[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-3841
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Mand + Reading + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-10-04 to 2026-10-20)

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

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Property destruction — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-04 — 34 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/11 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  identifying community safety signs: 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×7
  meal cleanup after eating: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 12/15 correct (81%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×5, I×6
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-10-06 — 34 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  identifying community safety signs: 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/12 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 3 — 2026-10-08 — 34 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×13
  identifying community safety signs: 9/14 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  Property destruction: freq 4

Session 4 — 2026-10-10 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 54% (primary); IOA 82% agreement
  identifying community safety signs: 62% (primary); IOA 82% agreement
  meal cleanup after eating: 52% (primary); IOA 82% agreement
  brushing teeth independently: 54% (primary); IOA 82% agreement
  sounds out CVC words: 55% (primary); IOA 82% agreement
  Property destruction: freq 4; IOA 82% agreement

Session 5 — 2026-10-12 — 34 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 7/13 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  identifying community safety signs: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  meal cleanup after eating: 4/8 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 7/13 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 4/9 correct (43%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  Property destruction: freq 5

Session 6 — 2026-10-14 — 34 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 7/14 correct (49%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  identifying community safety signs: 6/15 correct (43%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×9
  meal cleanup after eating: 5/11 correct (45%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 6/12 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 4/10 correct (40%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  Property destruction: freq 4

Session 7 — 2026-10-16 — 34 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 3/8 correct (37%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  identifying community safety signs: 4/12 correct (35%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  meal cleanup after eating: 4/11 correct (38%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 5/15 correct (33%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 3/9 correct (29%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  Property destruction: freq 6

Session 8 — 2026-10-18 — 34 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 4/14 correct (30%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  identifying community safety signs: 3/9 correct (29%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  meal cleanup after eating: 4/12 correct (35%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 2/8 correct (27%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 2/9 correct (22%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Property destruction: freq 6

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Self-stimulatory behavior increase during demand periods
- Turning away from task or staff
- Elopement from the work area
- Aggression attempt directed at staff (hit, kick, or scratch toward adult)

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Regression identified**: accuracy has declined from 71% to 30% across 8 sessions.
- Accompanying behavior data suggests the decline may be function-related.

## Pattern Classification
regression

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Property destruction: attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 52.9%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 71%, last session: 30%).
- Property destruction: mean 4.2/session (early-window mean 2.5 -> late-window mean 6.0).
- IOA data: 82% 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: maintains friendships over time
Curriculum Reference: Social Behavior & Social Play L3
Learner Profile: Adolescent Learner
Current Mastery: Near mastery
Teaching Method: NET (Natural Environment Teaching)

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

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

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

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

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: 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 near mastery stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

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

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

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

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

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


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
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-9381
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Community + Independent Living + Mand + Tolerating Denied Access + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-06-05 to 2026-06-21)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. completing assigned tasks in order (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. self-advocacy statements (Independent Living)
   Method: BST
3. requesting a break during extended tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. using public transportation (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. indicating 'all done' at task completion (Mand)
   Method: NET
6. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-05 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 2/9 correct (23%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 3/10 correct (32%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 3/9 correct (30%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  using public transportation: 3/14 correct (22%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×9
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 3/11 correct (28%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 3/8 correct (36%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4

Session 2 — 2026-06-07 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 5/14 correct (34%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  self-advocacy statements: 5/13 correct (38%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/15 correct (33%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  using public transportation: 4/12 correct (31%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 5/13 correct (40%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/8 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5

Session 3 — 2026-06-09 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 4/11 correct (41%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 5/10 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 4/10 correct (42%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  using public transportation: 6/15 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×3, I×4
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×0
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×0

Session 4 — 2026-06-11 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  self-advocacy statements: 6/9 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×4
  using public transportation: 7/14 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 6/10 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 11/15 correct (73%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×4, I×4

Session 5 — 2026-06-13 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  completing assigned tasks in order: 62% (primary); IOA 84% agreement
  self-advocacy statements: 73% (primary); IOA 84% agreement
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 59% (primary); IOA 84% agreement
  using public transportation: 67% (primary); IOA 84% agreement
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 74% (primary); IOA 84% agreement
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 81% (primary); IOA 84% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-06-15 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/8 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 9/11 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/9 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  using public transportation: 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 13/15 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 10/11 correct (92%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×3

