[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: Generalization phase

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: Generalization phase
- 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 generalization stage, begin at shaping step 6 ("60 seconds of brushing") and advance through step 7 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 3 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 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 by single function from array of 3
Curriculum Reference: LRFFC L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Developing
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects by single function from array of 3
- Curriculum: LRFFC L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "Touch [target item]"
Variations: "Point to [target item]"; "Give me [target item]"; "Show me [target item]"
Presentation: Present an array of items on the table and deliver a clear verbal SD.

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: spoon, plate, jacket
Distractor stimuli: shoe, car
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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

selects by single function from array of 3


[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-1860
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Mand + Reading + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-06-10 to 2026-06-26)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. selects items by feature (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
3. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
4. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Vocal stereotypy — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-10 — 38 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/10 correct (38%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  selects items by feature: 5/12 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 4/13 correct (28%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  reads 10–20 sight words: 3/8 correct (36%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 0; PIR 0%

Session 2 — 2026-06-12 — 38 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/14 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  selects items by feature: 4/9 correct (47%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  copies simple words from model: 3/10 correct (33%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/8 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 5%

Session 3 — 2026-06-14 — 38 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  selects items by feature: 8/15 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×0, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 5/15 correct (36%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×13
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×5
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 0; PIR 10%

Session 4 — 2026-06-16 — 38 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  selects items by feature: 8/12 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  copies simple words from model: 4/10 correct (43%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 0; PIR 0%

Session 5 — 2026-06-18 — 38 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/10 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  selects items by feature: 10/15 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×5, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 4/8 correct (45%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/11 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 0; PIR 8%

Session 6 — 2026-06-20 — 38 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  selects items by feature: 11/15 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×5, I×2
  copies simple words from model: 4/8 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 0; PIR 10%

Session 7 — 2026-06-22 — 38 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/12 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  selects items by feature: 7/8 correct (88%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 6/11 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 0; PIR 4%

Session 8 — 2026-06-24 — 38 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/12 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  selects items by feature: 14/15 correct (92%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×13
  copies simple words from model: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/12 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 0; PIR 3%

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Requesting more trials verbally
- Smiling during reinforcement delivery
- Appropriate sitting posture maintained

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- Steady improvement: accuracy rose from 38% to 72% across 8 sessions.
- No clinical concerns at this time; mastery criteria should be reachable within a few additional sessions.

## Pattern Classification
mastery_progression

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 55.7%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 38%, last session: 72%).
- Vocal stereotypy: mean 0.1/session (early-window mean 0.5 -> late-window mean 0.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-7364
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Intraverbal + Listener Responding + Mand + Tolerating Denied Access + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-07-25 to 2026-08-18)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
2. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
4. answers WH-questions about familiar topics (Intraverbal)
   Method: NET
5. requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break') (Mand)
   Method: NET
6. selects items by feature (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-25 — 49 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/14 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/14 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  selects items by feature: 8/15 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×11

Session 2 — 2026-07-27 — 49 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/10 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/10 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/13 correct (55%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/8 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  selects items by feature: 7/13 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×5

Session 3 — 2026-07-29 — 49 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 10/14 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/9 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 8/14 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  selects items by feature: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×7

Session 4 — 2026-07-31 — 49 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 9/13 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/11 correct (56%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/13 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 8/13 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/11 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  selects items by feature: 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×10

Session 5 — 2026-08-02 — 49 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/11 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/9 correct (58%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  selects items by feature: 5/12 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×5

Session 6 — 2026-08-04 — 49 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/8 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/8 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/10 correct (56%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/10 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  selects items by feature: 8/15 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×5, I×7

Session 7 — 2026-08-06 — 49 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/11 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 9/15 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×5, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/13 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  selects items by feature: 7/15 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×5, I×3

Session 8 — 2026-08-08 — 49 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 11/14 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/14 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/11 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/9 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×0
  selects items by feature: 4/10 correct (41%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×10

