[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-6120
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-01-07 to 2026-01-29)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. meal cleanup after eating (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Tantrum — function hypothesized: tangible

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-01-07 — 44 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 11/13 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×10
  washing hands independently: 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 8/10 correct (82%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 10m total

Session 2 — 2026-01-09 — 44 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 11/13 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  washing hands independently: 11/14 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×11
  brushing teeth independently: 9/11 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 3 — 2026-01-11 — 44 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/10 correct (79%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  washing hands independently: 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 10/12 correct (80%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 8m total

Session 4 — 2026-01-13 — 44 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/13 correct (48%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  washing hands independently: 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 8/15 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 2m total

Session 5 — 2026-01-15 — 44 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 5/10 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  washing hands independently: 7/14 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 7/14 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 2m total

Session 6 — 2026-01-17 — 44 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/13 correct (49%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  washing hands independently: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 5/9 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 4m total

Session 7 — 2026-01-19 — 44 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/15 correct (52%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  washing hands independently: 6/12 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×2
  brushing teeth independently: 7/11 correct (65%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 2m total

Session 8 — 2026-01-21 — 44 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  washing hands independently: 6/10 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×8
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 3m total

Session 9 — 2026-01-23 — 44 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/10 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  washing hands independently: 6/10 correct (62%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 7/9 correct (81%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 8m total

Session 10 — 2026-01-25 — 44 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  washing hands independently: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 10/12 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 8m total
  ABC (tantrum): A = peer took preferred toy; B = grabbed toy back + cried; C = staff mediated and returned item

Session 11 — 2026-01-27 — 44 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 12/15 correct (79%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×11
  washing hands independently: 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 9/11 correct (81%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 4m total

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

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
- **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: ABC events in the log support the tangible function; 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
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: 64.1%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 81%, last session: 79%).
- Tantrum: mean 1.4/session (early-window mean 1.3 -> late-window mean 1.7).
- 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]
Review this session log and produce a structured clinical interpretation.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-9274
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Mand + Reading + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–7 across 14 days (2026-07-07 to 2026-07-21)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. indicating completion ('all done', 'finished') (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
3. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Mouthing — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-07 — 39 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 6/13 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×9
  copies simple words from model: 5/11 correct (41%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/14 correct (32%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  Mouthing: freq 0; PIR 3%

Session 2 — 2026-07-09 — 39 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 6/13 correct (49%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  copies simple words from model: 6/14 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/15 correct (40%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  Mouthing: freq 1; PIR 6%

Session 3 — 2026-07-11 — 39 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 7/15 correct (47%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×12
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/11 correct (49%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  Mouthing: freq 0; PIR 0%

Session 4 — 2026-07-13 — 39 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 8/14 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/12 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  Mouthing: freq 2; PIR 9%
  ABC (mouthing): A = quiet unstructured moment between trials; B = engaged in hand-flapping; C = no social consequence; self-terminated after 30s

Session 5 — 2026-07-15 — 39 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 9/14 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/13 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  Mouthing: freq 1; PIR 9%

Session 6 — 2026-07-17 — 39 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 7/10 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  Mouthing: freq 2; PIR 11%

Session 7 — 2026-07-19 — 39 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 6/9 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 9/13 correct (72%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×11
  Mouthing: freq 0; PIR 10%

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Looking away during SD presentation
- Leaving seat without permission
- Playing with non-task materials

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
- **Skill loss following break**: performance dropped to 46% at return, recovering to 71%.
- Maintenance schedule should be reviewed and strengthened.

## Pattern Classification
skill_loss_after_break

Sharp drop at the start of the log followed by gradual recovery indicates skill loss following an absence.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Mouthing: automatic
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the automatic function; behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Implement booster sessions at the most-recently-effective prompt level.
- Increase session frequency temporarily until pre-break levels are recovered.

### Consequence strategies
- Review and strengthen the maintenance schedule to prevent future skill loss.
- Consider sending practice materials home during extended breaks.