Session 7 — 2026-06-17 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/9 correct (86%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 11/12 correct (93%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 11/14 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  using public transportation: 9/10 correct (90%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 7/8 correct (94%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 10/10 correct (97%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×4

Session 8 — 2026-06-19 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/9 correct (95%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  self-advocacy statements: 9/9 correct (97%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 11/12 correct (91%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×1
  using public transportation: 13/13 correct (97%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×8
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 10/10 correct (97%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/8 correct (97%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Eye contact maintained throughout trials
- Appropriate sitting posture maintained

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
- **Rapid acquisition**: accelerated mastery from 23% to 95% across 8 sessions.
- Acquisition has exceeded expected timeline.

## Pattern Classification
rapid_acquisition

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 58.2%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 23%, last session: 95%).
- IOA data: 84% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

Target: brushing teeth
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Generalization phase

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: brushing teeth
- Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

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

Steps:
1. Collect toothbrush and toothpaste.
2. Wet the toothbrush under water.
3. Apply a pea-sized amount of toothpaste.
4. Brush upper-front teeth in small circles for 30 seconds.
5. Brush lower-front teeth in small circles for 30 seconds.
6. Brush upper-back teeth (left and right).
7. Brush lower-back teeth (left and right).
8. Spit into the sink and rinse mouth.
9. Rinse the toothbrush and return it to the holder.

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

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

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

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

## Data Collection
Per-step data: each step is scored for independence / prompt level on every trial. IOA scheduled every 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-8111
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Independent Living + Tolerating Denied Access + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-05-19 to 2026-06-12)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. completing assigned tasks in order (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
3. self-advocacy statements (Independent Living)
   Method: BST
4. simple meal preparation (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-19 — 36 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/12 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×5, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 6/15 correct (40%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  simple meal preparation: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×4

Session 2 — 2026-05-21 — 36 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 3/8 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/9 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  self-advocacy statements: 5/11 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  simple meal preparation: 10/14 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×13

Session 3 — 2026-05-23 — 36 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×1, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 7/15 correct (50%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  simple meal preparation: 8/11 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8

Session 4 — 2026-05-25 — 36 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 3/8 correct (31%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/12 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  self-advocacy statements: 4/8 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  simple meal preparation: 7/15 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×5, I×1

Session 5 — 2026-05-27 — 36 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 10/15 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/10 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 4/11 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×6

Session 6 — 2026-05-29 — 36 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 4/15 correct (29%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×2, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/10 correct (81%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 5/13 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  simple meal preparation: 11/15 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×11

Session 7 — 2026-05-31 — 36 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 4/8 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/13 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 4/10 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  simple meal preparation: 4/10 correct (41%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×2

Session 8 — 2026-06-02 — 36 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 10/15 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×0, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/14 correct (48%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 7/15 correct (49%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  simple meal preparation: 6/15 correct (42%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×8

Session 9 — 2026-06-04 — 36 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/12 correct (48%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 9/13 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 4/11 correct (34%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×6

Session 10 — 2026-06-06 — 36 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/14 correct (47%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/15 correct (47%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×9
  self-advocacy statements: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  simple meal preparation: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×9

Session 11 — 2026-06-08 — 36 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/10 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 4/10 correct (39%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  simple meal preparation: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×8

Session 12 — 2026-06-10 — 36 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 3/9 correct (32%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×14
  self-advocacy statements: 5/10 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  simple meal preparation: 6/12 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×4

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Variable performance**: accuracy fluctuating around 44% with no clear trend.
- Inconsistency may indicate stimulus-control issues or motivational variability across sessions.

## Pattern Classification
variable_performance

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 48.7%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 55%, last session: 32%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Skill Target: scheduling a medical appointment
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Independent Living Skills
Learner Profile: Adult Learner
Current Mastery: Mastered at current level
Teaching Method: Task Analysis / Chaining

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[User]
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-4502
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Echoic + Mand + Reading + Tact + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-09-21 to 2026-10-09)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break') (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
5. tacts common objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
6. echoes 2-word phrases (Echoic)
   Method: DTT variant

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Pica — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-09-21 — 51 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/8 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/13 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 4/8 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/11 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  tacts common objects: 7/13 correct (53%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  Pica: attempts 2 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 2 — 2026-09-23 — 51 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/13 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/13 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  tacts common objects: 8/15 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×5, I×8
  echoes 2-word phrases: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  Pica: attempts 2 (0 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 2 successful — item ingested)

