[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-5338
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Social Behavior + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-08-05 to 2026-08-23)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
2. identifies numerals 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
3. takes turns during structured activities (Social Behavior)
   Method: PRT
4. requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-05 — 54 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/8 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  takes turns during structured activities: 7/14 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 7/12 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  Aggression: freq 2
  Non-compliance: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-08-07 — 54 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  identifies numerals 1–20: 10/14 correct (69%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 7/12 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  Aggression: freq 1
  Non-compliance: freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-08-09 — 54 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  identifies numerals 1–20: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×3, I×2
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/11 correct (51%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 6/10 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/9 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  Aggression: freq 4
  Non-compliance: freq 9

Session 4 — 2026-08-11 — 54 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 6/10 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/10 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 9/14 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×12
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/10 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  Aggression: freq 4
  Non-compliance: freq 9

Session 5 — 2026-08-13 — 54 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/13 correct (72%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 7/11 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/10 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  Aggression: freq 1
  Non-compliance: freq 4

Session 6 — 2026-08-15 — 54 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 10/15 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×5, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/12 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  takes turns during structured activities: 8/14 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×12
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 8/12 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/13 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  Aggression: freq 2
  Non-compliance: freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-08-17 — 54 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/11 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  identifies numerals 1–20: 11/15 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 7/13 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 10/14 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/12 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×3
  Aggression: freq 1
  Non-compliance: freq 2

Session 8 — 2026-08-19 — 54 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/9 correct (71%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×2
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/14 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×12
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/10 correct (68%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  Aggression: freq 2
  Non-compliance: freq 3

Session 9 — 2026-08-21 — 54 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/10 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  takes turns during structured activities: 7/12 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 6/8 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/8 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  Aggression: freq 1
  Non-compliance: freq 3

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Aggression attempt directed at staff (hit, kick, or scratch toward adult)
- Peer aggression (hitting or pushing peers during group activities)

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

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

## Pattern Classification
extinction_burst

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Aggression: tangible
  Evidence: behavior occurs when preferred items are restricted and is followed by access to the item.
Non-compliance: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

### Crisis plan
- If problem-behavior intensity or topography exceeds the learner's baseline safety threshold (SIB causing tissue damage, aggression causing injury, imminent elopement into hazard): pause the extinction procedure and implement the facility's tiered crisis-prevention protocol (e.g., Safety-Care, CPI, or equivalent).
- De-escalation and environmental safety first; physical intervention is last resort and only by staff currently certified in the facility's framework. Least-restrictive option appropriate to the risk level applies at every step. Physical intervention is used only when specifically authorized for this learner in the BIP — contraindications (medical, developmental, trauma history) may restrict the procedures available, in which case the plan is de-escalation + environmental safety + supervisor contact only.
- Contact the supervising BCBA immediately; do not resume the extinction procedure without BCBA review. Document duration, intensity, antecedent, staff response, and post-incident state.

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 63.0%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 58%, last session: 69%).
- Aggression: mean 2.0/session (early-window mean 2.3 -> late-window mean 1.3).
- Non-compliance: mean 4.1/session (early-window mean 4.3 -> late-window mean 2.7).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Skill: responds to own name
Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Mastered at current level

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: Mastered at current level

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

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

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Expectant look (pause)
Deliver no prompt — maintain eye contact and hold the preferred item until the learner responds.
Current prompt level: At the mastered stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

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

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

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

## Data Collection
Opportunity-based data recording: each naturally-occasioned trial is scored for independence and topography. IOA scheduled every 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


[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: selects items by function (What do you drink from?)
Curriculum: LRFFC L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Near mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects items by function (What do you drink from?)
- Curriculum: LRFFC L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

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

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: ball, napkin, brush
Distractor stimuli: glue, phone
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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

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


[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: spontaneously tells stories or narratives
Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L3
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Emerging

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: spontaneously tells stories or narratives
- Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L3
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

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

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Verbal fill-in
Deliver a partial phrase and pause; learner completes the vocal response.
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, begin with a model prompt delivered during the motivated moment; fade to expectant look across sessions.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: adult attends to the comment with matching affect.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