Session 9 — 2026-08-10 — 49 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/9 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/13 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/11 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  selects items by feature: 5/11 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×8

Session 10 — 2026-08-12 — 49 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×11
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/10 correct (63%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/13 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/15 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  selects items by feature: 5/15 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×5, I×4

Session 11 — 2026-08-14 — 49 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/13 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/14 correct (73%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×6
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 9/14 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/13 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  selects items by feature: 6/13 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×9

Session 12 — 2026-08-16 — 49 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/12 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/12 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×2
  selects items by feature: 7/15 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×10

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals
- Playing with non-task materials

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Plateau**: accuracy has remained near 69% for 12 sessions without meaningful improvement.
- Performance is below mastery criteria; current teaching procedure may not be effective for this learner.

## Pattern Classification
plateau

Responding has stabilized below mastery criterion without meaningful movement, indicating the current procedure is limiting further acquisition.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Modify teaching procedure — switch prompt type (e.g., from most-to-least to time delay).
- Conduct preference assessment and update reinforcer menu.
- Break the current skill into smaller component steps if possible.
- Increase practice opportunities by embedding targets in natural-environment training.

### Consequence strategies
- Check for inadvertent reinforcement of near-misses; tighten differential reinforcement.

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 71.1%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 57%, last session: 80%).
- 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-6041
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Mand + Motor Imitation + Reading + Tact + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–6 across 12 days (2026-08-02 to 2026-08-14)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. tacts colors of objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
2. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
3. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
4. imitates 3-step motor sequences (Motor Imitation)
   Method: DTT variant
5. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
6. selects items by feature (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-02 — 31 min — 1 observer
  tacts colors of objects: 3/13 correct (23%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 3/11 correct (23%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 2/9 correct (28%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 3/12 correct (27%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 2/12 correct (18%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  selects items by feature: 2/10 correct (22%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×4

Session 2 — 2026-08-04 — 31 min — 1 observer
  tacts colors of objects: 3/9 correct (34%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/13 correct (33%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  copies simple words from model: 5/13 correct (36%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×9
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 5/14 correct (34%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/10 correct (31%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  selects items by feature: 4/12 correct (32%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×4

Session 3 — 2026-08-06 — 31 min — 1 observer
  tacts colors of objects: 4/12 correct (37%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/10 correct (42%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  copies simple words from model: 6/12 correct (46%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×4
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/10 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/15 correct (38%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×12
  selects items by feature: 5/13 correct (41%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×5

Session 4 — 2026-08-08 — 31 min — 1 observer
  tacts colors of objects: 4/8 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/10 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  selects items by feature: 5/9 correct (51%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×4

Session 5 — 2026-08-10 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  tacts colors of objects: 54% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  reads 10–20 sight words: 57% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  copies simple words from model: 62% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 61% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 60% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  selects items by feature: 60% (primary); IOA 89% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-08-12 — 31 min — 1 observer
  tacts colors of objects: 7/10 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/11 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 7/10 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 10/14 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/13 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  selects items by feature: 10/15 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×13

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Quick response latency (within 2–3 seconds)
- Appropriate sitting posture maintained

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Rapid acquisition**: accelerated mastery from 23% to 65% across 6 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: 6 sessions of data with IOA evidence.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 6 sessions: 43.5%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 23%, last session: 65%).
- IOA data: 89% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

Skill Target: spontaneously vocalizes during preferred activities
Curriculum Reference: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Approaching mastery
Teaching Method: NET (Natural Environment Teaching)

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: spontaneously vocalizes during preferred activities
- Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior 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
Create a small environmental change (new item, familiar item in new location, surprise event) that invites a verbal comment or question.
Primary natural context: room transition.