Session 3 — 2026-09-25 — 51 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/15 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×11
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 7/13 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  tacts common objects: 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  echoes 2-word phrases: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  Pica: attempts 5 (4 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 4 — 2026-09-27 — 51 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/11 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/15 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×10
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/12 correct (65%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×3
  tacts common objects: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  echoes 2-word phrases: 10/14 correct (73%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  Pica: attempts 5 (4 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 5 — 2026-09-29 — 51 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/8 correct (65%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  tacts common objects: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  echoes 2-word phrases: 10/15 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×3, I×5
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 6 — 2026-10-01 — 51 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/12 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/11 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 10/14 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/14 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  tacts common objects: 8/14 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  echoes 2-word phrases: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×5, I×7
  Pica: attempts 2 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 7 — 2026-10-03 — 51 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/14 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/13 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/14 correct (53%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×10
  tacts common objects: 7/13 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  echoes 2-word phrases: 12/15 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×5, I×2
  Pica: attempts 2 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 8 — 2026-10-05 — 51 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 12/14 correct (84%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×9
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 7/10 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  tacts common objects: 4/8 correct (53%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  echoes 2-word phrases: 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  Pica: attempts 2 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 9 — 2026-10-07 — 51 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/10 correct (82%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/12 correct (81%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×4, I×2
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  tacts common objects: 5/9 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/9 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Attempts at property destruction (throwing materials, swiping items off the surface)
- Pushing materials away from the work area
- Self-injurious behavior onset during task difficulty (self-biting, hair-pulling, head-hitting)

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

## Pattern Classification
extinction_burst

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Pica: attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 70.9%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 64%, last session: 82%).
- Pica: mean 2.4/session (early-window mean 3.0 -> late-window mean 1.7).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
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-5619
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-03-08 to 2026-04-01)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
2. meal cleanup after eating (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. making the bed (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Property destruction — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-03-08 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 13/15 correct (84%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/8 correct (90%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×2
  making the bed: 10/11 correct (91%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×8
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-03-10 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 13/14 correct (90%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/8 correct (85%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 12/15 correct (80%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  making the bed: 9/10 correct (93%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 12/15 correct (82%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-03-12 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/13 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  meal cleanup after eating: 10/12 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  brushing teeth independently: 7/9 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  making the bed: 8/9 correct (90%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  copies simple words from model: 10/13 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 4 — 2026-03-14 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/10 correct (89%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 11/12 correct (90%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 11/15 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  making the bed: 12/13 correct (90%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 9/12 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×5
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 5 — 2026-03-16 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 12/14 correct (88%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/9 correct (87%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 6/8 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  making the bed: 8/9 correct (90%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  copies simple words from model: 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 6 — 2026-03-18 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/11 correct (89%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  meal cleanup after eating: 10/11 correct (89%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  making the bed: 8/9 correct (90%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  copies simple words from model: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-03-20 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 12/14 correct (88%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  meal cleanup after eating: 12/14 correct (87%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 8/11 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  making the bed: 10/11 correct (89%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  copies simple words from model: 7/10 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 8 — 2026-03-22 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 12/14 correct (85%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  meal cleanup after eating: 10/11 correct (89%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  making the bed: 9/11 correct (86%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×3
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 9 — 2026-03-24 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/11 correct (87%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/9 correct (88%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  making the bed: 13/15 correct (85%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×9
  copies simple words from model: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×10
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 10 — 2026-03-26 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/10 correct (88%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 10/11 correct (92%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 9/14 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  making the bed: 8/10 correct (82%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  copies simple words from model: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×2
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 11 — 2026-03-28 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/11 correct (90%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  meal cleanup after eating: 10/11 correct (91%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  making the bed: 9/11 correct (77%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  copies simple words from model: 6/9 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 12 — 2026-03-30 — 60 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/9 correct (87%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/9 correct (87%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 6/10 correct (60%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  making the bed: 8/11 correct (76%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  copies simple words from model: 6/10 correct (60%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  Property destruction: freq 3

