[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
analyze multi-session behavioral session logs for individuals with autism and
produce structured clinical interpretations that identify patterns, hypothesize
behavior functions when applicable, and recommend programming adjustments
structured along BIP lines (antecedent strategies, replacement behaviors,
consequence strategies, crisis plan). Your interpretation also includes an
escalation level and a confidence expression. Every recommendation is grounded
in the data provided. Follow BACB ethical guidelines and reference no real
client data.

[User]
Here is a multi-session behavioral log for a learner. Analyze it and provide your clinical interpretation using the structured format.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-9045
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Mand + Tact
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-06-11 to 2026-07-05)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
2. selects items by feature (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
3. tacts common objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
4. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Elopement — function hypothesized: automatic
2. Tantrum — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-11 — 33 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/8 correct (73%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  selects items by feature: 9/13 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  tacts common objects: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 12/15 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  Elopement: freq 2
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 10m total

Session 2 — 2026-06-13 — 33 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/13 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  selects items by feature: 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×12
  tacts common objects: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/13 correct (73%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  Elopement: freq 1
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 6m total

Session 3 — 2026-06-15 — 33 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×2
  selects items by feature: 7/13 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  tacts common objects: 6/9 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/12 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×3
  Elopement: freq 1
  Tantrum: freq 4, duration 8m total

Session 4 — 2026-06-17 — 33 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/14 correct (46%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  selects items by feature: 4/8 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  tacts common objects: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/15 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  Elopement: freq 2
  Tantrum: freq 4, duration 16m total

Session 5 — 2026-06-19 — 33 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/10 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  selects items by feature: 6/14 correct (43%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  tacts common objects: 5/9 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/15 correct (47%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×5, I×9
  Elopement: freq 3
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 15m total

Session 6 — 2026-06-21 — 33 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/15 correct (34%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×1, I×7
  selects items by feature: 3/11 correct (31%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  tacts common objects: 6/14 correct (44%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/8 correct (47%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  Elopement: freq 3
  Tantrum: freq 4, duration 20m total

Session 7 — 2026-06-23 — 33 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 4/14 correct (29%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  selects items by feature: 3/14 correct (23%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  tacts common objects: 4/9 correct (47%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/11 correct (37%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  Elopement: freq 3
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 6m total

Session 8 — 2026-06-25 — 33 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 3/15 correct (23%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  selects items by feature: 3/15 correct (19%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×12
  tacts common objects: 5/11 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/12 correct (34%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  Elopement: freq 3
  Tantrum: freq 5, duration 15m total

Session 9 — 2026-06-27 — 33 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 1/11 correct (12%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  selects items by feature: 2/15 correct (14%); latency 5.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  tacts common objects: 4/13 correct (32%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/15 correct (28%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  Elopement: freq 4
  Tantrum: freq 4, duration 16m total

Session 10 — 2026-06-29 — 33 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 1/14 correct (10%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  selects items by feature: 1/14 correct (10%); latency 5.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×11
  tacts common objects: 4/10 correct (36%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 3/14 correct (21%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×6
  Elopement: freq 3
  Tantrum: freq 5, duration 15m total

Session 11 — 2026-07-01 — 33 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 1/11 correct (10%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  selects items by feature: 1/9 correct (10%); latency 5.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  tacts common objects: 2/8 correct (24%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 2/11 correct (14%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  Elopement: freq 4
  Tantrum: freq 6, duration 24m total

Session 12 — 2026-07-03 — 33 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 2/15 correct (10%); latency 5.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  selects items by feature: 1/8 correct (10%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  tacts common objects: 3/12 correct (24%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 1/14 correct (10%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  Elopement: freq 4
  Tantrum: freq 5, duration 25m total

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Turning away from task or staff
- Increased response latency (3–5× baseline)
- Self-injurious behavior onset during task difficulty (self-biting, hair-pulling, head-hitting)

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Regression identified**: accuracy has declined from 73% to 10% across 12 sessions.
- Accompanying behavior data suggests the decline may be function-related.

## Pattern Classification
regression

Previously-established responding has declined across recent sessions, warranting review of environmental and reinforcement variables.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Elopement: automatic
  Evidence: behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.
Tantrum: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Conduct reinforcer assessment to identify current high-preference items.
- Review recent environmental or schedule changes that may be affecting performance.
- Return temporarily to a previously-mastered prompt level and re-fade systematically.

### Replacement behavior (FCT)
- If problem behavior accompanies regression, strengthen replacement-behavior training for the hypothesized function.

### Consequence strategies
- Increase reinforcement magnitude and schedule temporarily (return to CRF if needed).
- Implement more frequent maintenance probes (at least weekly) after re-mastery.

### Crisis plan
- If regression co-occurs with severe behavior (SIB, aggression, property destruction) reaching the learner's safety threshold: pause all skill-acquisition programming, implement environmental safety measures (clear the area of hazards, move peers to safe distance), and contact the supervising BCBA.
- Staff should first attempt verbal de-escalation and least-restrictive strategies; physical intervention is used only as a last resort and only by staff currently certified in the facility's crisis-prevention framework (e.g., Safety-Care, CPI, or equivalent).
- Physical intervention is applied only when specifically authorized in this learner's BIP. Many learners have contraindications (medical conditions, developmental or age-related factors, trauma history, or explicit BIP restrictions) that rule out restrictive procedures — in those cases the crisis plan defaults to verbal de-escalation, environmental safety measures, and immediate supervisor / emergency contact without physical intervention.