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: 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 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: 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 2 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 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.

spontaneously vocalizes during preferred activities


[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: matches non-identical items by category
Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample 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: matches non-identical items by category
- Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample 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: "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 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: hat, spoon, phone
Distractor stimuli: cup, blanket, backpack, scissors
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 3 additional therapists, and in at least 3 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


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

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

Target: crossing a street safely
Curriculum: AFLS Community Participation Skills
Learner: Adolescent Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: crossing a street safely
- Curriculum: AFLS Community Participation Skills
- Learner: Adolescent 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. Approach the crosswalk and stop at the curb.
2. Look left, look right, look left again.
3. Identify the walk signal or absence of traffic.
4. Begin to cross while continuing to scan for vehicles.
5. Cross directly to the opposite curb.
6. Step up onto the sidewalk.

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

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

## Reinforcement
Token economy — One token per correctly-completed step; token exchange at chain completion.
Pair the terminal reinforcer with the natural consequence of the completed task (e.g., clean hands, clean dishes, completed routine).

## Mastery Criteria
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 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
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-1781
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Social Behavior + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-01-15 to 2026-01-31)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. identifies numerals 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
4. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
5. requesting a break during non-preferred tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Vocal stereotypy — function hypothesized: automatic
2. Motor stereotypy — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-01-15 — 36 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 4/9 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/9 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×1
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/14 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 11/15 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×11
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 18%
  Motor stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 9%
  ABC (vocal stereotypy): A = quiet unstructured moment between trials; B = engaged in hand-flapping; C = no social consequence; self-terminated after 30s

Session 2 — 2026-01-17 — 36 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/11 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 4/9 correct (42%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/14 correct (40%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×9
  copies simple words from model: 5/15 correct (32%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×11
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 3/9 correct (32%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 11%
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 20%

Session 3 — 2026-01-19 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  identifies numerals 1–20: 60% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 44% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  takes turns during structured activities: 27% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  copies simple words from model: 47% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 27% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 17%; IOA 96% agreement
  Motor stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 14%; IOA 96% agreement

Session 4 — 2026-01-21 — 36 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/9 correct (81%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 4/9 correct (49%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 3/8 correct (43%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 3/9 correct (34%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 16%
  Motor stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 13%

Session 5 — 2026-01-23 — 36 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/11 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/14 correct (49%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/9 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 4/10 correct (41%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 5/10 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 12%
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 16%

Session 6 — 2026-01-25 — 36 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/12 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 4/8 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 4/15 correct (30%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  copies simple words from model: 3/9 correct (38%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 4/10 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 9%
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 9%

Session 7 — 2026-01-27 — 36 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 3/9 correct (32%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 3/12 correct (23%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 4/12 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 9%
  Motor stereotypy: freq 5; PIR 16%

Session 8 — 2026-01-29 — 36 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/10 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 3/8 correct (43%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 7/13 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 19%
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 10%

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Variable performance**: accuracy fluctuating around 52% with no clear trend.
- Inconsistency may indicate stimulus-control issues or motivational variability across sessions.

## Pattern Classification
variable_performance

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
high

Pattern is well-supported: 8 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 51.5%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 47%, last session: 56%).
- Vocal stereotypy: mean 2.1/session (early-window mean 1.5 -> late-window mean 2.0).
- Motor stereotypy: mean 2.2/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 4.0).
- IOA data: 96% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

Skill Target: identifies all lower-case letters
Curriculum Reference: Reading L2
Learner Profile: School-Age Learner
Current Mastery: Near mastery
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: identifies all lower-case letters
- Curriculum: Reading 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: "What letter is this?"
Variations: "Read this letter"; "What does this say?"
Presentation: Present the letter flashcard.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Fading
Sequence: exaggerated stimulus -> moderate fade -> minimal fade -> natural stimulus
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: M, N, Z
Distractor stimuli: K, C, V, E
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
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% first-trial-correct across 5 consecutive sessions.

