[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-9260
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Motor Imitation + Tact + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-06-04 to 2026-06-20)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
2. tacts common objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
3. selects items by feature (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
4. imitates 3-step motor sequences (Motor Imitation)
   Method: DTT variant

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-04 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/10 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  tacts common objects: 11/14 correct (80%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  selects items by feature: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 10/12 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×2
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 4m total
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 2 — 2026-06-06 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 6/10 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  tacts common objects: 10/15 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  selects items by feature: 9/13 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 10/13 correct (73%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×8
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 6m total
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 3 — 2026-06-08 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 6/10 correct (63%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  tacts common objects: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  selects items by feature: 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 9/12 correct (73%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 6m total
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 4 — 2026-06-10 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  tacts common objects: 6/10 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  selects items by feature: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 7/11 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 9m total
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 5 — 2026-06-12 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 6/14 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  tacts common objects: 5/9 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  selects items by feature: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/9 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 6m total
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  ABC (tantrum): A = demand to complete math problem; B = threw materials and vocalized 'no'; C = staff removed demand, redirected

Session 6 — 2026-06-14 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 5/12 correct (42%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  tacts common objects: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  selects items by feature: 5/10 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/11 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 4, duration 16m total
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  ABC (tantrum): A = asked to finish dressing task; B = kicked at materials; C = task paused for 3 min

Session 7 — 2026-06-16 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 3/9 correct (28%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  tacts common objects: 7/14 correct (49%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  selects items by feature: 5/12 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/12 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 4, duration 12m total
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 8 — 2026-06-18 — 47 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 3/11 correct (26%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  tacts common objects: 6/12 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  selects items by feature: 4/10 correct (40%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 3/8 correct (39%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 4, duration 20m total
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Crying during demand presentation
- Increased response latency (3–5× baseline)

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Regression identified**: accuracy has declined from 73% to 26% across 8 sessions.
- Accompanying behavior data suggests the decline may be function-related.

## Pattern Classification
regression

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Tantrum: escape
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the escape function; behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.
Toileting accident (urine or bowel): automatic
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the automatic function; behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 49.9%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 73%, last session: 26%).
- Tantrum: mean 2.8/session (early-window mean 1.5 -> late-window mean 4.0).
- Toileting accident (urine or bowel): mean 3.0/session (early-window mean 2.5 -> late-window mean 3.5).
- 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]
I need a NET program for this skill.

Target: spontaneously uses humor appropriately
Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L3
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Developing

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: spontaneously uses humor appropriately
- Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L3
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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: activity setup.

## Natural Opportunity
Embed the teaching opportunity within the learner's activity setup 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 developing 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 3 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 3 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 3 different adults during the teaching phase.

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

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

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


[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: showering
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner: Adult Learner
Mastery Status: Approaching mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: showering
- Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching mastery

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

## Task Analysis
Chain type: Backward chaining
Complete all steps for the learner except the last; teach the last step first, then work backward. The final reinforcer (task completion) is always present for the learner.

Steps:
1. Enter the shower and close the curtain.
2. Turn on the water and adjust temperature.
3. Wet body completely.
4. Apply soap to a washcloth.
5. Wash body systematically (face -> torso -> arms -> legs -> feet).
6. Rinse all soap off.
7. Apply shampoo and rub into hair.
8. Rinse hair completely.
9. Turn off the water.
10. Exit the shower and dry off with a towel.  <- Learner-taught step (backward chaining starts here)

## 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 approaching mastery stage, use partial-physical or gestural prompts only at steps where errors occur; allow independence elsewhere.

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

## Reinforcement
Differential per-step + terminal — Small per-step reinforcement for independent responses; larger reinforcer at chain completion.
Pair the terminal reinforcer with the natural consequence of the completed task (e.g., clean hands, clean dishes, completed routine).

## Mastery Criteria
Full chain completed within 180s across 3 consecutive sessions with independent responding on all steps.

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

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


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

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

Target: mands to use the bathroom (e.g., "bathroom", "potty", "I need to go", AAC bathroom icon)
Curriculum: Mand L1
Learner: Early 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: mands to use the bathroom (e.g., "bathroom", "potty", "I need to go", AAC bathroom icon)
- Curriculum: Mand L1
- Learner: Early 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
Arrange a scheduled toileting window (typically 30–60 minutes after fluid intake) and observe for pre-toileting signs (body position, vocalization, squirming). Model the mand topography (vocal, sign, or AAC icon) at the first sign of need; reinforce any approximation with immediate escort to the bathroom. Do not prompt after an accident has started.
Primary natural context: end-of-activity transition.

