent living sensor data only; it does not diagnose, assess clinical risk, determine eligibility or recommend changes to care, and its observations should be considered alongside direct contact with the individual and other professional evidence.