## Escalation Level
4 — Safety immediate

Safety-critical signals require immediate cessation of current program and direct BCBA contact; consider crisis-plan activation.

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 12 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 35.4%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 73%, last session: 10%).
- Elopement: mean 2.8/session (early-window mean 1.5 -> late-window mean 3.8).
- Tantrum: mean 3.9/session (early-window mean 3.0 -> late-window mean 5.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
I need a Task Analysis program for this multi-step skill.

Target: putting on a shirt (pullover)
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner: Adult Learner
Mastery Status: Developing

Please include the task analysis (numbered steps), chain type, prompt strategy per step, error correction, reinforcement, and mastery criteria.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: putting on a shirt (pullover)
- Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

This Task Analysis program teaches the target skill as a chain of discrete steps, each taught and reinforced until the learner can complete the full sequence independently.

## Task Analysis
Chain type: Total-task presentation
Prompt the learner through the entire chain every trial; fade prompts across all steps simultaneously.

Steps:
1. Hold the shirt with the front facing away.
2. Place both arms into the sleeves.
3. Pull the opening over the head.
4. Push arms through the sleeves fully.
5. Pull the bottom of the shirt down to straighten it.

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: Most-to-Least
Start with full-physical prompt at each step; fade to partial physical, gestural, verbal, independent.
Current prompt level: At the developing stage, use full-physical or partial-physical prompts at each step; fade systematically.

## Error Correction Procedure
Model -> prompt -> fade: Demonstrate the correct step; provide physical or gestural prompt as needed; fade prompt across subsequent trials

## Reinforcement
CRF per step (acquisition) — Continuous reinforcement for each correctly-completed step during acquisition.
Pair the terminal reinforcer with the natural consequence of the completed task (e.g., clean hands, clean dishes, completed routine).

## Mastery Criteria
Chain self-initiated from the appropriate antecedent (no verbal prompt to begin) across 3 consecutive opportunities.

## Data Collection
Per-step data: each step is scored for independence / prompt level on every trial. IOA scheduled every 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full chain across 3 different settings and with 2 different adults. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
I need a NET program for this skill.

Target: engages in social games (peek-a-boo, tickle)
Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

Please include the MO arrangement, natural opportunity, prompt strategy, natural reinforcer, generalization tactics, and mastery criteria.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: engages in social games (peek-a-boo, tickle)
- Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

This NET program teaches the target skill through naturalistic embedding — capturing motivated moments within the learner's routine rather than using contrived massed trials.

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
Arrange a shared activity with one or more peers where the target response is naturally occasioned (turn-taking game, shared snack, collaborative task).
Primary natural context: shared snack.

## Natural Opportunity
Embed the teaching opportunity within the learner's shared snack routine. Deliver the opportunity when the MO is evident (learner oriented to the relevant stimulus, approaching the materials, or demonstrating interest).

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Time Delay
Wait a brief interval (0->2->4 s) for independent response before delivering a model or verbal prompt.
Current prompt level: At the mastered stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: peer engages back; activity continues with both.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 5 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 3 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 3 different adults during the teaching phase.

## Mastery Criteria
Fluent exchange (response within 3 s of MO / opportunity) with appropriate topography, 80% of opportunities across 3 sessions.

## Data Collection
Opportunity-based data recording: each naturally-occasioned trial is scored for independence and topography. IOA scheduled every 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe across novel peers, settings, and materials. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly. Fade adult-delivered prompts before declaring mastery.

engages in social games (peek-a-boo, tickle)


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
I need a Task Analysis program for this multi-step skill.

Target: crossing a street safely
Curriculum: AFLS Community Participation Skills
Learner: Adult Learner
Mastery Status: Generalization phase

Please include the task analysis (numbered steps), chain type, prompt strategy per step, error correction, reinforcement, and mastery criteria.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: crossing a street safely
- Curriculum: AFLS Community Participation Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

This Task Analysis program teaches the target skill as a chain of discrete steps, each taught and reinforced until the learner can complete the full sequence independently.

## Task Analysis
Chain type: Total-task presentation
Prompt the learner through the entire chain every trial; fade prompts across all steps simultaneously.

Steps:
1. Approach the crosswalk and stop at the curb.
2. Look left, look right, look left again.
3. Identify the walk signal or absence of traffic.
4. Begin to cross while continuing to scan for vehicles.
5. Cross directly to the opposite curb.
6. Step up onto the sidewalk.

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: Least-to-Most
Allow independent attempt; add progressively more intrusive prompts only if learner does not initiate.
Current prompt level: At the generalization stage, deliver the least intrusive prompt that prevents an error; expect independence on previously-mastered steps.

## Error Correction Procedure
Task reset: Pause the chain; reset environmental stimuli; restart the chain from the beginning with full prompts at the previously-missed step

## Reinforcement
Terminal reinforcement (mastered) — Reinforcement delivered only at chain completion; no per-step reinforcement.
Pair the terminal reinforcer with the natural consequence of the completed task (e.g., clean hands, clean dishes, completed routine).

## Mastery Criteria
Full chain completed within 90s across 3 consecutive sessions with independent responding on all steps.

## Data Collection
Per-step data: each step is scored for independence / prompt level on every trial. IOA scheduled every 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full chain across 3 different settings and with 3 different adults. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
analyze multi-session behavioral session logs for individuals with autism and
produce structured clinical interpretations that identify patterns, hypothesize
behavior functions when applicable, and recommend programming adjustments
structured along BIP lines (antecedent strategies, replacement behaviors,
consequence strategies, crisis plan). Your interpretation also includes an
escalation level and a confidence expression. Every recommendation is grounded
in the data provided. Follow BACB ethical guidelines and reference no real
client data.