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

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

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: immediate escort to the bathroom; the learner is not required to complete the current task before going. Pairing the mand with timely bathroom access is what teaches the learner that requesting works.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

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

## Mastery Criteria
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.

mands to use the bathroom (e.g., "bathroom", "potty", "I need to go", AAC bathroom icon)


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

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

Target: tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Developing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current shaping step: At the developing stage, begin at shaping step 2 ("3 seconds of brushing") and advance through step 3 across sessions as tolerance stabilizes.

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

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
End-goal activity tolerated with 2 different caregivers (primary caregiver + one other) across 2 consecutive weeks.

## Data Collection
Per-trial: duration tolerated before refusal, presence / absence of safety behaviors (crying, property destruction, SIB, aggression), staff support level, and shaping step attempted. IOA scheduled every 5 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
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-5476
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Mand + Reading + Tact
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-10-20 to 2026-11-05)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. tacts common objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
2. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
3. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
4. tacts colors of objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
5. requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break') (Mand)
   Method: NET
6. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Verbal aggression — function hypothesized: escape
2. Motor stereotypy — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-20 — 58 min — 1 observer
  tacts common objects: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/9 correct (76%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/13 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  tacts colors of objects: 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/8 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 10/12 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  Verbal aggression: freq 1
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 25%

Session 2 — 2026-10-22 — 58 min — 1 observer
  tacts common objects: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/11 correct (76%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/11 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/14 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  Verbal aggression: freq 2
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 13%

Session 3 — 2026-10-24 — 58 min — 1 observer
  tacts common objects: 7/11 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/10 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  tacts colors of objects: 6/9 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×8
  Verbal aggression: freq 2
  Motor stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 17%

Session 4 — 2026-10-26 — 58 min — 1 observer
  tacts common objects: 4/8 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  tacts colors of objects: 8/13 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 7/13 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 9/13 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  Verbal aggression: freq 3
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 13%

Session 5 — 2026-10-28 — 58 min — 1 observer
  tacts common objects: 7/15 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×11
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/12 correct (51%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/11 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 7/12 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  Verbal aggression: freq 2
  Motor stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 16%

Session 6 — 2026-10-30 — 58 min — 1 observer
  tacts common objects: 3/9 correct (34%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/13 correct (42%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×3
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/9 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 5/10 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/13 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 5/9 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  Verbal aggression: freq 3
  Motor stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 18%

Session 7 — 2026-11-01 — 58 min — 1 observer
  tacts common objects: 4/15 correct (29%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 4/10 correct (39%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/14 correct (31%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  tacts colors of objects: 5/12 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/14 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 7/15 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×13
  Verbal aggression: freq 4
  Motor stereotypy: freq 5; PIR 28%

Session 8 — 2026-11-03 — 58 min — 1 observer
  tacts common objects: 3/14 correct (19%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 3/9 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/15 correct (29%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×5, I×0
  tacts colors of objects: 2/8 correct (30%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 4/15 correct (29%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 4/10 correct (38%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Verbal aggression: freq 4
  Motor stereotypy: freq 5; PIR 34%

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Aggression attempt directed at staff (hit, kick, or scratch toward adult)
- Crying during demand presentation

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Regression identified**: accuracy has declined from 71% to 19% across 8 sessions.
- Accompanying behavior data suggests the decline may be function-related.

## Pattern Classification
regression

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 46.6%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 71%, last session: 19%).
- Verbal aggression: mean 2.6/session (early-window mean 1.5 -> late-window mean 4.0).
- Motor stereotypy: mean 3.8/session (early-window mean 2.5 -> late-window mean 5.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: writes own name from model
Curriculum: Writing 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: writes own name from model
- Curriculum: Writing 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: "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 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: plate, cup, key
Distractor stimuli: brush, sock
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
CRF (continuous reinforcement) — Every correct response reinforced. Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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: Emerging

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

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

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Most-to-Least (errorless)
Sequence: full physical -> partial physical -> gestural -> positional -> independent
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: ball, napkin, book
Distractor stimuli: scissors, bottle, crayon, shoe
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

## Error Correction Procedure
Prevent errors by using high prompts from the start; fade gradually. Paired with most-to-least prompt hierarchy.

