M1 Gold: number of zones violated

It would be very interesting to me to know if 2 or more zones have been  violated - only 1 is likely to be a false alarm because any burglar is likely to quickly rush through all the rooms and trigger multiple zones.
 
Without using half the rule space, does anyone have any clever ideas to determine whether 2 or more zones have been violated (so a new and different voice message and/or email can be sent) ?
 
thanks
 
Ian

A properly designed system should have next to zero false alarms so why would this be necessary?
 
A system malfunction or power fluctuation would also cause multiple zones to fault. A smash and grab would generally only trigger a single zone at best (either a contact or GBD, maybe a PIR) unless you have all three installed in the space, which generally isn't done by most people (although I have contacts backed by GBD's per room and multiple PIR's providing about a 75% space coverage in my house).
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the need or application.

Ditto on the zero false alarms bit, i'd spend my energy trying to stamp those out. Nothing like having a false alarm when you're asleep in bed. I had one once 8 years ago, I still remember it clearly as I told my wife to go to my toddlers bedroom and stay there while I was on the phone with the security company going to the suspect location. Turned out the wireless window sensor had failed. It was 2am, we didn't go back to sleep after that which meant work the next day seriously sucked.
 
I removed all the wireless sensors within 48 hours as I had no desire to go through that again. I've only just tried my hand at the newer wireless technology as its 2way so hopefully better.

Failures are going to be inevitable, no matter what the technology. Of course, they always happen during daylight hours, while the system is disarmed and the house is occupied, as all us service guys experience.
 
While I'm a unique case as I'm trade, have every point contacted, 75% coverage via dualtec and GBD's in every room, I have false alarms when my 7 and 8 YO kids start wrestling and crash into walls (5/4 solid T&G beadboard pine walls and ceilings) setting off the glassbreaks. Have a single contact that faults during high winds, maybe once a year and can't determine if it's a cabling issue or something else, since I've already thrown parts at it. Next step is eliminating the cabling and tying it into the KP zone....of course shoemaker's children. Same thing when I had a 2W-MOD2 burn up....of course, while we were out of state, on vacation on the second day of 8. Luckily I had a laptop with me, teamviewer and the whole shebang to disable until we got home.
 
That said, the system cabling was installed 10 years ago, converted to the M1 about 7 or so ago....with about 64 hardwired zones and 2 partitions.

The feature you describe has been a part of alarm systems for many years now.  The HAI Omni Pro II has had it for many years now (2007 I think), and I assume the M1 does as well.  These were part of what was called the SIA CP-01 Control Panel Standard Features for False Alarm Reduction.  The feature is called Cross Zoning, and how it works on the Omni is you mark which zones it applies to, and you give it a time span (I use 180 seconds) and the alarm does the rest. I use it for all internal motion detectors, but not external windows.  From my experience, false alarms are usually caused by motion detectors, be it pet safe sensors that aren't or spiders that like to crawl across them. Look up "Cross Zone Poo.l" Its exactly what you are looking for.
 
So no code required. Just turn it on. That easy.

I know I'm going to hit a nerve with you Ano, but coming from a background of installing systems for the last 20 years and working on equipment that dates back to the 60's or earlier, I'll state the fact that cross zoning is a band aid for poor system design, execution, maintenance or poor property upkeep. It always was and always will be.
 
The intent and purpose of cross zone implementation, historically speaking, was to get installers to move away from the practices of installing multiple detectors in parallel within a single protected space (environmental or cable faults typically the root cause) on the same zone or installing capacitors on the protective zones (those were fun) and allow a little more information as far as what is reported to the CS/event log as to which detector(s) caused the alarm to trip as the first zone in the cross zone is what is reported and if no further trips, that is given a RC of trouble, not alarm. Cross zoning would be used if you had 2 detectors literally in the same room/protected area or a door contact on an ill-fitting door with a PIR literally covering the same space. The door may fault, but the PIR verifies that no entry occurred, but the door contact could also be adjusted if the panel allows debounce settings, which is entirely different than zone response times.
 
In your specific case/example, you provided an exploitable fault of your system's design/programming. I would be able trip a motion within your house, which would (assuming you have CS monitoring) only generate a trouble and wait a second over 3 minutes and trip the next detector and every CS report will only be a CID trouble, which depending on their protocol, they may or may not dispatch or defer reporting to the end user as troubles, especially non-fire related, are lower on a CS priority list. Enough trouble conditions being reported, it's possible that someone could even cause your panel to initiate a swinger shutdown and then negate any further dialer reports, either via the single zone or by trouble conditions in their entirety (CP-01 and false alarm reduction programming). Also, depending on the panel itself, the siren may or may not sound upon generation of the initial cross zone fault, many do not actually sound the siren as they are "waiting" for the cross zone pool to generate the actual alarm.
 
Cross zoning existed for at least a decade before the CP-01 mandate, which in itself only forced some hard coding of default values on certain data fields so installers were forced to either modify the values to what they typically would have used (remove/disable items like bell timeout, dialer delays, exit error reporting, cancel reports, etc.) or leave as default. For the most part, outside of some installing dealers making poor programming choices (extremely short entrance delays, no secondary E/E delay point when garage attached to house, etx.) The main relationship of CP-01 and it's voluntary implementation by the manufacturers was due to an increasing end user false alarm generation rate, all of which led to many municipalities requiring verified response (AAV, CCTV or even ECV)  including no response/private patrol response only and further tightening of municipal alarm permitting policies and the levying false alarm fines and policies. The main intent was to have a party responsible for the proper installation and maintenance of all of these systems, which unfortunately, the mass market installation/monitoring companies and DIY have put a black eye on the industry as a whole due to simple misunderstandings or poor training on the product with both parties being guilty of it (pros and DIY alike).

Further reading:
 
https://blogs.honeywellsecurity.com/2013/11/why-cp-01/