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

## Mastery Criteria
Average rate of ≥ 3 spontaneous responses per 30-minute session across 3 consecutive sessions.

## Data Collection
Opportunity-based data recording: each naturally-occasioned trial is scored for independence and topography. IOA scheduled every 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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

spontaneously tells stories or narratives


[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-4656
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Reading + Self-Care + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-06-10 to 2026-06-30)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
3. identifying community safety signs (Community)
   Method: DTT
4. tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-10 — 32 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 8/10 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  identifying community safety signs: 11/14 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 9/13 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-06-12 — 32 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 9/11 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  identifying community safety signs: 9/11 correct (79%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 3 — 2026-06-14 — 32 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 9/11 correct (80%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  identifying community safety signs: 10/12 correct (84%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×2
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 7/11 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 4 — 2026-06-16 — 32 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 6/13 correct (47%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  copies simple words from model: 5/11 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  identifying community safety signs: 5/10 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 5/14 correct (39%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 5 — 2026-06-18 — 32 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 5/11 correct (49%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 6/13 correct (44%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  identifying community safety signs: 5/13 correct (42%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 5/12 correct (38%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 6 — 2026-06-20 — 32 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 6/11 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  copies simple words from model: 6/14 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×12
  identifying community safety signs: 3/8 correct (42%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 4/9 correct (39%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-06-22 — 32 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 7/13 correct (55%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  copies simple words from model: 7/15 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×10
  identifying community safety signs: 4/8 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 4/9 correct (44%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 8 — 2026-06-24 — 32 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 9/15 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  identifying community safety signs: 6/13 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2
  ABC (self-injurious behavior (sib)): A = quiet unstructured moment between trials; B = engaged in hand-flapping; C = no social consequence; self-terminated after 30s

Session 9 — 2026-06-26 — 32 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  copies simple words from model: 5/8 correct (56%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  identifying community safety signs: 7/13 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 5/8 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2
  ABC (self-injurious behavior (sib)): A = waiting in line transition; B = mouthed own hand; C = staff redirected to task materials

Session 10 — 2026-06-28 — 32 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 9/11 correct (77%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  copies simple words from model: 7/11 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  identifying community safety signs: 5/9 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 8/11 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2
  ABC (self-injurious behavior (sib)): A = waiting in line transition; B = mouthed own hand; C = staff redirected to task materials

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Leaving seat without permission
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)

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

## Pattern Classification
motivating_operation_shift

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Self-injurious behavior (SIB): automatic
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the automatic function; behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 10 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 64.3%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 80%, last session: 77%).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 2.3/session (early-window mean 2.3 -> 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 Discrete Trial Training program for the following.

Skill: tacts common animals
Curriculum: Tact L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Generalization phase

Include the full DTT trial structure.

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

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

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

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: bear, cow, frog
Distractor stimuli: duck, dog
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
Token economy — Tokens delivered per correct response; exchanged at session end for a back-up reinforcer appropriate to the learner (for children: candy, cookies, brief leisure-time access, preferred activity, screen time, or a favorite sensory item). Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

## Mastery Criteria
90% accuracy across 3 consecutive sessions.

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

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


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-5464
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-06-24 to 2026-07-14)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. single-word requests for preferred items (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. counts objects 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
4. requesting preferred items using a full sentence (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. identifies numerals 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
6. requesting a break during non-preferred tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-24 — 54 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/10 correct (39%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 3/10 correct (33%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  counts objects 1–20: 3/8 correct (31%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 5/11 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 3/9 correct (30%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 4/11 correct (41%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 2 — 2026-06-26 — 54 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/12 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 3/9 correct (36%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  counts objects 1–20: 6/15 correct (42%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×2, I×3
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 4/9 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 6/13 correct (47%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 3 — 2026-06-28 — 54 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/12 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 4/11 correct (38%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  counts objects 1–20: 5/12 correct (42%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 5/8 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/13 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 5/11 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 5 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 4 — 2026-06-30 — 54 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/11 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  counts objects 1–20: 5/11 correct (50%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/11 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/11 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 8/14 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×8
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 5 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 5 — 2026-07-02 — 54 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/11 correct (58%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/13 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  counts objects 1–20: 6/13 correct (50%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×5
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 10/14 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 6 — 2026-07-04 — 54 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/9 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 9/15 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×5, I×6
  counts objects 1–20: 5/9 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 10/13 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/14 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 8/13 correct (62%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 7 — 2026-07-06 — 54 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×4
  single-word requests for preferred items: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×1, I×7
  counts objects 1–20: 8/13 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/10 correct (85%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/9 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 8/11 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 8 — 2026-07-08 — 54 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 10/13 correct (80%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  single-word requests for preferred items: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  counts objects 1–20: 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 9/10 correct (92%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 11/14 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×8
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 9 — 2026-07-10 — 54 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 13/14 correct (93%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  counts objects 1–20: 7/10 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 10/11 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/8 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 11/13 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 10 — 2026-07-12 — 54 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 10/10 correct (95%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  single-word requests for preferred items: 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  counts objects 1–20: 7/9 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 11/12 correct (95%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/9 correct (87%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 11/13 correct (86%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