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

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

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

Skill: washing hands
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner Level: Adult Learner
Baseline: Developing

Include the full Task Analysis structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: washing hands
- Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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

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

Steps:
1. Walk to the sink.
2. Turn on the water.
3. Wet hands under the water.
4. Apply soap to hands.
5. Rub hands together for 15–20 seconds, covering fronts, backs, and between fingers.
6. Rinse hands thoroughly under the water.
7. Turn off the water.
8. Dry hands with a towel.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Skill Target: identifies coins by name
Curriculum Reference: Math L2
Learner Profile: School-Age Learner
Current Mastery: Approaching mastery
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: identifies coins by name
- Curriculum: Math L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching mastery

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "What number is this?"
Variations: "Which number?"; "Tell me the number"
Presentation: Present the numeral card.

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: book, bottle, blanket
Distractor stimuli: key, toothbrush, block, crayon
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Fluency criterion: correct responses within 3-second latency at 90% accuracy.

## Data Collection
Trial-by-trial data recording prompt level and response accuracy. IOA scheduled every 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.


[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: sequences 3–4 step picture sequences
Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L3
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Generalization phase

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: sequences 3–4 step picture sequences
- Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L3
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

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

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 6 (target + 5 distractors, mixed categories)
Target stimuli: pencil, car, napkin
Distractor stimuli: cup, glue, scissors, bottle, 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
VR-3 (variable ratio 3) — Average of every 3rd correct response reinforced. Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

## Mastery Criteria
90% 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 2 additional therapists, and in at least 2 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


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

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

Target: points to named common objects
Curriculum: Listener Responding L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Emerging

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: points to named common objects
- Curriculum: Listener Responding L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "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: Time Delay (progressive)
Sequence: 0s delay -> 2s delay -> 4s delay -> 6s delay -> independent
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: block, sock, car
Distractor stimuli: toothbrush, blanket
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 2 additional therapists, and in at least 3 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-4550
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Mand + Reading
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-03-16 to 2026-04-01)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. requesting help when a task is difficult (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. making the bed (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. identifying community safety signs (Community)
   Method: DTT
4. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
5. requesting preferred items using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
6. indicating 'all done' with a step or activity (Mand)
   Method: NET

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-03-16 — 53 min — 1 observer
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 2/8 correct (23%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  making the bed: 3/14 correct (20%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×10
  identifying community safety signs: 3/8 correct (37%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 2/9 correct (27%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 5/15 correct (34%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×9
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 3/10 correct (35%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4

Session 2 — 2026-03-18 — 53 min — 1 observer
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 4/11 correct (34%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  making the bed: 3/11 correct (30%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  identifying community safety signs: 8/15 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×1, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 6/15 correct (37%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×5, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 4/8 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 4/9 correct (43%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4

Session 3 — 2026-03-20 — 53 min — 1 observer
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 5/12 correct (41%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  making the bed: 4/10 correct (37%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  identifying community safety signs: 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 5/11 correct (45%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 4/8 correct (53%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×8

Session 4 — 2026-03-22 — 53 min — 1 observer
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  making the bed: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×10
  identifying community safety signs: 10/15 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×1, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/9 correct (64%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×7

Session 5 — 2026-03-24 — 53 min — 1 observer
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 6/9 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×3
  making the bed: 7/13 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  identifying community safety signs: 11/13 correct (84%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 10/15 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×14
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 7/10 correct (73%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×3

Session 6 — 2026-03-26 — 53 min — 1 observer
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/10 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  making the bed: 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  identifying community safety signs: 13/14 correct (91%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 8/10 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 7/9 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×6

Session 7 — 2026-03-28 — 53 min — 1 observer
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/9 correct (83%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  making the bed: 10/14 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  identifying community safety signs: 13/13 correct (97%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 10/12 correct (85%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/9 correct (89%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 11/12 correct (93%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×8

Session 8 — 2026-03-30 — 53 min — 1 observer
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 11/12 correct (94%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  making the bed: 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×4
  identifying community safety signs: 13/13 correct (97%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 14/15 correct (93%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×13
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 9/9 correct (97%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×3
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 9/9 correct (97%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Reaching for materials proactively
- Quick response latency (within 2–3 seconds)
- Requesting more trials verbally

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Rapid acquisition**: accelerated mastery from 23% to 94% across 8 sessions.
- Acquisition has exceeded expected timeline.

