[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: matches non-identical items by category
Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L2
Learner Level: School-Age Learner
Baseline: Near mastery

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: matches non-identical items by category
- Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

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

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

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: sock, shoe, hat
Distractor stimuli: brush, phone, jacket, towel
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects correct item from an array of 2
- Curriculum: Listener Responding L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: 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: Graduated Guidance
Sequence: hand over hand full -> hand over hand light -> shadow -> independent
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

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

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
80% accuracy at independent prompt level across 3 sessions.

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

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


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

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

Skill Target: tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner Profile: Adult Learner
Current Mastery: Emerging
Teaching Method: Toleration / Systematic Desensitization

The goal is for the learner to allow the activity to be performed (not to perform it independently). Provide the full program structure including shaping steps and refusal/safety procedures.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver
- Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging
- 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 emerging stage, begin at shaping step 1 ("1-second toothbrush contact with teeth") and advance through step 2 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 across 2 different settings (e.g., home and clinic) across 2 consecutive weeks without safety behaviors.

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

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full routine across 3 different settings and with 2 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]
Review this session log and produce a structured clinical interpretation.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-7450
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Social Behavior
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-04-26 to 2026-05-16)

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-26 — 39 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 7/12 correct (55%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 10/14 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/14 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×5

Session 2 — 2026-04-28 — 39 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 8/13 correct (63%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/8 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/14 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×9

Session 3 — 2026-04-30 — 39 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 9/14 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/12 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5

Session 4 — 2026-05-02 — 39 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×3, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/8 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×9

Session 5 — 2026-05-04 — 39 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 3/12 correct (27%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 4/9 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  takes turns during structured activities: 4/13 correct (27%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×6

Session 6 — 2026-05-06 — 39 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 4/13 correct (32%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×8
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/14 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  takes turns during structured activities: 3/9 correct (36%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×6

Session 7 — 2026-05-08 — 39 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 5/12 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/9 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 3/8 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7

Session 8 — 2026-05-10 — 39 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 7/15 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 9/14 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  takes turns during structured activities: 7/15 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×11

Session 9 — 2026-05-12 — 39 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 10/15 correct (65%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 8/14 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×6

Session 10 — 2026-05-14 — 39 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 9/15 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/12 correct (65%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4

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

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

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

## Pattern Classification
setting_event_trigger

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
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: 50.5%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 55%, last session: 59%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Skill Target: clocking in at start of shift
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Vocational Skills
Learner Profile: Adult Learner
Current Mastery: Mastered at current level
Teaching Method: Task Analysis / Chaining

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-1849
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Reading + Social Behavior
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-07-05 to 2026-07-21)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. requesting a break during non-preferred tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. takes turns during structured activities (Social Behavior)
   Method: PRT
4. requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. counts objects 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Elopement — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-05 — 55 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/9 correct (77%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×0
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 9/11 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  counts objects 1–20: 9/11 correct (85%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  Elopement: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-07-07 — 55 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/12 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  takes turns during structured activities: 10/13 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 13/15 correct (85%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  counts objects 1–20: 8/9 correct (84%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×3
  Elopement: freq 2
  ABC (elopement): A = quiet unstructured moment between trials; B = engaged in hand-flapping; C = no social consequence; self-terminated after 30s

Session 3 — 2026-07-09 — 55 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/10 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 5/12 correct (44%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/15 correct (37%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 5/10 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  counts objects 1–20: 5/11 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  Elopement: freq 3

Session 4 — 2026-07-11 — 55 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 3/8 correct (39%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 5/11 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 4/10 correct (42%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  counts objects 1–20: 4/9 correct (45%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  Elopement: freq 3

Session 5 — 2026-07-13 — 55 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/10 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 6/14 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/13 correct (36%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 4/9 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  counts objects 1–20: 5/10 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  Elopement: freq 2
  ABC (elopement): A = quiet unstructured moment between trials; B = engaged in hand-flapping; C = no social consequence; self-terminated after 30s

Session 6 — 2026-07-15 — 55 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/14 correct (39%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 6/14 correct (45%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×9
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/14 correct (41%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 4/8 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  counts objects 1–20: 6/14 correct (43%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×12
  Elopement: freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-07-17 — 55 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/14 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 4/9 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 7/14 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  counts objects 1–20: 8/15 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  Elopement: freq 3

Session 8 — 2026-07-19 — 55 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/10 correct (51%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×0
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×2
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 6/11 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  counts objects 1–20: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×0
  Elopement: freq 3
  ABC (elopement): A = quiet unstructured moment between trials; B = engaged in hand-flapping; C = no social consequence; self-terminated after 30s