[User]
Here is a multi-session behavioral log for a learner. Analyze it and provide your clinical interpretation using the structured format.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-6427
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Mand + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-06-07 to 2026-06-25)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. doing laundry (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. requesting a break during extended tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
4. simple meal preparation (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Tantrum — function hypothesized: tangible

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-07 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 7/9 correct (79%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/8 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/10 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 9/11 correct (86%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 5m total

Session 2 — 2026-06-09 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 9/11 correct (80%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 10/12 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  simple meal preparation: 11/14 correct (82%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 4m total

Session 3 — 2026-06-11 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 6/8 correct (80%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/8 correct (80%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  simple meal preparation: 7/9 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 3m total

Session 4 — 2026-06-13 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 4/9 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 4/8 correct (44%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/9 correct (43%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  simple meal preparation: 5/9 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 5 — 2026-06-15 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 5/11 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/11 correct (47%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/11 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  simple meal preparation: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 6 — 2026-06-17 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 7/15 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×3, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/11 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/13 correct (43%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  simple meal preparation: 7/12 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×3
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 4m total

Session 7 — 2026-06-19 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  doing laundry: 43% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 47% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 50% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  simple meal preparation: 51% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 4m total; IOA 91% agreement

Session 8 — 2026-06-21 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 5/11 correct (47%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/15 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×5, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/8 correct (54%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 9 — 2026-06-23 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 7/14 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/13 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/13 correct (63%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  simple meal preparation: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 4m total

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Looking away during SD presentation
- Playing with non-task materials

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Motivating-operation shift**: mid-log dip in responding followed by recovery suggests reinforcer-value change.
- Possible satiation with current reinforcer; preference reassessment indicated.

## Pattern Classification
motivating_operation_shift

A mid-log dip followed by recovery maps onto a motivating-operation change rather than a skill issue.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Tantrum: tangible
  Evidence: behavior occurs when preferred items are restricted and is followed by access to the item.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Conduct preference assessment to identify a currently-valued reinforcer.
- Program MO-establishing operations (deprivation for target reinforcer) before teaching sessions.
- Rotate reinforcers to prevent satiation.

### Consequence strategies
- Adjust reinforcement density to match current MO level.

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

Programming adjustments indicated at next session; no immediate safety concern.

## Confidence
high

Pattern is well-supported: 9 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 57.6%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 79%, last session: 52%).
- Tantrum: mean 0.8/session (early-window mean 1.0 -> late-window mean 1.0).
- IOA data: 91% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
analyze multi-session behavioral session logs for individuals with autism and
produce structured clinical interpretations that identify patterns, hypothesize
behavior functions when applicable, and recommend programming adjustments
structured along BIP lines (antecedent strategies, replacement behaviors,
consequence strategies, crisis plan). Your interpretation also includes an
escalation level and a confidence expression. Every recommendation is grounded
in the data provided. Follow BACB ethical guidelines and reference no real
client data.

[User]
Review this session log and produce a structured clinical interpretation.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-8223
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Mand + Reading + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-08-11 to 2026-08-29)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
3. indicating completion ('all done', 'finished') (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Property destruction — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-11 — 38 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-08-13 — 38 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 7/12 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/14 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/13 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 3 — 2026-08-15 — 38 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/11 correct (67%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/9 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 8/11 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/13 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  Property destruction: freq 4

Session 4 — 2026-08-17 — 38 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 8/12 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/11 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/11 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  Property destruction: freq 5
  ABC (property destruction): A = staff engaged in paperwork nearby; B = yelled name + tapped staff; C = staff attended and redirected

Session 5 — 2026-08-19 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  reads 10–20 sight words: 71% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 69% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 64% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 54% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 79% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  Property destruction: freq 1; IOA 96% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-08-21 — 38 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×3
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/9 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 7 — 2026-08-23 — 38 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/14 correct (65%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/14 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 6/9 correct (71%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/13 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 10/12 correct (80%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 8 — 2026-08-25 — 38 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/9 correct (71%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 6/8 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 11/12 correct (88%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 9 — 2026-08-27 — 38 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/10 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/15 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×5, I×8
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/10 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/11 correct (81%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  Property destruction: freq 2

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Pushing materials away from the work area
- Self-stimulatory behavior increase during demand periods
- Aggression attempt directed at staff (hit, kick, or scratch toward adult)

Please include: (1) clinical concerns, (2) pattern classification, (3) function hypothesis for any target behaviors, (4) recommendations structured as antecedent / replacement / consequence / crisis, (5) escalation level and confidence, (6) data-supported rationale.

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Extinction burst** observed: temporary increase in problem behavior consistent with an extinction procedure.
- This is an expected phase of behavior change and typically indicates the intervention is working.

## Pattern Classification
extinction_burst

Mid-log spike in problem-behavior frequency followed by recovery is consistent with a planned extinction procedure.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Property destruction: attention
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the attention function; behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Maintain current antecedent arrangements — do not add extra demand.

### Replacement behavior (FCT)
- Ensure replacement response is available and reinforced at high magnitude during the burst.

### Consequence strategies
- **Maintain current protocol** — consistency during extinction bursts is critical.
- Ensure all team members are trained on the procedure.

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

Programming adjustments indicated at next session; no immediate safety concern.

## Confidence
high

Pattern is well-supported: 9 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 66.5%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 66%, last session: 65%).
- Property destruction: mean 2.1/session (early-window mean 2.3 -> late-window mean 1.7).
- IOA data: 96% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
I need a Task Analysis program for this multi-step skill.