## 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: 7 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 7 sessions: 58.6%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 46%, last session: 71%).
- Mouthing: mean 0.9/session (early-window mean 0.5 -> 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
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-5515
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Intraverbal + Listener Responding + Mand + Reading + Tact
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-04-18 to 2026-05-06)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
2. answers WH-questions about familiar topics (Intraverbal)
   Method: NET
3. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
4. requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break') (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. tacts colors of objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Self-injurious behavior (SIB) — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-18 — 44 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/9 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/13 correct (47%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/15 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×11
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/14 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  tacts colors of objects: 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 0

Session 2 — 2026-04-20 — 44 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/13 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/12 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×3
  tacts colors of objects: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-04-22 — 44 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/10 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 4 — 2026-04-24 — 44 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/15 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×5, I×4
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/10 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/9 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×3
  tacts colors of objects: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 0

Session 5 — 2026-04-26 — 44 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 12/15 correct (83%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/10 correct (76%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 8/10 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 6 — 2026-04-28 — 44 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 10/12 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/10 correct (82%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 8/10 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 7 — 2026-04-30 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 75% (primary); IOA 83% agreement
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 83% (primary); IOA 83% agreement
  reads 10–20 sight words: 79% (primary); IOA 83% agreement
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 83% (primary); IOA 83% agreement
  tacts colors of objects: 80% (primary); IOA 83% agreement
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2; IOA 83% agreement

Session 8 — 2026-05-02 — 44 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/10 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 8/10 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 11/14 correct (79%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/10 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  tacts colors of objects: 10/13 correct (80%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 9 — 2026-05-04 — 44 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 12/14 correct (83%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/9 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 11/13 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  tacts colors of objects: 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)
- Looking away during SD presentation
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)
- Leaving seat without permission

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Skill loss following break**: performance dropped to 50% at return, recovering to 75%.
- Maintenance schedule should be reviewed and strengthened.

## Pattern Classification
skill_loss_after_break

Sharp drop at the start of the log followed by gradual recovery indicates skill loss following an absence.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Self-injurious behavior (SIB): escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Implement booster sessions at the most-recently-effective prompt level.
- Increase session frequency temporarily until pre-break levels are recovered.

### Consequence strategies
- Review and strengthen the maintenance schedule to prevent future skill loss.
- Consider sending practice materials home during extended breaks.

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## 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: 66.0%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 50%, last session: 75%).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 1.0/session (early-window mean 1.0 -> late-window mean 1.3).
- IOA data: 83% 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]
Generate a teaching program for the following target.

Skill Target: using public transportation
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Community Participation Skills
Learner Profile: Adult Learner
Current Mastery: Mastered at current level
Teaching Method: Task Analysis / Chaining

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: using public transportation
- Curriculum: AFLS Community Participation Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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. Confirm the correct stop or station.  <- Learner-taught step (forward chaining starts here)
2. Purchase or have the fare ready.
3. Wait at the designated boarding area.
4. Board the vehicle when it arrives.
5. Pay the fare or present the pass.
6. Sit or stand safely.
7. Monitor the route for the correct stop.
8. Exit at the correct stop.

## 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 mastered stage, deliver the least intrusive prompt that prevents an error; expect independence on previously-mastered steps.

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

## 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
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 5 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]
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-9796
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Mand + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-02-25 to 2026-03-17)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. tolerating haircut (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. indicating 'all done' with a step or activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. meal cleanup after eating (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. requesting help when a task is difficult (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-02-25 — 54 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 4/9 correct (44%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×2
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 5/11 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 5/8 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6

Session 2 — 2026-02-27 — 54 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 8/11 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 6/10 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 6/12 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×11

Session 3 — 2026-03-01 — 54 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 7/12 correct (56%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 6/9 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  meal cleanup after eating: 9/15 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×10
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 12/14 correct (85%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5

Session 4 — 2026-03-03 — 54 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 6/8 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 6/11 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5

Session 5 — 2026-03-05 — 54 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×8
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/9 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 8/10 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 4/8 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5

Session 6 — 2026-03-07 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  tolerating haircut: 56% (primary); IOA 87% agreement
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 53% (primary); IOA 87% agreement
  meal cleanup after eating: 87% (primary); IOA 87% agreement
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 61% (primary); IOA 87% agreement
  brushing teeth independently: 65% (primary); IOA 87% agreement