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)
- Playing with non-task materials
- Looking away during SD presentation
- Leaving seat without permission

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

## Pattern Classification
motivating_operation_shift

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 52.2%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 77%, last session: 51%).
- Elopement: mean 2.6/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 3.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-3922
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Mand + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-09-02 to 2026-09-22)

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

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Aggression — function hypothesized: escape
2. Pica — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-09-02 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 10/14 correct (68%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×10
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/14 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  Aggression: freq 0
  Pica: attempts 2 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 2 — 2026-09-04 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 7/12 correct (62%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/11 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/8 correct (68%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  Aggression: freq 2
  Pica: attempts 3 (0 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 3 successful — item ingested)

Session 3 — 2026-09-06 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  Aggression: freq 0
  Pica: attempts 2 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 4 — 2026-09-08 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 6/9 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/9 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  Aggression: freq 2
  Pica: attempts 3 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 5 — 2026-09-10 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 3/9 correct (33%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/14 correct (29%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 4/8 correct (50%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  Aggression: freq 4
  Pica: attempts 7 (7 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 6 — 2026-09-12 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 4/9 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 3/10 correct (33%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  Aggression: freq 4
  Pica: attempts 7 (6 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 7 — 2026-09-14 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 5/13 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 3/8 correct (41%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/10 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  Aggression: freq 0
  Pica: attempts 2 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 8 — 2026-09-16 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 6/13 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/12 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/10 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  Aggression: freq 1
  Pica: attempts 2 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 9 — 2026-09-18 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×2
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/9 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 11/15 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  Aggression: freq 2
  Pica: attempts 3 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 2 successful — item ingested)

Session 10 — 2026-09-20 — 39 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/9 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  Aggression: freq 0
  Pica: attempts 2 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

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

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

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

## Pattern Classification
setting_event_trigger

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

### Crisis plan
- If the setting event involves a medical concern (seizure-like activity, injury, illness): stop the program immediately, follow the facility's medical-incident protocol, and refer to the appropriate medical professional. Medical events are NOT behavioral targets and must not be treated as ABA programming issues.
- If behavior escalates during the setting-event window: use verbal de-escalation and environmental safety first; do not add demand. Only staff currently certified in the facility's crisis-prevention framework may use physical intervention, and only if imminent safety risk warrants it AND the learner's BIP specifically authorizes it (contraindications and BIP restrictions may rule it out).
- Coordinate with caregivers, the medical team, and the supervising BCBA; document the setting event and the associated behavior for pattern analysis. Review the BIP in light of the setting-event data.

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 53.5%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 68%, last session: 60%).
- Aggression: mean 1.5/session (early-window mean 0.7 -> late-window mean 1.0).
- Pica: mean 3.3/session (early-window mean 2.3 -> late-window mean 2.3).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: unloading the dishwasher
Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
Learner: Adolescent Learner
Mastery Status: Generalization phase

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: unloading the dishwasher
- Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

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

Steps:
1. Open the dishwasher once the cycle is complete.  <- Learner-taught step (forward chaining starts here)
2. Unload the top rack first (cups, glasses, small items).
3. Put cups and glasses away in the correct cabinet.
4. Unload the utensil basket.
5. Put utensils away in the drawer.
6. Unload the bottom rack (plates, bowls, larger items).
7. Put plates and bowls away in the correct cabinet.
8. Close the dishwasher door.

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

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Full chain completed within 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 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-5711
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Mand + Reading + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-08-17 to 2026-09-10)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. ordering in a restaurant (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. meal cleanup after eating (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
5. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
6. requesting preferred items using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-17 — 37 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 10/12 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  ordering in a restaurant: 11/14 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/10 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/9 correct (77%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 8/10 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 7/9 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-08-19 — 37 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  ordering in a restaurant: 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  meal cleanup after eating: 5/8 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 9/13 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-08-21 — 37 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/12 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  ordering in a restaurant: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/14 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 7/10 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 4 — 2026-08-23 — 37 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/10 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  ordering in a restaurant: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/12 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/9 correct (70%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 5 — 2026-08-25 — 37 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×12
  ordering in a restaurant: 5/9 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×5, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/8 correct (54%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/13 correct (65%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 4

Session 6 — 2026-08-27 — 37 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/12 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  ordering in a restaurant: 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 4/12 correct (37%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/11 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 3/8 correct (44%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/11 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-08-29 — 37 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/14 correct (46%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  ordering in a restaurant: 5/12 correct (40%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  meal cleanup after eating: 4/10 correct (38%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/8 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 4/11 correct (37%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/15 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 4