Target: clocking in at start of shift
Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
Learner: Adult Learner
Mastery Status: Emerging

Please include the task analysis (numbered steps), chain type, prompt strategy per step, error correction, reinforcement, and mastery criteria.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: clocking in at start of shift
- Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

This Task Analysis program teaches the target skill as a chain of discrete steps, each taught and reinforced until the learner can complete the full sequence independently.

## Task Analysis
Chain type: Total-task presentation
Prompt the learner through the entire chain every trial; fade prompts across all steps simultaneously.

Steps:
1. Arrive at the workplace by the scheduled time.
2. Locate the time clock or digital system.
3. Enter identification (ID card / badge / code).
4. Confirm the clock-in timestamp.
5. Notify the supervisor or check the day's task list.
6. Proceed to the assigned workstation.

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: Graduated Guidance
Hand-over-hand physical guidance with fading pressure; move to shadow, then independent.
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, provide hand-over-hand guidance at each step; reduce physical pressure across sessions.

## Error Correction Procedure
Task reset: Pause the chain; reset environmental stimuli; restart the chain from the beginning with full prompts at the previously-missed step

## Reinforcement
CRF per step (acquisition) — Continuous reinforcement for each correctly-completed step during acquisition.
Pair the terminal reinforcer with the natural consequence of the completed task (e.g., clean hands, clean dishes, completed routine).

## Mastery Criteria
Full chain completed independently with 2 different adults in 2 different settings across 2 consecutive days.

## Data Collection
Per-step data: each step is scored for independence / prompt level on every trial. IOA scheduled every 5 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full chain across 3 different settings and with 2 different adults. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
I need a DTT program for this skill.

Target: writes numbers 1–10
Curriculum: Writing L2
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

Please include the SD, prompt hierarchy, stimulus array, error correction procedure, reinforcement schedule, and mastery criteria.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: writes numbers 1–10
- Curriculum: Writing L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

This DTT program establishes stimulus control over the target skill through structured discrete trials with a defined prompt hierarchy, stimulus array, and systematic error-correction procedure.

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "Write the target."
Variations: "Trace this"; "Copy this"; "Write {word}"
Presentation: Provide pencil and paper; deliver a clear verbal instruction naming the target letter or word.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Fading
Sequence: exaggerated stimulus -> moderate fade -> minimal fade -> natural stimulus
Current prompt level: At the mastered stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: 6, 10, 3
Distractor stimuli: 7, 2, 1, 8
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

## Error Correction Procedure
Re-present SD -> provide effective-level prompt -> reinforce prompted response -> distractor trial -> re-present SD independently.

## Reinforcement Schedule
Token economy — Tokens delivered per correct response; exchanged at session end for a back-up reinforcer appropriate to the learner (for children: candy, cookies, brief leisure-time access, preferred activity, screen time, or a favorite sensory item). Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

## Mastery Criteria
80% accuracy with 2 different therapists and 2 different settings.

## Data Collection
Trial-by-trial data recording prompt level and response accuracy. IOA scheduled every 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe with novel stimuli, across 2 additional therapists, and in at least 2 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
I need a toleration program for this self-care / medical / caregiver-delivered skill.

Target: tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner: Adolescent Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

Please include the toleration end goal, shaping progression, antecedent strategies, reinforcement plan, refusal / safety procedures, and mastery criteria.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver
- Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level
- Approach: Toleration / systematic desensitization (caregiver-delivered activity)

This program builds tolerance for tooth brushing performed by caregiver through systematic shaping. The learner is not being taught to perform the skill independently — the goal is to allow the caregiver or staff to perform it across an incrementally increasing duration, without refusal, crying, self-injurious behavior, or aggression.

## Toleration End Goal
full 2-minute tooth-brushing routine completed by caregiver without refusal, crying, SIB, or aggression

## Shaping Progression
Teach by moving through these shaping steps in order. Advance to the next step only when the current step is tolerated for 3 consecutive sessions without safety behaviors.

1. 1-second toothbrush contact with teeth
2. 3 seconds of brushing
3. 5 seconds of brushing
4. 15 seconds of brushing
5. 30 seconds of brushing
6. 60 seconds of brushing
7. Full 2-minute brushing routine

Current shaping step: At the mastered stage, begin at shaping step 5 ("30 seconds of brushing") and advance through step 6 across sessions as tolerance stabilizes.

## Antecedent Strategies
- Pre-warn the learner before the activity begins (verbal or visual schedule).
- Offer a preferred item or sensory tool to hold during the activity.
- Where possible, offer a choice of position, location, or starting point.
- Keep the environment calm and predictable; avoid other demands immediately before or after.

## Reinforcement
Deliver high-magnitude, high-preference reinforcement contingent on successful toleration of the target duration. Pair with effusive praise. Reinforcement is continuous (CRF) during acquisition of each shaping step.

## Refusal and Safety Procedures
- If the learner refuses or turns away: pause briefly (5–10 seconds), re-present the activity at the current or previous shaping step.
- If problem behavior (crying, property destruction, SIB, aggression, peer aggression) emerges: stop the activity immediately, implement the facility crisis plan, and document the incident.
- Do NOT remove the activity contingent on safety behaviors in a way that establishes an escape-maintained pattern — consult supervising BCBA for the specific escape-extinction protocol appropriate to this learner.

## Mastery Criteria
End-goal duration tolerated across 3 consecutive sessions with no safety behaviors (refusal, crying, SIB, aggression, property destruction).