Session 7 — 2026-03-09 — 54 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 6/12 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 4/9 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/8 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 10/12 correct (81%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 5/13 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×6

Session 8 — 2026-03-11 — 54 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 7/9 correct (76%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/9 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 4/10 correct (39%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×4

Session 9 — 2026-03-13 — 54 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 9/13 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 5/12 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/10 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 5/8 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×9

Session 10 — 2026-03-15 — 54 min — 1 observer
  tolerating haircut: 7/10 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 11/13 correct (82%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 5/8 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 3/9 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Leaving seat without permission
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Variable performance**: accuracy fluctuating around 58% with no clear trend.
- Inconsistency may indicate stimulus-control issues or motivational variability across sessions.

## Pattern Classification
variable_performance

High session-to-session variability with no clear trend suggests environmental or motivational inconsistency rather than a single programmatic issue.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Check for environmental variables that differ across sessions (time of day, therapist, setting).
- Standardize session structure and reinforcement delivery across therapists.

### Consequence strategies
- Implement inter-observer agreement probes to rule out measurement inconsistency.

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
high

Pattern is well-supported: 10 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 63.8%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 44%, last session: 73%).
- IOA data: 87% 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]
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-7332
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Reading + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-01-17 to 2026-02-10)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
2. single-word requests for preferred items (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
4. indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Self-injurious behavior (SIB) — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-01-17 — 41 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  single-word requests for preferred items: 8/11 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 10/14 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×9
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/9 correct (81%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/8 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 2 — 2026-01-19 — 41 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/8 correct (84%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/9 correct (82%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 3 — 2026-01-21 — 41 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/8 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 11/15 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 12/15 correct (80%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×5, I×2
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/11 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 4 — 2026-01-23 — 41 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×0
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 6/9 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 11/13 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 0

Session 5 — 2026-01-25 — 41 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 4/9 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/12 correct (42%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 5/15 correct (34%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/13 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/11 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 0

Session 6 — 2026-01-27 — 41 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 6/13 correct (46%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  single-word requests for preferred items: 4/12 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 5/14 correct (36%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/10 correct (46%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 3/9 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 7 — 2026-01-29 — 41 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/12 correct (40%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 3/8 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/14 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/10 correct (40%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 8 — 2026-01-31 — 41 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  single-word requests for preferred items: 3/8 correct (39%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 5/14 correct (39%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/13 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/14 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×10
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 9 — 2026-02-02 — 41 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/12 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 5/11 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/8 correct (50%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 10 — 2026-02-04 — 41 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/13 correct (46%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  sounds out CVC words: 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/10 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/12 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 11 — 2026-02-06 — 41 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/10 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 7/12 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/8 correct (67%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/15 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×13
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 12 — 2026-02-08 — 41 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 10/15 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 10/15 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)

[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
Self-injurious behavior (SIB): 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
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: 12 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 65.7%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 79%, last session: 76%).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 1.1/session (early-window mean 0.8 -> late-window mean 1.2).
- 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]
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-1192
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Social Behavior + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-04-12 to 2026-05-04)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. takes turns during structured activities (Social Behavior)
   Method: PRT
4. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Verbal aggression — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-12 — 60 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 12/14 correct (87%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/8 correct (86%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  takes turns during structured activities: 7/8 correct (87%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 8/9 correct (84%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  Verbal aggression: freq 1

Session 2 — 2026-04-14 — 60 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/10 correct (39%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 4/13 correct (32%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  takes turns during structured activities: 3/9 correct (39%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 5/10 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  Verbal aggression: freq 1

Session 3 — 2026-04-16 — 60 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 11/13 correct (85%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 11/15 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×5, I×9
  takes turns during structured activities: 8/9 correct (85%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 12/15 correct (82%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×14
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 4 — 2026-04-18 — 60 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/15 correct (42%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×2, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 3/10 correct (33%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/14 correct (38%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 5/12 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 5 — 2026-04-20 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 92% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 83% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  takes turns during structured activities: 91% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  copies simple words from model: 78% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  Verbal aggression: freq 0; IOA 89% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-04-22 — 60 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/13 correct (35%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 4/11 correct (33%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/13 correct (36%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 3/8 correct (43%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  Verbal aggression: freq 1