Session 8 — 2026-08-31 — 37 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/12 correct (37%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  ordering in a restaurant: 5/15 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×5, I×8
  meal cleanup after eating: 4/15 correct (30%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×10
  reads 10–20 sight words: 3/8 correct (40%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 2/9 correct (22%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 7/13 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5

Session 9 — 2026-09-02 — 37 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/12 correct (36%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  ordering in a restaurant: 3/10 correct (33%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  meal cleanup after eating: 1/8 correct (17%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 3/11 correct (31%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 2/11 correct (14%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 4/8 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 4

Session 10 — 2026-09-04 — 37 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/13 correct (31%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  ordering in a restaurant: 3/12 correct (25%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 1/12 correct (11%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 2/9 correct (25%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 1/9 correct (11%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/13 correct (43%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5

Session 11 — 2026-09-06 — 37 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 2/10 correct (20%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  ordering in a restaurant: 3/14 correct (19%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  meal cleanup after eating: 2/14 correct (12%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  reads 10–20 sight words: 2/14 correct (18%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×12
  sounds out CVC words: 1/8 correct (10%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 5/15 correct (36%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×5, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5

Session 12 — 2026-09-08 — 37 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 2/15 correct (13%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  ordering in a restaurant: 2/14 correct (12%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  meal cleanup after eating: 1/11 correct (10%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  reads 10–20 sight words: 2/10 correct (18%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 1/14 correct (10%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 4/11 correct (34%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Crying during demand presentation
- Peer aggression (hitting or pushing peers during group activities)

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Regression identified**: accuracy has declined from 81% to 13% across 12 sessions.
- Accompanying behavior data suggests the decline may be function-related.

## Pattern Classification
regression

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Self-injurious behavior (SIB): attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
4 — Safety immediate

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 48.6%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 81%, last session: 13%).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 3.6/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 4.8).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: sorts by multiple attributes simultaneously
Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L3
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Approaching mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: sorts by multiple attributes simultaneously
- Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L3
- 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: "Match"
Variations: "Find the same"; "Put with same"
Presentation: Present the sample stimulus and an array of comparison stimuli simultaneously.

## 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 6 (target + 5 distractors, mixed categories)
Target stimuli: scissors, napkin, block
Distractor stimuli: sock, ball, backpack, glue, jacket
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
Demonstrated use in natural environment across 3 independent instances.

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

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

sorts by multiple attributes simultaneously


[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 colors of objects
Curriculum: Tact L2
Learner: Early 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: tacts colors of objects
- Curriculum: Tact L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe with novel stimuli, across 3 additional therapists, and in at least 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 NET program for this skill.

Target: maintains friendships over time
Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L3
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Emerging

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: maintains friendships over time
- Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L3
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

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

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: 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 emerging stage, begin with a model prompt delivered during the motivated moment; fade to expectant look across sessions.

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

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 4 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 3 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 2 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 5 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


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

[User]
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-1511
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Echoic + Mand + Reading + Tact + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-08-14 to 2026-08-30)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
2. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
3. tacts colors of objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
4. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
6. echoes 2-word phrases (Echoic)
   Method: DTT variant

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Fecal smearing (scatolia) — function hypothesized: attention
2. Tantrum — function hypothesized: tangible

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-14 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 7/11 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/12 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/9 correct (63%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/12 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 3 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 2 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 8m total

Session 2 — 2026-08-16 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/9 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 3 (2 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 6m total

Session 3 — 2026-08-18 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 9/15 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/14 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×9
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/11 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  echoes 2-word phrases: 5/9 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 8 (5 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 3 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Tantrum: freq 8, duration 24m total

Session 4 — 2026-08-20 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 6/10 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  tacts colors of objects: 7/9 correct (74%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×10
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  echoes 2-word phrases: 6/11 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 8 (4 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 4 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Tantrum: freq 7, duration 35m total

Session 5 — 2026-08-22 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/10 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 10/14 correct (68%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/15 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×11
  echoes 2-word phrases: 5/8 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 3 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 2 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 12m total

Session 6 — 2026-08-24 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/11 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  tacts colors of objects: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  echoes 2-word phrases: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 3 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 2 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 6m total

Session 7 — 2026-08-26 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 11/14 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/11 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/14 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  echoes 2-word phrases: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 2 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 10m total

Session 8 — 2026-08-28 — 43 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/12 correct (65%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×2
  sounds out CVC words: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×9
  tacts colors of objects: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 10/15 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/10 correct (73%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  echoes 2-word phrases: 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 3 (2 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 6m total

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Crying during demand presentation
- Self-injurious behavior onset during task difficulty (self-biting, hair-pulling, head-hitting)
- Increased response latency (3–5× baseline)
- Aggression attempt directed at staff (hit, kick, or scratch toward adult)