## Data Collection
Per-trial: duration tolerated before refusal, presence / absence of safety behaviors (crying, property destruction, SIB, aggression), staff support level, and shaping step attempted. IOA scheduled every 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full routine across 2 different settings and with 3 different adults (including the primary caregiver if relevant). Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
Design a Discrete Trial Training program for the following.

Skill: completes simple 3–4 piece puzzles
Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Near mastery

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: completes simple 3–4 piece puzzles
- Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

This DTT program establishes stimulus control over the target skill through structured discrete trials with a defined prompt hierarchy, stimulus array, and systematic error-correction procedure.

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "Match"
Variations: "Find the same"; "Put with same"
Presentation: Present the sample stimulus and an array of comparison stimuli simultaneously.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Shaping
Sequence: modified stimulus -> intermediate shape -> target stimulus
Current prompt level: At the near mastery stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: napkin, sock, backpack
Distractor stimuli: cup, bottle
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

## Error Correction Procedure
Return to previous prompt level that produced success -> successful response -> re-attempt at target prompt level.

## Reinforcement Schedule
FR-2 (fixed ratio 2) — Every 2nd correct response reinforced. Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

## Mastery Criteria
80% accuracy with 2 different therapists and 2 different settings.

## Data Collection
Trial-by-trial data recording prompt level and response accuracy. IOA scheduled every 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe with novel stimuli, across 2 additional therapists, and in at least 2 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
Design a chaining program for the following.

Skill: completing assigned tasks in order
Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
Learner Level: Adult Learner
Baseline: Near mastery

Include the full Task Analysis structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: completing assigned tasks in order
- Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

This Task Analysis program teaches the target skill as a chain of discrete steps, each taught and reinforced until the learner can complete the full sequence independently.

## Task Analysis
Chain type: Forward chaining
Teach step 1 to mastery, then 1->2, then 1->2->3, progressively adding later steps.

Steps:
1. Review the task list for the shift.  <- Learner-taught step (forward chaining starts here)
2. Gather needed materials for the first task.
3. Complete the first task to the specified standard.
4. Mark the first task complete on the list.
5. Return materials to storage.
6. Move to the next task on the list and repeat.

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: Least-to-Most
Allow independent attempt; add progressively more intrusive prompts only if learner does not initiate.
Current prompt level: At the near mastery stage, deliver the least intrusive prompt that prevents an error; expect independence on previously-mastered steps.

## Error Correction Procedure
Task reset: Pause the chain; reset environmental stimuli; restart the chain from the beginning with full prompts at the previously-missed step

## Reinforcement
Token economy — One token per correctly-completed step; token exchange at chain completion.
Pair the terminal reinforcer with the natural consequence of the completed task (e.g., clean hands, clean dishes, completed routine).

## Mastery Criteria
100% of steps completed independently (no prompts) across 3 consecutive trials of the full chain.

## Data Collection
Per-step data: each step is scored for independence / prompt level on every trial. IOA scheduled every 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full chain across 2 different settings and with 3 different adults. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
Design a Natural Environment Teaching program for the following.

Skill: describes function of common objects
Curriculum: Intraverbal L2
Learner Level: School-Age Learner
Baseline: Emerging

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: describes function of common objects
- Curriculum: Intraverbal L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

This NET program teaches the target skill through naturalistic embedding — capturing motivated moments within the learner's routine rather than using contrived massed trials.

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
Engage the learner in a naturalistic conversation on a topic of demonstrated interest. Pause at natural turn boundaries to invite the target response.
Primary natural context: transition conversation.

## Natural Opportunity
Embed the teaching opportunity within the learner's transition conversation routine. Deliver the opportunity when the MO is evident (learner oriented to the relevant stimulus, approaching the materials, or demonstrating interest).

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Expectant look (pause)
Deliver no prompt — maintain eye contact and hold the preferred item until the learner responds.
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, begin with a model prompt delivered during the motivated moment; fade to expectant look across sessions.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: conversation continues with adult's naturally matched reply.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 5 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 3 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 3 different adults during the teaching phase.

## Mastery Criteria
Independent use with a peer in unstructured free play across 2 consecutive sessions.

## Data Collection
Opportunity-based data recording: each naturally-occasioned trial is scored for independence and topography. IOA scheduled every 5 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe across novel peers, settings, and materials. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly. Fade adult-delivered prompts before declaring mastery.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
analyze multi-session behavioral session logs for individuals with autism and
produce structured clinical interpretations that identify patterns, hypothesize
behavior functions when applicable, and recommend programming adjustments
structured along BIP lines (antecedent strategies, replacement behaviors,
consequence strategies, crisis plan). Your interpretation also includes an
escalation level and a confidence expression. Every recommendation is grounded
in the data provided. Follow BACB ethical guidelines and reference no real
client data.