Session 7 — 2026-04-24 — 60 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 12/14 correct (85%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×8
  takes turns during structured activities: 11/13 correct (86%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 6/8 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 8 — 2026-04-26 — 60 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/10 correct (43%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/11 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 6/12 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 9 — 2026-04-28 — 60 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/10 correct (87%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 11/14 correct (82%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  copies simple words from model: 7/8 correct (86%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 10 — 2026-04-30 — 60 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/8 correct (44%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/11 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/13 correct (44%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  copies simple words from model: 6/14 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  Verbal aggression: freq 1

Session 11 — 2026-05-02 — 60 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 11/13 correct (88%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 11/14 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 13/15 correct (90%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×5, I×8
  copies simple words from model: 10/13 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  Verbal aggression: freq 1

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Leaving seat without permission
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Generalization failure**: strong performance in training context but failure to generalize to novel conditions.
- Skill may be under restricted stimulus control.

## Pattern Classification
generalization_failure

Alternation between strong training performance and poor novel-condition performance indicates restricted stimulus control.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Verbal aggression: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Implement structured generalization training: vary therapists, settings, and materials systematically.
- Use multiple-exemplar training — teach with 3–5 different stimulus sets.
- Program common stimuli across training and generalization settings.

### Consequence strategies
- Consider natural-environment training (NET) to supplement DTT for this skill.

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
high

Pattern is well-supported: 11 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 66.2%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 87%, last session: 88%).
- Verbal aggression: mean 0.5/session (early-window mean 0.7 -> late-window mean 0.7).
- IOA data: 89% 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]
Generate a teaching program for the following target.

Skill Target: spontaneously greets familiar people
Curriculum Reference: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Near mastery
Teaching Method: NET (Natural Environment Teaching)

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: spontaneously greets familiar people
- Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

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
Use the natural beginning/ending of an established routine (morning arrival, mealtime, departure) as the moment for the target response.
Primary natural context: departure.

## Natural Opportunity
Embed the teaching opportunity within the learner's departure 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 near mastery stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: adult returns the greeting warmly.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

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

## Mastery Criteria
Independent use of target response across 3 natural opportunities per day for 3 consecutive days.

## 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.


[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: identifies basic shapes in math context
Curriculum: Math L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Approaching mastery

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: identifies basic shapes in math context
- Curriculum: Math L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching 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 number is this?"
Variations: "Which number?"; "Tell me the number"
Presentation: Present the numeral card.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Time Delay (progressive)
Sequence: 0s delay -> 2s delay -> 4s delay -> 6s delay -> independent
Current prompt level: At the approaching mastery stage, deliver gestural or positional prompts; fade toward independence.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: heart, star, circle
Distractor stimuli: diamond, triangle
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

## Error Correction Procedure
"No, watch me" -> model -> re-present SD -> differential reinforcement for correct response.

## Reinforcement Schedule
CRF (continuous reinforcement) — Every 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 3 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
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-4405
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Mand + Reading + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-05-06 to 2026-05-22)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
2. requesting preferred items using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. indicating 'all done' with a step or activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-06 — 48 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/11 correct (39%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 5/14 correct (36%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×10
  brushing teeth independently: 6/12 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 3/9 correct (38%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×3

Session 2 — 2026-05-08 — 48 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 4/8 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 3/8 correct (33%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 6/15 correct (39%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×9

Session 3 — 2026-05-10 — 48 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 4/9 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 5/9 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 4/10 correct (45%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×6

Session 4 — 2026-05-12 — 48 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 6/14 correct (44%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3

Session 5 — 2026-05-14 — 48 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 10/14 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 8/12 correct (64%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  sounds out CVC words: 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5

Session 6 — 2026-05-16 — 48 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×5, I×1
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 7/11 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 7/12 correct (56%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×8

Session 7 — 2026-05-18 — 48 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 11/14 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×11
  sounds out CVC words: 7/10 correct (71%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×4

Session 8 — 2026-05-20 — 48 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 11/14 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 11/12 correct (88%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×11

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Eye contact maintained throughout trials
- Appropriate sitting posture maintained
- Requesting more trials verbally

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 39% to 78% across 8 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.