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

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- Steady improvement: accuracy rose from 39% to 95% across 10 sessions.
- No clinical concerns at this time; mastery criteria should be reachable within a few additional sessions.

## Pattern Classification
mastery_progression

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Toileting accident (urine or bowel): automatic
  Evidence: behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 10 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 65.8%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 39%, last session: 95%).
- Toileting accident (urine or bowel): mean 1.5/session (early-window mean 1.0 -> 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
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-9052
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Independent Living + Mand + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-08-11 to 2026-09-02)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. using public transportation (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. managing a budget (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. simple meal preparation (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. requesting assistance using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. clocking in at start of shift (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Tantrum — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-11 — 31 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 13/15 correct (88%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  managing a budget: 11/15 correct (73%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  simple meal preparation: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 12/15 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/9 correct (86%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 6m total

Session 2 — 2026-08-13 — 31 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 3/14 correct (21%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  managing a budget: 6/13 correct (43%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  simple meal preparation: 5/13 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/15 correct (43%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×12
  clocking in at start of shift: 3/11 correct (30%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 15m total

Session 3 — 2026-08-15 — 31 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 7/8 correct (87%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  managing a budget: 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 8/9 correct (86%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×6
  clocking in at start of shift: 10/11 correct (90%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 6m total

Session 4 — 2026-08-17 — 31 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 3/13 correct (23%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  managing a budget: 3/10 correct (35%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  simple meal preparation: 5/15 correct (33%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 4/9 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/11 correct (37%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 4m total

Session 5 — 2026-08-19 — 31 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 12/14 correct (85%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  managing a budget: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  simple meal preparation: 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  clocking in at start of shift: 9/11 correct (83%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 6m total

Session 6 — 2026-08-21 — 31 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 2/9 correct (27%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  managing a budget: 6/15 correct (39%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×9
  simple meal preparation: 3/9 correct (34%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 5/13 correct (40%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/12 correct (35%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 6m total

Session 7 — 2026-08-23 — 31 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 7/8 correct (86%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  managing a budget: 8/10 correct (79%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  simple meal preparation: 9/11 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 10/12 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×3
  clocking in at start of shift: 7/8 correct (89%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 4m total

Session 8 — 2026-08-25 — 31 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 2/9 correct (21%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  managing a budget: 6/14 correct (40%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×10
  simple meal preparation: 4/11 correct (33%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/15 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×11
  clocking in at start of shift: 5/15 correct (35%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×10
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 8m total

Session 9 — 2026-08-27 — 31 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×3, I×3
  managing a budget: 6/8 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 7/9 correct (77%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/9 correct (84%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×2
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 10m total

Session 10 — 2026-08-29 — 31 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 3/11 correct (24%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  managing a budget: 5/13 correct (35%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  simple meal preparation: 4/11 correct (32%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 5/12 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/11 correct (38%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 12m total

Session 11 — 2026-08-31 — 31 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 7/8 correct (91%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  managing a budget: 9/12 correct (73%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 7/8 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 7/8 correct (82%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/9 correct (89%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 3m total

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)
- Playing with non-task materials
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)
- Leaving seat without permission