[User]
Review this session log and produce a structured clinical interpretation.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-8285
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Independent Living + Mand + Tolerating Denied Access + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-07-18 to 2026-08-11)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. requesting a break during extended tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. completing assigned tasks in order (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. indicating 'all done' at task completion (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. managing a budget (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. self-advocacy statements (Independent Living)
   Method: BST
6. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Pica — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-18 — 42 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/13 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  completing assigned tasks in order: 4/11 correct (40%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 5/11 correct (43%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  managing a budget: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 5/15 correct (37%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/10 correct (43%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  Pica: attempts 0

Session 2 — 2026-07-20 — 42 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/11 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  completing assigned tasks in order: 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×2
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  managing a budget: 4/8 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 6/13 correct (46%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/11 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 3 — 2026-07-22 — 42 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/13 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  completing assigned tasks in order: 4/9 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  managing a budget: 6/9 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 6/11 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/14 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×6
  Pica: attempts 2 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 4 — 2026-07-24 — 42 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/10 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  managing a budget: 6/9 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 9/15 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  Pica: attempts 1 (0 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 5 — 2026-07-26 — 42 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/13 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/11 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 6/8 correct (76%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  managing a budget: 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  self-advocacy statements: 9/14 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  Pica: attempts 1 (0 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 6 — 2026-07-28 — 42 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/9 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×1
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/15 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 9/12 correct (78%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×2
  managing a budget: 12/15 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×5, I×8
  self-advocacy statements: 6/8 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 7 — 2026-07-30 — 42 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/9 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 9/10 correct (91%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  managing a budget: 8/10 correct (80%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 10/13 correct (81%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×10
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 8 — 2026-08-01 — 42 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  completing assigned tasks in order: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 12/13 correct (94%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  managing a budget: 12/14 correct (89%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×9
  self-advocacy statements: 8/9 correct (87%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  Pica: attempts 0

Session 9 — 2026-08-03 — 42 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 10/13 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/9 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×0
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 10/10 correct (95%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  managing a budget: 14/15 correct (93%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  self-advocacy statements: 11/12 correct (95%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 9/11 correct (85%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 10 — 2026-08-05 — 42 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 11/14 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 10/10 correct (95%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  managing a budget: 8/8 correct (95%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  self-advocacy statements: 10/10 correct (95%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 9/10 correct (86%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  Pica: attempts 0

Session 11 — 2026-08-07 — 42 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 10/12 correct (87%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 11/12 correct (92%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 9/9 correct (95%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  managing a budget: 8/8 correct (95%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  self-advocacy statements: 10/10 correct (95%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 10/11 correct (90%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 12 — 2026-08-09 — 42 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 11/13 correct (87%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 12/13 correct (95%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×2
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 10/11 correct (95%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  managing a budget: 9/9 correct (95%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×10
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 9/10 correct (93%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  Pica: attempts 2 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Quick response latency (within 2–3 seconds)
- Appropriate sitting posture maintained
- Reaching for materials proactively
- Smiling during reinforcement delivery

Please include: (1) clinical concerns, (2) pattern classification, (3) function hypothesis for any target behaviors, (4) recommendations structured as antecedent / replacement / consequence / crisis, (5) escalation level and confidence, (6) data-supported rationale.

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- Steady improvement: accuracy rose from 43% to 87% across 12 sessions.
- No clinical concerns at this time; mastery criteria should be reachable within a few additional sessions.

## Pattern Classification
mastery_progression

Accuracy is ascending cleanly across sessions with no interfering behaviors, consistent with a mastery-progression trajectory.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Pica: automatic
  Evidence: behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Continue current teaching procedure — it is effective for this learner.
- Maintain current stimulus arrangement; begin planning next skill in sequence.

### Consequence strategies
- Begin thinning reinforcement from CRF to FR-2 as accuracy stabilizes above 85%.
- Continue differential reinforcement for independent responses.

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

Programming adjustments indicated at next session; no immediate safety concern.

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 12 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 67.8%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 43%, last session: 87%).
- Pica: mean 0.9/session (early-window mean 1.0 -> late-window mean 1.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
I need a Task Analysis program for this multi-step skill.

Target: scheduling a medical appointment
Curriculum: AFLS Independent Living Skills
Learner: Adult Learner
Mastery Status: Generalization phase

Please include the task analysis (numbered steps), chain type, prompt strategy per step, error correction, reinforcement, and mastery criteria.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: scheduling a medical appointment
- Curriculum: AFLS Independent Living Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

This Task Analysis program teaches the target skill as a chain of discrete steps, each taught and reinforced until the learner can complete the full sequence independently.

## Task Analysis
Chain type: Forward chaining
Teach step 1 to mastery, then 1->2, then 1->2->3, progressively adding later steps.

Steps:
1. Identify the reason for the appointment.  <- Learner-taught step (forward chaining starts here)
2. Locate the provider's contact information.
3. Call or use the online system.
4. Provide name, date of birth, and insurance information.
5. Request an available appointment time.
6. Confirm the appointment and save it to the calendar.

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: Least-to-Most
Allow independent attempt; add progressively more intrusive prompts only if learner does not initiate.
Current prompt level: At the generalization stage, deliver the least intrusive prompt that prevents an error; expect independence on previously-mastered steps.

## Error Correction Procedure
Back-step + re-approach: Return to the previously-mastered step; re-execute that step correctly; then re-attempt the missed step with one prompt level above the last independent level

## Reinforcement
Terminal reinforcement (mastered) — Reinforcement delivered only at chain completion; no per-step reinforcement.
Pair the terminal reinforcer with the natural consequence of the completed task (e.g., clean hands, clean dishes, completed routine).

## Mastery Criteria
Chain self-initiated from the appropriate antecedent (no verbal prompt to begin) across 3 consecutive opportunities.

## Data Collection
Per-step data: each step is scored for independence / prompt level on every trial. IOA scheduled every 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full chain across 2 different settings and with 2 different adults. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
I need a DTT program for this skill.

Target: tacts common animals
Curriculum: Tact L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Near mastery

Please include the SD, prompt hierarchy, stimulus array, error correction procedure, reinforcement schedule, and mastery criteria.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts common animals
- Curriculum: Tact L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

This DTT program establishes stimulus control over the target skill through structured discrete trials with a defined prompt hierarchy, stimulus array, and systematic error-correction procedure.