## 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
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## 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: 61.2%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 39%, last session: 78%).
- 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]
Design a Natural Environment Teaching program for the following.

Skill: engages in social games (peek-a-boo, tickle)
Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Generalization phase

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

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

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: circle time.

## Natural Opportunity
Embed the teaching opportunity within the learner's circle time 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 generalization 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 3 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 2 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 4 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 DTT program for this skill.

Target: solves simple word problems
Curriculum: Math L3
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Generalization phase

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: solves simple word problems
- Curriculum: Math L3
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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: "How many?"
Variations: "Count these"; "What number is this?"
Presentation: Present the numeral card or a set of objects to count.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Graduated Guidance
Sequence: hand over hand full -> hand over hand light -> shadow -> independent
Current prompt level: At the generalization stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 6 (target + 5 distractors, mixed categories)
Target stimuli: bottle, ball, apple
Distractor stimuli: book, towel, spoon, glue, hat
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
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
Fluency criterion: correct responses within 3-second latency at 90% accuracy.

## 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 3 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
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-2052
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-09-24 to 2026-10-12)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. single-word requests for preferred items (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. requesting preferred items using a full sentence (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. counts objects 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
4. identifies numerals 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Motor stereotypy — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-09-24 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 4/9 correct (43%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 4/9 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  counts objects 1–20: 6/15 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/15 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  Motor stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 13%

Session 2 — 2026-09-26 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/14 correct (44%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 7/14 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  counts objects 1–20: 7/14 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/10 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  Motor stereotypy: freq 0; PIR 7%

Session 3 — 2026-09-28 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/11 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 4/8 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  counts objects 1–20: 8/14 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×10
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/14 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  Motor stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 5%

Session 4 — 2026-09-30 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×2
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 5/8 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  counts objects 1–20: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/13 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  Motor stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 5%

Session 5 — 2026-10-02 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 7/9 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  counts objects 1–20: 8/11 correct (76%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  Motor stereotypy: freq 0; PIR 10%

Session 6 — 2026-10-04 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 9/11 correct (78%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 10/12 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  counts objects 1–20: 12/15 correct (79%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×5, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/8 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 12%

Session 7 — 2026-10-06 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 12/15 correct (80%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 7/8 correct (90%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  counts objects 1–20: 8/9 correct (87%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  identifies numerals 1–20: 13/15 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×11
  Motor stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 11%

Session 8 — 2026-10-08 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 9/10 correct (92%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 14/15 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×10
  counts objects 1–20: 14/15 correct (95%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×2, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/9 correct (93%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  Motor stereotypy: freq 0; PIR 3%

Session 9 — 2026-10-10 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 8/8 correct (95%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 11/12 correct (95%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  counts objects 1–20: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/8 correct (95%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  Motor stereotypy: freq 0; PIR 2%

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Appropriate sitting posture maintained
- Smiling during reinforcement delivery
- Eye contact maintained throughout trials
- Reaching for materials proactively

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- Steady improvement: accuracy rose from 43% to 95% across 9 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
Motor stereotypy: 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
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 9 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 68.7%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 43%, last session: 95%).
- Motor stereotypy: mean 0.7/session (early-window mean 0.7 -> late-window mean 0.3).
- 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]
Generate a teaching program for the following target.

Skill Target: selects correct item from an array of 2
Curriculum Reference: Listener Responding L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Mastered at current level
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects correct item from an array of 2
- Curriculum: Listener Responding L1
- 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: "Touch [target item]"
Variations: "Point to [target item]"; "Give me [target item]"; "Show me [target item]"
Presentation: Present an array of items on the table and deliver a clear verbal SD.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Least-to-Most
Sequence: independent -> gestural -> positional -> partial physical -> full physical
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 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: crayon, hat, napkin
Distractor stimuli: block, key
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
90% first-trial-correct across 5 consecutive sessions.