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

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


[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-9955
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Mand + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-02-02 to 2026-02-24)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. meal cleanup after eating (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. requesting a break during non-preferred activities (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. identifying community safety signs (Community)
   Method: DTT
4. requesting preferred items using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-02-02 — 48 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/8 correct (84%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  identifying community safety signs: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 7/10 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 7/8 correct (87%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  Non-compliance: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-02-04 — 48 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/9 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 11/15 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×7
  identifying community safety signs: 9/14 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 10/15 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 10/12 correct (80%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  Non-compliance: freq 3

Session 3 — 2026-02-06 — 48 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/9 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  identifying community safety signs: 5/8 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 9/15 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 9/14 correct (64%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×11
  Non-compliance: freq 4
  ABC (non-compliance): A = asked to finish dressing task; B = kicked at materials; C = task paused for 3 min

Session 4 — 2026-02-08 — 48 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/12 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 8/15 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×1, I×7
  identifying community safety signs: 5/11 correct (49%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  brushing teeth independently: 5/8 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  Non-compliance: freq 5

Session 5 — 2026-02-10 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  meal cleanup after eating: 63% (primary); IOA 86% agreement
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 53% (primary); IOA 86% agreement
  identifying community safety signs: 42% (primary); IOA 86% agreement
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 50% (primary); IOA 86% agreement
  brushing teeth independently: 50% (primary); IOA 86% agreement
  Non-compliance: freq 5; IOA 86% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-02-12 — 48 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/12 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 6/13 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  identifying community safety signs: 6/15 correct (39%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×5, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/15 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×14
  brushing teeth independently: 6/12 correct (49%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×4
  Non-compliance: freq 6

Session 7 — 2026-02-14 — 48 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 5/11 correct (44%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 5/14 correct (36%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×11
  identifying community safety signs: 3/11 correct (23%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 5/11 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 5/12 correct (40%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  Non-compliance: freq 6

Session 8 — 2026-02-16 — 48 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 4/10 correct (41%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 4/12 correct (32%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  identifying community safety signs: 3/13 correct (23%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 3/8 correct (38%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 4/15 correct (26%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  Non-compliance: freq 7
  ABC (non-compliance): A = transition to non-preferred activity; B = dropped to floor, cried; C = transition delayed, preferred item offered

Session 9 — 2026-02-18 — 48 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 5/13 correct (36%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 3/12 correct (24%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  identifying community safety signs: 1/11 correct (12%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 3/10 correct (30%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 2/9 correct (17%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  Non-compliance: freq 8

Session 10 — 2026-02-20 — 48 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 3/12 correct (28%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 3/15 correct (19%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×11
  identifying community safety signs: 1/12 correct (10%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 3/9 correct (32%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 1/11 correct (13%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  Non-compliance: freq 8

Session 11 — 2026-02-22 — 48 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 4/15 correct (27%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 2/11 correct (21%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  identifying community safety signs: 1/11 correct (10%); latency 5.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 3/11 correct (24%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 1/12 correct (10%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  Non-compliance: freq 9

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Peer aggression (hitting or pushing peers during group activities)
- Turning away from task or staff
- Aggression attempt directed at staff (hit, kick, or scratch toward adult)
- Self-injurious behavior onset during task difficulty (self-biting, hair-pulling, head-hitting)

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
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (84% -> 27%) 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
Non-compliance: 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.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 52.6%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 84%, last session: 27%).
- Non-compliance: mean 5.7/session (early-window mean 3.0 -> late-window mean 8.3).
- IOA data: 86% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

Skill: mands for others to stop an action
Curriculum: Mand L2
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Developing

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: mands for others to stop an action
- Curriculum: Mand L2
- Learner: Early 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
Briefly withhold or restrict access to the target preferred item/activity for 30–60 seconds to establish motivation before the teaching opportunity.
Primary natural context: snack time.

