[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-4370
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Independent Living + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-04-11 to 2026-05-05)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. completing assigned tasks in order (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. managing a budget (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. scheduling medical appointments (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Property destruction — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-11 — 56 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×2
  managing a budget: 8/11 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  scheduling medical appointments: 12/14 correct (86%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  Property destruction: freq 1
  ABC (property destruction): A = adult attention diverted to another learner; B = vocalized loudly + approached staff; C = staff turned to address behavior

Session 2 — 2026-04-13 — 56 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×3
  managing a budget: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  scheduling medical appointments: 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-04-15 — 56 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/13 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  managing a budget: 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×12
  scheduling medical appointments: 12/15 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 4 — 2026-04-17 — 56 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/15 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×4, I×3
  managing a budget: 8/14 correct (58%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  scheduling medical appointments: 7/11 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  Property destruction: freq 2
  ABC (property destruction): A = adult attention diverted to another learner; B = vocalized loudly + approached staff; C = staff turned to address behavior

Session 5 — 2026-04-19 — 56 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  managing a budget: 3/8 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  scheduling medical appointments: 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 6 — 2026-04-21 — 56 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 5/10 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  managing a budget: 4/10 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  scheduling medical appointments: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-04-23 — 56 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/14 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  managing a budget: 4/13 correct (31%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  scheduling medical appointments: 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  Property destruction: freq 3
  ABC (property destruction): A = staff engaged in paperwork nearby; B = yelled name + tapped staff; C = staff attended and redirected

Session 8 — 2026-04-25 — 56 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 4/9 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  managing a budget: 4/14 correct (26%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  scheduling medical appointments: 7/13 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 9 — 2026-04-27 — 56 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 4/11 correct (37%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  managing a budget: 2/9 correct (22%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  scheduling medical appointments: 6/13 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 10 — 2026-04-29 — 56 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 3/12 correct (27%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  managing a budget: 1/8 correct (17%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  scheduling medical appointments: 5/13 correct (38%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 11 — 2026-05-01 — 56 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 2/8 correct (22%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  managing a budget: 1/11 correct (10%); latency 5.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  scheduling medical appointments: 4/10 correct (40%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  Property destruction: freq 5

Session 12 — 2026-05-03 — 56 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 2/10 correct (18%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  managing a budget: 1/11 correct (10%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  scheduling medical appointments: 4/12 correct (37%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  Property destruction: freq 4

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Self-stimulatory behavior increase during demand periods
- Elopement from the work area
- Crying during demand presentation

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Regression identified**: accuracy has declined from 75% to 18% across 12 sessions.
- Accompanying behavior data suggests the decline may be function-related.

## Pattern Classification
regression

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
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: 47.3%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 75%, last session: 18%).
- Property destruction: mean 2.8/session (early-window mean 1.5 -> late-window mean 3.8).
- 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 Discrete Trial Training program for the following.

Skill: identifies coins by name
Curriculum: Math L2
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Approaching mastery

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: identifies coins by name
- Curriculum: Math L2
- 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: Stimulus Fading
Sequence: exaggerated stimulus -> moderate fade -> minimal fade -> natural stimulus
Current prompt level: At the approaching mastery stage, deliver gestural or positional prompts; fade toward independence.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: book, phone, cup
Distractor stimuli: brush, sock, plate, car
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
Demonstrated use in natural environment across 3 independent instances.

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

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


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

[User]
Generate a teaching program for the following target.

Skill Target: negotiates and compromises during group activities
Curriculum Reference: Social Behavior & Social Play L3
Learner Profile: School-Age Learner
Current Mastery: Approaching mastery
Teaching Method: NET (Natural Environment Teaching)

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: negotiates and compromises during group activities
- Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L3
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching 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
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: 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 approaching mastery stage, use time delay (0 s -> 2 s -> 4 s) before delivering any model prompt; reinforce independent responses differentially.