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "What animal is this?"
Variations: "What is this?"; "Name this animal"
Presentation: Present an animal picture card and ask while pointing.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Most-to-Least (errorless)
Sequence: full physical -> partial physical -> gestural -> positional -> independent
Current prompt level: At the near mastery stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: frog, lion, horse
Distractor stimuli: elephant, rabbit
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

## Error Correction Procedure
Return to previous prompt level that produced success -> successful response -> re-attempt at target prompt level.

## Reinforcement Schedule
VR-3 (variable ratio 3) — Average of every 3rd correct response reinforced. Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

## Mastery Criteria
90% first-trial-correct across 5 consecutive sessions.

## Data Collection
Trial-by-trial data recording prompt level and response accuracy. IOA scheduled every 5 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe with novel stimuli, across 2 additional therapists, and in at least 3 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
analyze multi-session behavioral session logs for individuals with autism and
produce structured clinical interpretations that identify patterns, hypothesize
behavior functions when applicable, and recommend programming adjustments
structured along BIP lines (antecedent strategies, replacement behaviors,
consequence strategies, crisis plan). Your interpretation also includes an
escalation level and a confidence expression. Every recommendation is grounded
in the data provided. Follow BACB ethical guidelines and reference no real
client data.

[User]
Here is a multi-session behavioral log for a learner. Analyze it and provide your clinical interpretation using the structured format.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-3420
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-06-01 to 2026-06-17)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. tolerating haircut (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. ordering in a restaurant (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. identifying community safety signs (Community)
   Method: DTT
4. tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Toileting accident (urine or bowel) — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-01 — 42 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  ordering in a restaurant: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  identifying community safety signs: 11/13 correct (85%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 12/15 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×10
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 2 — 2026-06-03 — 42 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 9/12 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  ordering in a restaurant: 6/9 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  identifying community safety signs: 8/11 correct (72%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 10/14 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 3 — 2026-06-05 — 42 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  ordering in a restaurant: 7/11 correct (62%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  identifying community safety signs: 8/13 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 9/15 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  ABC (toileting accident (urine or bowel)): A = transition from preferred activity to non-preferred task; B = voided (urine) en route to the work area; C = staff redirected to bathroom, changed clothing

Session 4 — 2026-06-07 — 42 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  ordering in a restaurant: 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  identifying community safety signs: 9/15 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×6
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 5 — 2026-06-09 — 42 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 4/10 correct (44%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 6/14 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  identifying community safety signs: 6/11 correct (52%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 7/13 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 0 in-toilet / 5 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  ABC (toileting accident (urine or bowel)): A = transition from preferred activity to non-preferred task; B = voided (urine) en route to the work area; C = staff redirected to bathroom, changed clothing

Session 6 — 2026-06-11 — 42 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 5/12 correct (40%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 4/10 correct (42%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  identifying community safety signs: 4/9 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×1
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 7 — 2026-06-13 — 42 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 5/15 correct (32%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×5, I×5
  ordering in a restaurant: 5/14 correct (34%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×11
  identifying community safety signs: 4/10 correct (36%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 7/15 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×3, I×7
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 2 accidents

Session 8 — 2026-06-15 — 42 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 3/9 correct (28%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  ordering in a restaurant: 5/14 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  identifying community safety signs: 2/9 correct (27%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 4/11 correct (32%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 0 in-toilet / 5 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Aggression attempt directed at staff (hit, kick, or scratch toward adult)
- Self-injurious behavior onset during task difficulty (self-biting, hair-pulling, head-hitting)
- Crying during demand presentation
- Turning away from task or staff

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (71% -> 28%) with escape-indicator behaviors.
- Risk of learned helplessness and escape-maintained behavior if not addressed.

## Pattern Classification
frustration_pattern

Declining accuracy co-occurs with escape-indicator behaviors, consistent with frustration and escape-maintained responding to demand.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Toileting accident (urine or bowel): escape
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the escape function; behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- **Immediately** reduce task difficulty — drop back 1–2 prompt levels or present previously-mastered targets.
- Intersperse easy (mastered) tasks with acquisition targets at a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio.
- Shorten session length and increase break frequency.

### Replacement behavior (FCT)
- Teach a replacement response ('break please', 'wait please', 'all done') and reinforce it at the function of the problem behavior.
- Pair the replacement response with short, predictable escape windows.

### Consequence strategies
- Do NOT remove demand contingent on tantrum / escape behavior — this reinforces the escape function.
- Provide brief break contingent on independent replacement response instead.

### Crisis plan
- If aggression toward staff, peer aggression, SIB, or property destruction exceeds the learner's safety threshold: first use verbal de-escalation and environmental safety measures (clear the area, move peers to safe distance, remove hazards).
- If behavior continues to pose imminent risk, follow the facility's tiered crisis-intervention protocol — only staff currently certified in the facility's training (e.g., Safety-Care, CPI, PMT, or equivalent) may implement physical intervention, and the least-restrictive option appropriate to the risk level is used. Physical intervention is applied only when specifically authorized in this learner's BIP; for learners with contraindications (medical, developmental, trauma history, or explicit BIP restrictions), the plan stops at de-escalation + environmental safety + supervisor contact.
- Notify the supervising BCBA immediately; pause the skill-acquisition program until the BIP is reviewed. Document the incident (antecedent, topography, duration, staff response, post-incident state) per facility and BACB Ethics Code (2020, Section 3.05) requirements.

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

Combination of performance decline and/or behavior data warrants supervising BCBA review within 24–48 hours.