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

## Pattern Classification
generalization_failure

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
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: 58.9%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 88%, last session: 91%).
- Tantrum: mean 2.4/session (early-window mean 3.0 -> 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
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-2389
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Mand + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-05-06 to 2026-05-22)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. requesting preferred items using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. making the bed (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-06 — 57 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/13 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/12 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  making the bed: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 2 — 2026-05-08 — 57 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 4/9 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  making the bed: 5/8 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 3 — 2026-05-10 — 57 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/10 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 5/9 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  making the bed: 7/9 correct (76%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 6/9 correct (62%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 4 — 2026-05-12 — 57 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 10/14 correct (69%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 9/14 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  making the bed: 11/13 correct (84%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 11/15 correct (71%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×0, I×10
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 5 — 2026-05-14 — 57 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×14
  making the bed: 8/10 correct (84%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 10/13 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 6 — 2026-05-16 — 57 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/10 correct (71%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 9/13 correct (73%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  making the bed: 8/9 correct (84%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 11/14 correct (80%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-05-18 — 57 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/11 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  making the bed: 10/12 correct (84%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 10/13 correct (80%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 8 — 2026-05-20 — 57 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 11/15 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 9/11 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  making the bed: 7/8 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 11/14 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Playing with non-task materials
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Skill loss following break**: performance dropped to 42% at return, recovering to 71%.
- Maintenance schedule should be reviewed and strengthened.

## Pattern Classification
skill_loss_after_break

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 62.8%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 42%, last session: 71%).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 1.8/session (early-window mean 1.0 -> late-window mean 1.5).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You 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: tacts colors of objects
Curriculum: Tact L2
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Generalization phase

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts colors of objects
- Curriculum: Tact L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "What color?"
Variations: "What color is this?"; "Tell me the color"
Presentation: Present a single-color object and ask while pointing to it.

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: purple, yellow, blue
Distractor stimuli: white, brown, green, black
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Demonstrated use in natural environment across 3 independent instances.

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

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


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You 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: traces basic shapes (circle, cross)
Curriculum Reference: Writing 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: traces basic shapes (circle, cross)
- Curriculum: Writing 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: "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: Most-to-Least (errorless)
Sequence: full physical -> partial physical -> gestural -> positional -> independent
Current prompt level: At the approaching mastery stage, deliver gestural or positional prompts; fade toward independence.

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

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

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

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

## Data Collection
Trial-by-trial data recording prompt level and response accuracy. IOA scheduled every 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]
Design a Discrete Trial Training program for the following.

Skill: copies simple words from model
Curriculum: Writing L2
Learner Level: School-Age Learner
Baseline: Developing

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: copies simple words from model
- Curriculum: Writing L2
- Learner: School-Age 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: "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: Least-to-Most
Sequence: independent -> gestural -> positional -> partial physical -> full physical
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: backpack, crayon, ball
Distractor stimuli: jacket, block, glue, apple
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
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 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 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: completing assigned tasks in order
Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
Learner: Adult Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Skill Target: mands for a break (e.g., "break please", AAC "I need a break")
Curriculum Reference: Mand L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Mastered at current level
Teaching Method: NET (Natural Environment Teaching)

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: mands for a break (e.g., "break please", AAC "I need a break")
- Curriculum: Mand L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
Present a brief non-preferred task or demand at a level the learner can tolerate but may wish to pause. Wait for a request-for-break topography; honor the request immediately on first acquisition (CRF), thin later.
Primary natural context: academic period.

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

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

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: immediate brief escape from the demand (30–60 seconds) to a neutral or preferred activity.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

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

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

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

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

mands for a break (e.g., "break please", AAC "I need a break")


[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 all upper-case letters from model
Curriculum: Writing L2
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Developing

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: copies all upper-case letters from model
- Curriculum: Writing 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: "Write the target."
Variations: "Trace this"; "Copy this"; "Write {word}"
Presentation: Provide pencil and paper; deliver a clear verbal instruction naming the target letter or word.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Shaping
Sequence: modified stimulus -> intermediate shape -> target 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 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: U, Q, Y
Distractor stimuli: K, A, T, N
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
90% accuracy across 3 consecutive sessions.