## Pattern Classification
rapid_acquisition

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 57.4%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 23%, last session: 94%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: spontaneously comments on events
Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Generalization phase

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: spontaneously comments on events
- Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

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

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

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

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

## Data Collection
Opportunity-based data recording: each naturally-occasioned trial is scored for independence and topography. IOA scheduled every 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: tacts prepositions (in, on, under)
Curriculum: Tact L2
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Emerging

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts prepositions (in, on, under)
- Curriculum: Tact L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "Where is it?"
Variations: "Where is the {object}?"; "Tell me where"
Presentation: Arrange two objects in a target spatial relation and ask about the position.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Most-to-Least (errorless)
Sequence: full physical -> partial physical -> gestural -> positional -> independent
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: shoe, sock, plate
Distractor stimuli: hat, car, backpack, napkin
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-4011
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Echoic + Mand + Tact + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-04-06 to 2026-04-26)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break') (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. echoes 2-word phrases (Echoic)
   Method: DTT variant
4. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
5. tacts common objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-06 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/8 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 4/15 correct (26%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  echoes 2-word phrases: 5/14 correct (33%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×12
  copies simple words from model: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  tacts common objects: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×7

Session 2 — 2026-04-08 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/14 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/10 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  echoes 2-word phrases: 5/13 correct (38%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  copies simple words from model: 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  tacts common objects: 7/14 correct (50%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×6

Session 3 — 2026-04-10 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/14 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×11
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  echoes 2-word phrases: 4/14 correct (30%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  copies simple words from model: 9/11 correct (79%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  tacts common objects: 3/9 correct (36%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×5

Session 4 — 2026-04-12 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/13 correct (64%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/11 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  echoes 2-word phrases: 3/10 correct (27%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  tacts common objects: 5/10 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×5

Session 5 — 2026-04-14 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/10 correct (34%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×9
  echoes 2-word phrases: 6/10 correct (63%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 8/10 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  tacts common objects: 5/14 correct (32%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×6

Session 6 — 2026-04-16 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 3/11 correct (29%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  echoes 2-word phrases: 3/11 correct (30%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 6/8 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  tacts common objects: 8/14 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×12

Session 7 — 2026-04-18 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 3/12 correct (28%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×5, I×3
  copies simple words from model: 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  tacts common objects: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×9

Session 8 — 2026-04-20 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/11 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 3/9 correct (30%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  echoes 2-word phrases: 3/11 correct (30%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  copies simple words from model: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×14
  tacts common objects: 6/15 correct (37%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×9

Session 9 — 2026-04-22 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/9 correct (40%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×2
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 4/9 correct (49%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  echoes 2-word phrases: 4/8 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 6/10 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  tacts common objects: 2/9 correct (22%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×6

Session 10 — 2026-04-24 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/13 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 4/8 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  echoes 2-word phrases: 4/10 correct (42%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  tacts common objects: 6/13 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×7

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Variable performance**: accuracy fluctuating around 54% with no clear trend.
- Inconsistency may indicate stimulus-control issues or motivational variability across sessions.

## Pattern Classification
variable_performance

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
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: 51.7%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 41%, last session: 67%).
- 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-1654
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Independent Living + Mand + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-04-19 to 2026-05-07)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. simple meal preparation (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
3. indicating 'all done' at task completion (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. self-advocacy statements (Independent Living)
   Method: BST

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-19 — 55 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 12/14 correct (85%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 10/13 correct (76%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×3
  self-advocacy statements: 9/11 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×6

Session 2 — 2026-04-21 — 55 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 10/12 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×1
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×13
  dressing (pants, shirt): 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×5, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 12/14 correct (83%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×7

Session 3 — 2026-04-23 — 55 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 10/13 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/8 correct (76%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 11/13 correct (85%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×6

Session 4 — 2026-04-25 — 55 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 3/8 correct (37%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/9 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 4/8 correct (44%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/9 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  self-advocacy statements: 6/12 correct (47%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×8

Session 5 — 2026-04-27 — 55 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 6/15 correct (41%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/10 correct (47%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 6/13 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/14 correct (50%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  self-advocacy statements: 4/9 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×5

