  We inspect 4 microlensing events KMT-2021-BLG-1968, KMT-2021-BLG-2010,
KMT-2022-BLG-0371, and KMT-2022-BLG-1013, for which the light curves exhibit
partially covered short-term central anomalies. We conduct detailed analyses of
the events with the aim of revealing the nature of the anomalies. We test
various models that can give rise to the anomalies of the individual events
including the binary-lens (2L1S) and binary-source (1L2S) interpretations.
Under the 2L1S interpretation, we thoroughly inspect the parameter space to
check the existence of degenerate solutions, and if they exist, we test the
feasibility of resolving the degeneracy. We find that the anomalies in
KMT-2021-BLG-2010 and KMT-2022-BLG-1013 are uniquely defined by planetary-lens
interpretations with the planet-to-host mass ratios of $q\sim 2.8\times
10^{-3}$ and $\sim 1.6\times 10^{-3}$, respectively. For KMT-2022-BLG-0371, a
planetary solution with a mass ratio $q\sim 4\times 10^{-4}$ is strongly
favored over the other three degenerate 2L1S solutions with different mass
ratios based on the $\chi^2$ and relative proper motion arguments, and a 1L2S
solution is clearly ruled out. For KMT-2021-BLG-1968, on the other hand, we
find that the anomaly can be explained either by a planetary or a binary-source
interpretation, making it difficult to firmly identify the nature of the
anomaly. From the Bayesian analyses of the identified planetary events, we
estimate that the masses of the planet and host are $(M_{\rm p}/M_{\rm J},
M_{\rm h}/M_\odot) = (1.07^{+1.15}_{-0.68}, 0.37^{+0.40}_{-0.23})$,
$(0.26^{+0.13}_{-0.11}, 0.63^{+0.32}_{-0.28})$, and $(0.31^{+0.46}_{-0.16},
0.18^{+0.28}_{-0.10})$ for KMT-2021-BLG-2010L, KMT-2022-BLG-0371L, and
KMT-2022-BLG-1013L, respectively.