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: 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: performance of the requested action.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

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

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

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

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


[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: washing hands
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner Profile: Adult Learner
Current Mastery: Approaching mastery
Teaching Method: Task Analysis / Chaining

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: washing hands
- 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: 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 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
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
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 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 toleration program for this self-care / medical / caregiver-delivered skill.

Target: tolerating nail clipping
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner: Adolescent Learner
Mastery Status: Emerging

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tolerating nail clipping
- Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging
- Approach: Toleration / systematic desensitization (caregiver-delivered activity)

This program builds tolerance for nail clipping 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
all 10 fingernails (and optionally toenails) clipped by caregiver without refusal, pulling hand away, or safety behaviors

## 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 fingernail clipped
2. 2 fingernails clipped in one sitting
3. 5 fingernails clipped (one hand)
4. All 10 fingernails clipped
5. All 10 fingernails + 10 toenails clipped

Current shaping step: At the emerging stage, begin at shaping step 1 ("1 fingernail clipped") 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 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 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full routine across 2 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-9164
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Mand + Reading + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-08-02 to 2026-08-18)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. requesting help when a task is difficult (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
5. ordering in a restaurant (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Tantrum — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-02 — 52 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 8/9 correct (89%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/9 correct (91%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 13/15 correct (88%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/9 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  ordering in a restaurant: 11/13 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 10m total
  ABC (tantrum): A = transition to non-preferred activity; B = dropped to floor, cried; C = transition delayed, preferred item offered

Session 2 — 2026-08-04 — 52 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/9 correct (90%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 13/15 correct (89%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  ordering in a restaurant: 13/15 correct (86%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 6m total

Session 3 — 2026-08-06 — 52 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 10/11 correct (95%); latency 1.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 12/13 correct (89%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 11/13 correct (87%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/11 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  ordering in a restaurant: 7/8 correct (89%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 8m total

Session 4 — 2026-08-08 — 52 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 13/14 correct (94%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/8 correct (96%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 12/14 correct (83%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/8 correct (76%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  ordering in a restaurant: 13/15 correct (87%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×13
  Tantrum: freq 4, duration 12m total
  ABC (tantrum): A = worksheet task presented; B = refused + pushed materials away; C = task removed for 2 min

Session 5 — 2026-08-10 — 52 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 11/11 correct (97%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  dressing (pants, shirt): 11/11 correct (96%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/8 correct (85%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/15 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  ordering in a restaurant: 9/10 correct (87%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 6m total

Session 6 — 2026-08-12 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  sounds out CVC words: 95% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  dressing (pants, shirt): 91% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 88% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 72% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  ordering in a restaurant: 88% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 4m total; IOA 89% agreement

Session 7 — 2026-08-14 — 52 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 8/8 correct (98%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 12/13 correct (90%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 8/10 correct (82%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  ordering in a restaurant: 12/13 correct (93%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 6m total

Session 8 — 2026-08-16 — 52 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 8/8 correct (98%); latency 1.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  dressing (pants, shirt): 9/10 correct (94%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 8/10 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/12 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  ordering in a restaurant: 13/14 correct (94%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 9m total

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Prompt dependency**: high accuracy maintained (89%–98%) but primarily at prompted levels.
- Independent responding remains low despite extended training.

## Pattern Classification
prompt_dependency

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
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.

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 95.2%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 89%, last session: 98%).
- Tantrum: mean 2.6/session (early-window mean 2.5 -> late-window mean 3.0).
- IOA data: 89% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

[User]
Design a systematic desensitization / toleration program for the following.