Session 6 — 2026-04-29 — 55 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 5/13 correct (38%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/11 correct (43%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/8 correct (46%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  self-advocacy statements: 5/9 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7

Session 7 — 2026-05-01 — 55 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 5/13 correct (37%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/12 correct (45%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×0
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 5/9 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/14 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  self-advocacy statements: 5/9 correct (56%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×4

Session 8 — 2026-05-03 — 55 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 6/12 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/10 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/8 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  self-advocacy statements: 5/8 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5

Session 9 — 2026-05-05 — 55 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 6/11 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×13
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×8
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/12 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×6

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

[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.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 53.6%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 75%, last session: 58%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: mands for a break (e.g., "break please", AAC "I need a break")
Curriculum: Mand L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Approaching mastery

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

[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: Approaching mastery

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

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
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: Verbal fill-in
Deliver a partial phrase and pause; learner completes the vocal response.
Current prompt level: At the approaching mastery stage, use time delay (0 s -> 2 s -> 4 s) before delivering any model prompt; reinforce independent responses differentially.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: immediate 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 3 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 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 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]
I need a Task Analysis program for this multi-step skill.

Target: washing hands
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner: Adult Learner
Mastery Status: Developing

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: washing hands
- Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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

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

Steps:
1. Walk to the sink.
2. Turn on the water.
3. Wet hands under the water.
4. Apply soap to hands.
5. Rub hands together for 15–20 seconds, covering fronts, backs, and between fingers.
6. Rinse hands thoroughly under the water.
7. Turn off the water.
8. Dry hands with a towel.

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

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

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

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

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

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full chain across 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]
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-5210
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Mand + Self-Care + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-03-17 to 2026-04-06)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. requesting a break during non-preferred activities (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. indicating 'all done' with a step or activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. ordering in a restaurant (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
6. meal cleanup after eating (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-03-17 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 10/14 correct (73%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 6/8 correct (81%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 9/10 correct (91%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  ordering in a restaurant: 7/8 correct (93%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 10/11 correct (87%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  meal cleanup after eating: 10/12 correct (79%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×6

Session 2 — 2026-03-19 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 13/15 correct (87%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 8/9 correct (89%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 8/8 correct (97%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 8/10 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  meal cleanup after eating: 11/13 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×1

Session 3 — 2026-03-21 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 11/15 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  brushing teeth independently: 7/9 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 11/12 correct (94%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  ordering in a restaurant: 8/8 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 10/12 correct (83%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  meal cleanup after eating: 11/14 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×7

Session 4 — 2026-03-23 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 10/13 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 7/8 correct (85%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 7/8 correct (94%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  ordering in a restaurant: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 11/13 correct (82%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  meal cleanup after eating: 10/13 correct (77%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×7

Session 5 — 2026-03-25 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 10/14 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×11
  brushing teeth independently: 7/8 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 10/11 correct (90%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 10/11 correct (92%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  copies simple words from model: 9/11 correct (80%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  meal cleanup after eating: 11/13 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×5

Session 6 — 2026-03-27 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 72% (primary); IOA 84% agreement
  brushing teeth independently: 82% (primary); IOA 84% agreement
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 93% (primary); IOA 84% agreement
  ordering in a restaurant: 96% (primary); IOA 84% agreement
  copies simple words from model: 78% (primary); IOA 84% agreement
  meal cleanup after eating: 80% (primary); IOA 84% agreement

Session 7 — 2026-03-29 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 9/11 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 8/9 correct (93%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  ordering in a restaurant: 8/8 correct (98%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/9 correct (84%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8

Session 8 — 2026-03-31 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 10/11 correct (93%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 11/11 correct (98%); latency 1.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/9 correct (82%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×6

Session 9 — 2026-04-02 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×5, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 12/15 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 9/10 correct (92%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 8/8 correct (98%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 11/15 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×1, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/8 correct (82%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6

Session 10 — 2026-04-04 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 9/11 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 12/12 correct (96%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 10/10 correct (97%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 11/15 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×14
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/10 correct (85%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×5

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Prompt dependency**: high accuracy maintained (73%–68%) but primarily at prompted levels.
- Independent responding remains low despite extended training.

## Pattern Classification
prompt_dependency

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 71.6%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 73%, last session: 68%).
- IOA data: 84% agreement on IOA session — adequate.