## 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 3 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 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.

negotiates and compromises during group activities


[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-3264
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Independent Living + Mand + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-07-06 to 2026-07-24)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. self-advocacy statements (Independent Living)
   Method: BST
3. requesting a break during extended tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Vocal stereotypy — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-06 — 40 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 6/14 correct (46%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×9
  self-advocacy statements: 5/10 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 0; PIR 2%

Session 2 — 2026-07-08 — 40 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 4/9 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×1
  self-advocacy statements: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/9 correct (72%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 19%

Session 3 — 2026-07-10 — 40 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 6/9 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×13
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/12 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 21%

Session 4 — 2026-07-12 — 40 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 5/14 correct (34%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  self-advocacy statements: 9/15 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×10
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 9/15 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 9%

Session 5 — 2026-07-14 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  washing hands independently: 58% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  self-advocacy statements: 40% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 51% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 20%; IOA 91% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-07-16 — 40 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 4/8 correct (47%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 17%

Session 7 — 2026-07-18 — 40 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 9/13 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 6/10 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 9/11 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 28%

Session 8 — 2026-07-20 — 40 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×12
  self-advocacy statements: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/8 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 3%

Session 9 — 2026-07-22 — 40 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 6/15 correct (43%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 7/11 correct (65%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/12 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 9%

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals
- Leaving seat without permission
- Playing with non-task materials
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)

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
- **Variable performance**: accuracy fluctuating around 45% 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.

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

## 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: 9 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 54.2%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 46%, last session: 43%).
- Vocal stereotypy: mean 2.3/session (early-window mean 2.3 -> late-window mean 2.3).
- IOA data: 91% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

[User]
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-4052
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Self-Care + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–7 across 14 days (2026-02-06 to 2026-02-20)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. clocking in at start of shift (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-02-06 — 35 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 3/8 correct (33%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  washing hands independently: 3/12 correct (27%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  dressing (pants, shirt): 3/13 correct (25%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×7

Session 2 — 2026-02-08 — 35 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/9 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  washing hands independently: 4/11 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/11 correct (33%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×5

Session 3 — 2026-02-10 — 35 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/9 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  washing hands independently: 7/15 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×6
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/9 correct (40%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×6

Session 4 — 2026-02-12 — 35 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 5/10 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  washing hands independently: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×7

Session 5 — 2026-02-14 — 35 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 7/12 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×4
  washing hands independently: 7/11 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×5

Session 6 — 2026-02-16 — 35 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 10/15 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×11
  washing hands independently: 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 10/15 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×14

Session 7 — 2026-02-18 — 35 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 9/12 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  washing hands independently: 7/8 correct (88%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 10/14 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×12

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Reaching for materials proactively
- Eye contact maintained throughout trials
- Quick response latency (within 2–3 seconds)

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Rapid acquisition**: accelerated mastery from 33% to 78% across 7 sessions.
- Acquisition has exceeded expected timeline.

## Pattern Classification
rapid_acquisition

Accuracy ascended steeply beyond expected timeline for this learner's profile.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Advance to next skill in the sequence immediately.
- Begin generalization probes across people, settings, and materials.

### Consequence strategies
- Move to maintenance schedule (probe monthly) and redirect session time to acquisition targets.

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## 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: 55.3%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 33%, 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
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-4608
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Mand + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–7 across 14 days (2026-04-07 to 2026-04-21)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. requesting help when a task is difficult (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Non-compliance — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-07 — 45 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/8 correct (46%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 6/12 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 6/15 correct (38%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×3, I×3
  Non-compliance: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-04-09 — 45 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/11 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 5/10 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  Non-compliance: freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-04-11 — 45 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/11 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 6/11 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  Non-compliance: freq 2

Session 4 — 2026-04-13 — 45 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/11 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 10/13 correct (76%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 10/14 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  Non-compliance: freq 2

Session 5 — 2026-04-15 — 45 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 9/11 correct (78%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 9/11 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 9/12 correct (76%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  Non-compliance: freq 2

Session 6 — 2026-04-17 — 45 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/9 correct (82%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×1
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 8/9 correct (84%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 11/14 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  Non-compliance: freq 1

Session 7 — 2026-04-19 — 45 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 11/13 correct (82%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 11/13 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 10/13 correct (76%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  Non-compliance: freq 3

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)
- Playing with non-task materials

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Skill loss following break**: performance dropped to 46% at return, recovering to 82%.
- 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
Non-compliance: 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
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: 67.8%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 46%, last session: 82%).
- Non-compliance: mean 2.0/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 2.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Skill: responds to own name
Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Approaching mastery

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: responds to own name
- Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching 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
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: peer play.