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 8 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 50.5%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 71%, last session: 28%).
- Toileting accident (urine or bowel): mean 4.0/session (early-window mean 2.5 -> late-window mean 5.5).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
analyze multi-session behavioral session logs for individuals with autism and
produce structured clinical interpretations that identify patterns, hypothesize
behavior functions when applicable, and recommend programming adjustments
structured along BIP lines (antecedent strategies, replacement behaviors,
consequence strategies, crisis plan). Your interpretation also includes an
escalation level and a confidence expression. Every recommendation is grounded
in the data provided. Follow BACB ethical guidelines and reference no real
client data.

[User]
Interpret the following behavioral session log. Provide clinical concerns, pattern classification, behavior function hypothesis (if applicable), programming recommendations (antecedent / replacement / consequence / crisis), escalation level, confidence, and data-supported rationale.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-8754
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Mand + Self-Care + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-02-17 to 2026-03-11)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. requesting assistance using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. using public transportation (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. completing assigned tasks in order (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. simple meal preparation (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Mouthing — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-02-17 — 53 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 9/13 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 8/11 correct (77%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  using public transportation: 7/8 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/12 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 8/11 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  Mouthing: freq 2; PIR 12%

Session 2 — 2026-02-19 — 53 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×12
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  using public transportation: 9/10 correct (85%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  simple meal preparation: 10/13 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  Mouthing: freq 0; PIR 4%

Session 3 — 2026-02-21 — 53 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/11 correct (76%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  using public transportation: 6/8 correct (78%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  simple meal preparation: 6/8 correct (78%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  Mouthing: freq 2; PIR 13%

Session 4 — 2026-02-23 — 53 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/12 correct (33%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 4/9 correct (39%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  using public transportation: 5/12 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  completing assigned tasks in order: 4/9 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  simple meal preparation: 4/8 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  Mouthing: freq 1; PIR 10%

Session 5 — 2026-02-25 — 53 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 3/8 correct (36%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 4/12 correct (36%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  using public transportation: 4/9 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/13 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  simple meal preparation: 6/12 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  Mouthing: freq 1; PIR 6%

Session 6 — 2026-02-27 — 53 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/11 correct (36%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 5/11 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  using public transportation: 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  simple meal preparation: 7/14 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  Mouthing: freq 1; PIR 12%

Session 7 — 2026-03-01 — 53 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/11 correct (35%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 4/9 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  using public transportation: 6/10 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  simple meal preparation: 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  Mouthing: freq 1; PIR 13%

Session 8 — 2026-03-03 — 53 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/12 correct (40%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  using public transportation: 8/12 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  simple meal preparation: 10/15 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×9
  Mouthing: freq 0; PIR 2%

Session 9 — 2026-03-05 — 53 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/9 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×14
  using public transportation: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/10 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  simple meal preparation: 7/9 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Mouthing: freq 0; PIR 6%

Session 10 — 2026-03-07 — 53 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/14 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 7/10 correct (69%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  using public transportation: 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×3
  simple meal preparation: 9/12 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  Mouthing: freq 2; PIR 14%

Session 11 — 2026-03-09 — 53 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  using public transportation: 6/8 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/13 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  simple meal preparation: 12/15 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×5, I×2
  Mouthing: freq 1; PIR 9%

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)
- Looking away during SD presentation
- Playing with non-task materials
- Leaving seat without permission

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Motivating-operation shift**: mid-log dip in responding followed by recovery suggests reinforcer-value change.
- Possible satiation with current reinforcer; preference reassessment indicated.

## Pattern Classification
motivating_operation_shift

A mid-log dip followed by recovery maps onto a motivating-operation change rather than a skill issue.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Mouthing: automatic
  Evidence: behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Conduct preference assessment to identify a currently-valued reinforcer.
- Program MO-establishing operations (deprivation for target reinforcer) before teaching sessions.
- Rotate reinforcers to prevent satiation.

### Consequence strategies
- Adjust reinforcement density to match current MO level.

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

Programming adjustments indicated at next session; no immediate safety concern.

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 11 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 53.1%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 71%, last session: 72%).
- Mouthing: mean 1.0/session (early-window mean 1.3 -> late-window mean 1.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
I need a NET program for this skill.

Target: provides definitions of words
Curriculum: Intraverbal L3
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

Please include the MO arrangement, natural opportunity, prompt strategy, natural reinforcer, generalization tactics, and mastery criteria.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: provides definitions of words
- Curriculum: Intraverbal L3
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

This NET program teaches the target skill through naturalistic embedding — capturing motivated moments within the learner's routine rather than using contrived massed trials.

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
Engage the learner in a naturalistic conversation on a topic of demonstrated interest. Pause at natural turn boundaries to invite the target response.
Primary natural context: post-activity debrief.

## Natural Opportunity
Embed the teaching opportunity within the learner's post-activity debrief routine. Deliver the opportunity when the MO is evident (learner oriented to the relevant stimulus, approaching the materials, or demonstrating interest).

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Model + immediate fade
Deliver a vocal/gestural model if no response within the motivated moment; fade to expectant look over sessions.
Current prompt level: At the mastered stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: conversation continues with adult's naturally matched reply.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 5 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 3 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 2 different adults during the teaching phase.

## Mastery Criteria
Independent use with a peer in unstructured free play across 2 consecutive sessions.

## Data Collection
Opportunity-based data recording: each naturally-occasioned trial is scored for independence and topography. IOA scheduled every 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe across novel peers, settings, and materials. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly. Fade adult-delivered prompts before declaring mastery.