## 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.

copies all upper-case letters from model


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

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

Target: scheduling a medical appointment
Curriculum: AFLS Independent Living Skills
Learner: Adult Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: scheduling a medical appointment
- Curriculum: AFLS Independent Living Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
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-7704
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Mand + Reading + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-09-23 to 2026-10-13)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. requesting a break during non-preferred activities (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. ordering in a restaurant (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. tolerating haircut (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. meal cleanup after eating (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
6. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-09-23 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/9 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 10/14 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×9
  tolerating haircut: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×5, I×2
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/10 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/15 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×6

Session 2 — 2026-09-25 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  ordering in a restaurant: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  tolerating haircut: 9/13 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/10 correct (73%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/10 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×7

Session 3 — 2026-09-27 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 10/14 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×10
  ordering in a restaurant: 9/12 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  tolerating haircut: 8/11 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/14 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×10

Session 4 — 2026-09-29 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 72% (primary); IOA 88% agreement
  ordering in a restaurant: 69% (primary); IOA 88% agreement
  tolerating haircut: 74% (primary); IOA 88% agreement
  meal cleanup after eating: 70% (primary); IOA 88% agreement
  reads 10–20 sight words: 60% (primary); IOA 88% agreement
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 64% (primary); IOA 88% agreement

Session 5 — 2026-10-01 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 4/9 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  ordering in a restaurant: 7/15 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  tolerating haircut: 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  meal cleanup after eating: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/13 correct (43%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×6

Session 6 — 2026-10-03 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 4/9 correct (49%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  ordering in a restaurant: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  tolerating haircut: 5/9 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/12 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/8 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/12 correct (39%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×7

Session 7 — 2026-10-05 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 6/11 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  ordering in a restaurant: 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×8
  tolerating haircut: 9/15 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×5, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/10 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/9 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×1
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/14 correct (45%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×9

Session 8 — 2026-10-07 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 9/14 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  ordering in a restaurant: 8/11 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  tolerating haircut: 7/10 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/8 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/12 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×7

Session 9 — 2026-10-09 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 5/8 correct (62%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  ordering in a restaurant: 9/13 correct (72%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  tolerating haircut: 11/15 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×9
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/8 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/14 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×11
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/14 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×2

Session 10 — 2026-10-11 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  ordering in a restaurant: 10/14 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  tolerating haircut: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/9 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals

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
- **Setting event pattern**: observable change in performance correlated with an external event (illness, sleep, schedule).
- Correlation between setting event and performance should be tracked explicitly.

## Pattern Classification
setting_event_trigger

A discontinuous performance change at a specific session correlates with an external setting event.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Identify and document the setting event (sleep, illness, schedule change, medication).
- Modify programming demand on days when setting event is present.
- Coordinate with caregivers / medical team on setting-event factors outside the program.

### Consequence strategies
- Track setting events alongside performance data to quantify their effect.

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 63.0%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 74%, last session: 69%).
- IOA data: 88% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

Skill Target: tacts common actions (running, eating, sleeping)
Curriculum Reference: Tact L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Generalization phase
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts common actions (running, eating, sleeping)
- Curriculum: Tact L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "What is he doing?"
Variations: "What action?"; "What is she doing?"; "What is happening here?"
Presentation: Present an action picture, video clip, or live demonstration.

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: reading, drawing, pouring
Distractor stimuli: sleeping, eating
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
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 3 additional therapists, and in at least 2 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.

tacts common actions (running, eating, sleeping)


[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: points to named body parts
Curriculum: Listener Responding L1
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: points to named body parts
- Curriculum: Listener Responding L1
- 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: "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 developing 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: car, spoon, plate
Distractor stimuli: jacket, ball
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
90% first-trial-correct across 5 consecutive sessions.

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

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe with novel stimuli, across 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 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: names items in categories when given the category
Curriculum Reference: Intraverbal L2
Learner Profile: School-Age Learner
Current Mastery: Mastered at current level
Teaching Method: NET (Natural Environment Teaching)

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: names items in categories when given the category
- Curriculum: Intraverbal L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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

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

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

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

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

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 4 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 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 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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

names items in categories when given the category


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

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

Target: mands for missing items needed to complete an activity
Curriculum: Mand L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: mands for missing items needed to complete an activity
- Curriculum: Mand L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
Arrange an activity that requires a specific item to complete, then omit that item from the available materials. Wait for the learner to notice the gap.
Primary natural context: art activity.

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

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

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: the missing item is provided, activity can continue.
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.

mands for missing items needed to complete an activity