## Natural Opportunity
Embed the teaching opportunity within the learner's peer play 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 approaching mastery stage, use time delay (0 s -> 2 s -> 4 s) before delivering any model prompt; reinforce independent responses differentially.

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

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 5 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 2 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 3 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 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]
I need a Task Analysis program for this multi-step skill.

Target: using public transportation
Curriculum: AFLS Community Participation Skills
Learner: Adult Learner
Mastery Status: Emerging

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Full chain completed within 60s 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 5 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
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-1299
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Mand + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-10-17 to 2026-11-08)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
2. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
3. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-17 — 44 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/12 correct (88%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×2
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 2 — 2026-10-19 — 44 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/11 correct (90%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/9 correct (82%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 11/14 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 3 — 2026-10-21 — 44 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/9 correct (91%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×5, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 4 — 2026-10-23 — 44 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/9 correct (92%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 11/14 correct (80%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/12 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 5 — 2026-10-25 — 44 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/12 correct (95%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×3, I×1
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 11/13 correct (82%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×14
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 6 — 2026-10-27 — 44 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/12 correct (92%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 10/12 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×4
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 5 in-toilet / 0 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 7 — 2026-10-29 — 44 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/8 correct (97%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 10/12 correct (86%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/9 correct (74%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 8 — 2026-10-31 — 44 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/9 correct (95%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 10/12 correct (82%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 9 — 2026-11-02 — 44 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 12/13 correct (94%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 12/14 correct (86%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×10
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 10 — 2026-11-04 — 44 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/8 correct (98%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 13/15 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×5, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/9 correct (63%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 11 — 2026-11-06 — 44 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 15/15 correct (98%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×2, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/10 correct (83%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 5 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Prompt dependency**: high accuracy maintained (88%–98%) but primarily at prompted levels.
- Independent responding remains low despite extended training.

## Pattern Classification
prompt_dependency

Accuracy stays high only at prompted levels; independent responding remains low despite extended training.

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

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Switch to a time-delay procedure (0s -> 2s -> 4s -> 6s) to encourage independent responding.
- Avoid inadvertent prompt delivery (therapist gaze, body positioning) that may function as a prompt.

### Consequence strategies
- Ensure differential reinforcement — independent responses receive higher-quality reinforcement than prompted responses.
- Consider stimulus fading instead of response prompting for this skill.

## 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: 93.7%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 88%, last session: 98%).
- Toileting accident (urine or bowel): mean 1.6/session (early-window mean 1.7 -> 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 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: mands for information using "when"
Curriculum Reference: Mand L3
Learner Profile: Adolescent Learner
Current Mastery: Approaching mastery
Teaching Method: NET (Natural Environment Teaching)

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: mands for information using "when"
- Curriculum: Mand L3
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching 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
Briefly withhold or restrict access to the target preferred item/activity for 30–60 seconds to establish motivation before the teaching opportunity.
Primary natural context: leisure time.

## Natural Opportunity
Embed the teaching opportunity within the learner's leisure 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 approaching mastery stage, use time delay (0 s -> 2 s -> 4 s) before delivering any model prompt; reinforce independent responses differentially.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: immediate access to the requested item for 30–60 seconds.
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
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 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]
Generate a teaching program for the following target.

Skill Target: selects items by class (find an animal)
Curriculum Reference: Listener Responding L2
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 items by class (find an animal)
- Curriculum: Listener Responding L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "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 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: dog, chicken, duck
Distractor stimuli: bear, lion, rabbit, monkey
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

## Error Correction Procedure
Model correct response -> lead (do together) -> test (independent) -> distractor -> retest.