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

## Pattern Classification
extinction_burst

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Fecal smearing (scatolia): attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.
Tantrum: tangible
  Evidence: behavior occurs when preferred items are restricted and is followed by access to the item.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 65.5%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 65%, last session: 65%).
- Fecal smearing (scatolia): mean 4.1/session (early-window mean 3.0 -> late-window mean 2.5).
- Tantrum: mean 3.8/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 2.5).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-6823
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Mand + Motor Imitation + Reading + Tact + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-10-07 to 2026-10-27)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
2. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
3. tacts common objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
4. requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break') (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. imitates 3-step motor sequences (Motor Imitation)
   Method: DTT variant
6. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-07 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/15 correct (33%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/14 correct (39%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  tacts common objects: 4/8 correct (45%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/13 correct (39%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 5/14 correct (38%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×13
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 4/11 correct (37%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×7

Session 2 — 2026-10-09 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/14 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/8 correct (48%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  tacts common objects: 7/13 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/14 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/15 correct (41%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/13 correct (43%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×4, I×7

Session 3 — 2026-10-11 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/15 correct (43%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×5, I×9
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  tacts common objects: 5/9 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/11 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 5/13 correct (41%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×9
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/11 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×8

Session 4 — 2026-10-13 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  tacts common objects: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×13
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/8 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/10 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5

Session 5 — 2026-10-15 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/11 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/11 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  tacts common objects: 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/10 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/8 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×9

Session 6 — 2026-10-17 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/11 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×10
  tacts common objects: 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×2
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/12 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/8 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6

Session 7 — 2026-10-19 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 82% (primary); IOA 72% agreement
  reads 10–20 sight words: 72% (primary); IOA 72% agreement
  tacts common objects: 87% (primary); IOA 72% agreement
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 70% (primary); IOA 72% agreement
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 66% (primary); IOA 72% agreement
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 60% (primary); IOA 72% agreement

Session 8 — 2026-10-21 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/11 correct (87%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  tacts common objects: 11/13 correct (88%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 7/9 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 9/12 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×2
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×7

Session 9 — 2026-10-23 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 13/14 correct (91%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×10
  reads 10–20 sight words: 11/14 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  tacts common objects: 8/8 correct (95%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 10/13 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 8/11 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4

Session 10 — 2026-10-25 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/12 correct (95%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  tacts common objects: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 10/12 correct (85%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×4

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- Steady improvement: accuracy rose from 33% to 95% across 10 sessions.
- No clinical concerns at this time; mastery criteria should be reachable within a few additional sessions.

## Pattern Classification
mastery_progression

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 65.2%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 33%, last session: 95%).
- IOA data: 72% agreement on IOA session — below threshold.


[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-5982
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Intraverbal + Listener Responding + Mand + Reading
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-10-05 to 2026-10-21)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. selects items by feature (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
2. answers WH-questions about familiar topics (Intraverbal)
   Method: NET
3. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break') (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Elopement — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-05 — 37 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 7/10 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 12/15 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 10/13 correct (80%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×3, I×2
  Elopement: freq 3

Session 2 — 2026-10-07 — 37 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 9/14 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/12 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  sounds out CVC words: 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  Elopement: freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-10-09 — 37 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 7/11 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 9/14 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/11 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/9 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×1
  sounds out CVC words: 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  Elopement: freq 3

Session 4 — 2026-10-11 — 37 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 8/13 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/14 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×8
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/14 correct (62%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  sounds out CVC words: 8/11 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  Elopement: freq 5

Session 5 — 2026-10-13 — 37 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 4/9 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/12 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 9/14 correct (64%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  Elopement: freq 6

Session 6 — 2026-10-15 — 37 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×10
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/9 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/15 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×4, I×3
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  Elopement: freq 6

Session 7 — 2026-10-17 — 37 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 3/8 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/10 correct (47%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/15 correct (43%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×5, I×5
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/12 correct (40%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  sounds out CVC words: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  Elopement: freq 6

Session 8 — 2026-10-19 — 37 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 5/11 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 4/10 correct (43%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/13 correct (44%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 4/11 correct (32%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 5/10 correct (49%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  Elopement: freq 6

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Crying during demand presentation
- Vocal refusal ('no', 'I don't want to')
- Pushing materials away from the work area
- Increased response latency (3–5× baseline)

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (68% -> 43%) with escape-indicator behaviors.
- Risk of learned helplessness and escape-maintained behavior if not addressed.

## Pattern Classification
frustration_pattern

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
4 — Safety immediate

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 55.8%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 68%, last session: 43%).
- Elopement: mean 4.6/session (early-window mean 2.5 -> late-window mean 6.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.