## 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]
Generate a teaching program for the following target.

Skill Target: answers hypothetical questions
Curriculum Reference: Intraverbal L3
Learner Profile: Adolescent Learner
Current Mastery: Generalization phase
Teaching Method: NET (Natural Environment Teaching)

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: answers hypothetical questions
- Curriculum: Intraverbal L3
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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: 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 generalization 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 4 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 2 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 2 different adults during the teaching phase.

## Mastery Criteria
Independent use across 3 different adults and 2 different settings within 2 weeks.

## 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.


[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-5878
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-06-03 to 2026-06-23)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. doing laundry (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
3. simple meal preparation (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Elopement — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-03 — 50 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/9 correct (81%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  simple meal preparation: 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  Elopement: freq 1

Session 2 — 2026-06-05 — 50 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 12/15 correct (80%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×5, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/9 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  Elopement: freq 3

Session 3 — 2026-06-07 — 50 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 7/10 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/11 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  simple meal preparation: 8/13 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×3, I×2
  Elopement: freq 2

Session 4 — 2026-06-09 — 50 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 7/11 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/10 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  simple meal preparation: 6/10 correct (63%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Elopement: freq 3

Session 5 — 2026-06-11 — 50 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/8 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  simple meal preparation: 5/10 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  Elopement: freq 4

Session 6 — 2026-06-13 — 50 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 9/15 correct (59%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×10
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/14 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  simple meal preparation: 4/8 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  Elopement: freq 5

Session 7 — 2026-06-15 — 50 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/10 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  simple meal preparation: 3/8 correct (38%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  Elopement: freq 4

Session 8 — 2026-06-17 — 50 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 3/8 correct (41%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  simple meal preparation: 3/12 correct (27%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  Elopement: freq 6

Session 9 — 2026-06-19 — 50 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 4/9 correct (42%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/11 correct (38%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  simple meal preparation: 2/9 correct (19%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  Elopement: freq 6

Session 10 — 2026-06-21 — 50 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 5/13 correct (41%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/12 correct (34%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  simple meal preparation: 2/15 correct (10%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×14
  Elopement: freq 8

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Turning away from task or staff
- Crying during demand presentation
- Vocal refusal ('no', 'I don't want to')

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (78% -> 41%) 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
Elopement: escape
  Evidence: 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
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: 10 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 60.3%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 78%, last session: 41%).
- Elopement: mean 4.2/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 6.7).
- 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]
Design a chaining program for the following.

Skill: unloading the dishwasher
Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
Learner Level: Adolescent Learner
Baseline: Near mastery

Include the full Task Analysis structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: unloading the dishwasher
- Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
- Learner: Adolescent 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. Open the dishwasher once the cycle is complete.  <- Learner-taught step (forward chaining starts here)
2. Unload the top rack first (cups, glasses, small items).
3. Put cups and glasses away in the correct cabinet.
4. Unload the utensil basket.
5. Put utensils away in the drawer.
6. Unload the bottom rack (plates, bowls, larger items).
7. Put plates and bowls away in the correct cabinet.
8. Close the dishwasher door.

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

## 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
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 4 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 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: mands for information using "what"
Curriculum: Mand L2
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Generalization phase

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: mands for information using "what"
- Curriculum: Mand L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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
Create a small environmental change (new item, familiar item in new location, surprise event) that invites a verbal comment or question.
Primary natural context: morning greeting.

## Natural Opportunity
Embed the teaching opportunity within the learner's morning greeting 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 generalization stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: adult answers the question informatively.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 4 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 3 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 2 different adults during the teaching phase.

## Mastery Criteria
Average rate of ≥ 3 spontaneous responses per 30-minute session across 3 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 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: spontaneously initiates conversation with peers
Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L2
Learner Level: School-Age Learner
Baseline: Generalization phase

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: spontaneously initiates conversation with peers
- Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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
Create a small environmental change (new item, familiar item in new location, surprise event) that invites a verbal comment or question.
Primary natural context: room transition.

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Verbal fill-in
Deliver a partial phrase and pause; learner completes the vocal response.
Current prompt level: At the generalization stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: adult attends to the comment with matching affect.
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 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.

spontaneously initiates conversation with peers