Skill: tolerating showering assistance
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner Level: Adult Learner
Baseline: Mastered at current level

The learner currently refuses or exhibits safety behaviors during the activity; the program should build tolerance gradually.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tolerating showering assistance
- Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level
- Approach: Toleration / systematic desensitization (caregiver-delivered activity)

This program builds tolerance for showering / bathing performed with caregiver assistance 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 assisted shower routine completed without refusal, exiting the shower, or safety behaviors

## 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. Stand in shower for 30 seconds with water off
2. Tolerate 10 seconds of water on body
3. Tolerate 30 seconds of water on body
4. Tolerate soap application to torso
5. Tolerate full body wash by caregiver
6. Full assisted shower routine

Current shaping step: At the mastered stage, begin at shaping step 5 ("Tolerate full body wash by caregiver") and advance through step 6 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 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full routine across 2 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-9497
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Reading + Social Behavior
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-08-10 to 2026-08-30)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. identifies numerals 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
3. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. takes turns during structured activities (Social Behavior)
   Method: PRT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-10 — 41 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 12/14 correct (83%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×10
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/12 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/12 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  takes turns during structured activities: 13/15 correct (87%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×5, I×5

Session 2 — 2026-08-12 — 41 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/13 correct (35%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  identifies numerals 1–20: 4/8 correct (46%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/10 correct (41%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  takes turns during structured activities: 4/13 correct (33%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×9

Session 3 — 2026-08-14 — 41 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/9 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  identifies numerals 1–20: 11/14 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 12/15 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×12

Session 4 — 2026-08-16 — 41 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 3/8 correct (41%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/15 correct (42%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/14 correct (44%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/13 correct (36%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×8

Session 5 — 2026-08-18 — 41 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/11 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×13
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/12 correct (81%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×3, I×1
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7

Session 6 — 2026-08-20 — 41 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 3/9 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×3
  identifies numerals 1–20: 3/8 correct (37%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/10 correct (40%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  takes turns during structured activities: 4/11 correct (35%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×10

Session 7 — 2026-08-22 — 41 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/12 correct (84%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/12 correct (73%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 11/14 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  takes turns during structured activities: 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×2

Session 8 — 2026-08-24 — 41 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/13 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/13 correct (41%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/11 correct (47%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/14 correct (34%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×9

Session 9 — 2026-08-26 — 41 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×11
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/8 correct (80%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 13/15 correct (84%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×5, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 10/12 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×8

Session 10 — 2026-08-28 — 41 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/14 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  identifies numerals 1–20: 4/9 correct (43%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/11 correct (39%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 3/8 correct (41%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4

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

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

## Pattern Classification
generalization_failure

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 59.1%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 83%, last session: 41%).
- 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-7060
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Mand + Tact + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–6 across 12 days (2026-06-23 to 2026-07-05)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
2. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. indicating completion ('all done', 'finished') (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. tacts colors of objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
5. tacts common objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-23 — 42 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 3/10 correct (30%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 2/8 correct (24%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 2/8 correct (29%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 3/9 correct (31%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×1
  tacts common objects: 2/10 correct (25%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×8

Session 2 — 2026-06-25 — 42 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×0
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 2/8 correct (31%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 3/8 correct (39%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  tacts colors of objects: 6/14 correct (40%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  tacts common objects: 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×6

Session 3 — 2026-06-27 — 42 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 6/13 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/14 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 4/9 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  tacts colors of objects: 7/15 correct (49%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  tacts common objects: 4/8 correct (45%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7

Session 4 — 2026-06-29 — 42 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×13
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 9/15 correct (58%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×2, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  tacts common objects: 5/9 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×6

Session 5 — 2026-07-01 — 42 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×9
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 10/14 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 9/14 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  tacts colors of objects: 6/9 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  tacts common objects: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×5

Session 6 — 2026-07-03 — 42 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 6/8 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 11/13 correct (82%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  tacts common objects: 6/9 correct (71%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×6

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Reaching for materials proactively
- Smiling during reinforcement delivery
- Eye contact maintained throughout trials
- Requesting more trials verbally

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Rapid acquisition**: accelerated mastery from 30% to 73% across 6 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
low

Insufficient data: only 6 sessions, high variance, and/or no IOA evidence. Recommend additional data collection before programming changes.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 6 sessions: 50.8%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 30%, last session: 73%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.