## 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% accuracy across 3 consecutive sessions.

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

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


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You 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: identifies basic shapes in math context
Curriculum Reference: Math L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Emerging
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: identifies basic shapes in math context
- Curriculum: Math L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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 emerging stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

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

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

## Reinforcement Schedule
CRF (continuous reinforcement) — Every correct response reinforced. 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 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: reproduces block designs from model
Curriculum Reference: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L3
Learner Profile: Adolescent Learner
Current Mastery: Developing
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: reproduces block designs from model
- Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L3
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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

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

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Fading
Sequence: exaggerated stimulus -> moderate fade -> minimal fade -> natural stimulus
Current prompt level: At the developing stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 6 (target + 5 distractors, mixed categories)
Target stimuli: block, spoon, apple
Distractor stimuli: towel, backpack, glue, jacket, car
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
CRF (continuous reinforcement) — Every correct response reinforced. Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

## Mastery Criteria
80% accuracy across 2 consecutive sessions with at least 10 trials each.

## 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 3 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


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

[User]
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-5232
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Social Behavior
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-06-25 to 2026-07-15)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. counts objects 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
2. indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. takes turns during structured activities (Social Behavior)
   Method: PRT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-25 — 40 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 5/14 correct (37%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×10
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/15 correct (36%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/13 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×9

Session 2 — 2026-06-27 — 40 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 5/12 correct (44%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 3/8 correct (41%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 4/8 correct (56%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6

Session 3 — 2026-06-29 — 40 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 6/12 correct (50%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/12 correct (47%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/8 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2

Session 4 — 2026-07-01 — 40 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/11 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 7/10 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×5

Session 5 — 2026-07-03 — 40 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 7/10 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4

Session 6 — 2026-07-05 — 40 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5

Session 7 — 2026-07-07 — 40 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 9/11 correct (77%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 11/14 correct (76%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×9
  takes turns during structured activities: 7/10 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×2

Session 8 — 2026-07-09 — 40 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 10/13 correct (77%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/11 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  takes turns during structured activities: 8/11 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8

Session 9 — 2026-07-11 — 40 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 11/14 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  takes turns during structured activities: 11/15 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×7

Session 10 — 2026-07-13 — 40 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 10/13 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/11 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×4

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)
- Looking away during SD presentation
- Playing with non-task materials

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Skill loss following break**: performance dropped to 37% at return, recovering to 77%.
- 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.

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 64.3%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 37%, last session: 77%).
- 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 Discrete Trial Training program for the following.

Skill: sequences 3–4 step picture sequences
Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L3
Learner Level: Adolescent Learner
Baseline: Mastered at current level

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: sequences 3–4 step picture sequences
- Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L3
- Learner: Adolescent 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: "Match"
Variations: "Find the same"; "Put with same"
Presentation: Present the sample stimulus and an array of comparison stimuli simultaneously.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Shaping
Sequence: modified stimulus -> intermediate shape -> target stimulus
Current prompt level: At the mastered 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: shoe, cup, ball
Distractor stimuli: car, apple, glue, pencil, backpack
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

## Reinforcement Schedule
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
Demonstrated use in natural environment across 3 independent instances.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Full chain completed within 120s 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]
Design a chaining program for the following.

Skill: putting on a shirt (pullover)
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner Level: Adolescent Learner
Baseline: Generalization phase

Include the full Task Analysis structure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Full chain completed within 120s 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 2 different adults. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


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

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

Target: identifies all upper-case letters
Curriculum: Reading L2
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Developing

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: identifies all upper-case letters
- Curriculum: Reading L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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 letter is this?"
Variations: "Read this letter"; "What does this say?"
Presentation: Present the letter flashcard.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Graduated Guidance
Sequence: hand over hand full -> hand over hand light -> shadow -> independent
Current prompt level: At the developing stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: X, I, S
Distractor stimuli: K, T, U, A
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

## Reinforcement Schedule
CRF (continuous reinforcement) — Every correct response reinforced. Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

## Mastery Criteria
80% accuracy at independent prompt level across 3 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 3 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


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

[User]
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-3715
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Reading + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-07-16 to 2026-08-01)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
3. requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please") (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Tantrum — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-16 — 59 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 12/14 correct (87%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 9/12 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 4m total

Session 2 — 2026-07-18 — 59 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×5, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/11 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 7/10 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  Tantrum: freq 4, duration 12m total

Session 3 — 2026-07-20 — 59 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/11 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 7/12 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 5, duration 25m total

Session 4 — 2026-07-22 — 59 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/13 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 5/11 correct (47%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  Tantrum: freq 5, duration 15m total

Session 5 — 2026-07-24 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  reads 10–20 sight words: 61% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 61% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 47% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  Tantrum: freq 4, duration 8m total; IOA 96% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-07-26 — 59 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 3/9 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  Tantrum: freq 6, duration 30m total

Session 7 — 2026-07-28 — 59 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/11 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/12 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 3/12 correct (26%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 7, duration 14m total

Session 8 — 2026-07-30 — 59 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/12 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/9 correct (41%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 2/12 correct (17%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 8, duration 24m total

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Self-injurious behavior onset during task difficulty (self-biting, hair-pulling, head-hitting)
- Elopement from the work area

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (87% -> 49%) 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
Tantrum: 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
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: 8 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 68.1%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 87%, last session: 49%).
- Tantrum: mean 5.1/session (early-window mean 3.0 -> late-window mean 7.5).
- IOA data: 96% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

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

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: engages in social games (peek-a-boo, tickle)
- Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: 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
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: 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 near mastery 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 4 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 3 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 3 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.

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]
Design a Discrete Trial Training program for the following.

Skill: copies basic shapes from model
Curriculum: Writing L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Emerging

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: copies basic shapes from model
- Curriculum: Writing L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

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

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Graduated Guidance
Sequence: hand over hand full -> hand over hand light -> shadow -> independent
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

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

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

## Reinforcement Schedule
CRF (continuous reinforcement) — Every correct response reinforced. Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

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

## Data Collection
Trial-by-trial data recording prompt level and response accuracy. IOA scheduled every 5 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: selects items by function (What do you drink from?)
Curriculum Reference: LRFFC L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Approaching mastery
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects items by function (What do you drink from?)
- Curriculum: LRFFC 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: "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: Stimulus Shaping
Sequence: modified stimulus -> intermediate shape -> target stimulus
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: toothbrush, crayon, napkin
Distractor stimuli: hat, bottle
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

## Reinforcement Schedule
CRF (continuous reinforcement) — Every correct response reinforced. Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

## Mastery Criteria
80% accuracy across 2 consecutive sessions with at least 10 trials each.

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

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

selects items by function (What do you drink from?)


[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-7307
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Reading + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–7 across 14 days (2026-07-25 to 2026-08-08)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
4. single-word requests for preferred items (Mand)
   Method: NET

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-25 — 60 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 6/14 correct (43%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×13
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×10
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/13 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/15 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×2, I×6

Session 2 — 2026-07-27 — 60 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 8/15 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×12
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/8 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×3

Session 3 — 2026-07-29 — 60 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/13 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×3
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/9 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/10 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×6

Session 4 — 2026-07-31 — 60 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 8/12 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×3
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 11/15 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×5, I×3
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6

Session 5 — 2026-08-02 — 60 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 6/8 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×3, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/9 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4

Session 6 — 2026-08-04 — 60 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 10/12 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 12/15 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×10
  single-word requests for preferred items: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×9

Session 7 — 2026-08-06 — 60 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 6/8 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 12/14 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/12 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 8/10 correct (79%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×7

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Leaving seat without permission
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals
- Looking away during SD presentation
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Skill loss following break**: performance dropped to 43% at return, recovering to 78%.
- 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.

## 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: 63.7%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 43%, last session: 78%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.