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

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Prompt dependency**: high accuracy maintained (84%–87%) 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
Property destruction: attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 87.2%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 84%, last session: 87%).
- Property destruction: mean 2.5/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 3.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You 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 Shaping
Sequence: modified stimulus -> intermediate shape -> target stimulus
Current prompt level: At the developing stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: cup, block, shoe
Distractor stimuli: key, napkin
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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

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]
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-9424
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Independent Living + Mand + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-02-04 to 2026-02-20)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. using public transportation (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. scheduling medical appointments (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. doing laundry (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. requesting a break during extended tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-02-04 — 46 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 5/8 correct (68%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  scheduling medical appointments: 7/12 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×2
  doing laundry: 8/12 correct (64%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 12/15 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/11 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×8

Session 2 — 2026-02-06 — 46 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 9/13 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  scheduling medical appointments: 8/11 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  doing laundry: 9/14 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×13
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/11 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/11 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×7

Session 3 — 2026-02-08 — 46 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  scheduling medical appointments: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  doing laundry: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/10 correct (79%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/9 correct (71%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1

Session 4 — 2026-02-10 — 46 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  scheduling medical appointments: 4/12 correct (32%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  doing laundry: 4/9 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/13 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/15 correct (43%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×10

Session 5 — 2026-02-12 — 46 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 7/11 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  scheduling medical appointments: 4/10 correct (41%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  doing laundry: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/11 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/15 correct (47%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×7

Session 6 — 2026-02-14 — 46 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  scheduling medical appointments: 3/8 correct (44%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  doing laundry: 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/11 correct (51%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×7

Session 7 — 2026-02-16 — 46 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  scheduling medical appointments: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×7
  doing laundry: 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/11 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/10 correct (63%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×5

Session 8 — 2026-02-18 — 46 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  scheduling medical appointments: 5/10 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  doing laundry: 6/9 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 11/15 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×5, I×5
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/9 correct (67%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×5

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)

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

## Pattern Classification
setting_event_trigger

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 65.3%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 68%, last session: 69%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Skill: writes own name from model
Curriculum: Writing L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Generalization phase

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: writes own name from model
- Curriculum: Writing L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

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

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: blanket, key, glue
Distractor stimuli: sock, ball
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
80% accuracy with 2 different therapists and 2 different settings.

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

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


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
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-8199
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Echoic + Intraverbal + Listener Responding + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–7 across 14 days (2026-09-17 to 2026-10-01)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
2. answers WH-questions about familiar topics (Intraverbal)
   Method: NET
3. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
4. echoes 2-word phrases (Echoic)
   Method: DTT variant

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-09-17 — 43 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 3/9 correct (36%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 2/8 correct (30%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 2/8 correct (23%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  echoes 2-word phrases: 3/13 correct (22%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×8

Session 2 — 2026-09-19 — 43 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/11 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/14 correct (42%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/14 correct (38%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  echoes 2-word phrases: 3/11 correct (31%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×6

Session 3 — 2026-09-21 — 43 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/15 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/12 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/15 correct (42%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×10
  echoes 2-word phrases: 3/9 correct (39%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×3

Session 4 — 2026-09-23 — 43 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/12 correct (56%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/14 correct (46%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×11

Session 5 — 2026-09-25 — 43 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 11/13 correct (82%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/9 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  echoes 2-word phrases: 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3

Session 6 — 2026-09-27 — 43 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 11/12 correct (93%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 12/14 correct (83%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  echoes 2-word phrases: 9/15 correct (63%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×11

Session 7 — 2026-09-29 — 43 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/9 correct (97%); latency 1.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/8 correct (93%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/8 correct (84%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×9

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Rapid acquisition**: accelerated mastery from 36% to 97% across 7 sessions.
- Acquisition has exceeded expected timeline.

## Pattern Classification
rapid_acquisition

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 7 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 7 sessions: 69.9%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 36%, last session: 97%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Skill Target: copies basic shapes from model
Curriculum Reference: Writing L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Approaching mastery
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

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

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

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

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Least-to-Most
Sequence: independent -> gestural -> positional -> partial physical -> full physical
Current prompt level: At the approaching mastery stage, deliver gestural or positional prompts; fade toward independence.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Skill Target: identifies basic shapes in math context
Curriculum Reference: Math L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Mastered at current level
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

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

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

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

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Shaping
Sequence: modified stimulus -> intermediate shape -> target stimulus
Current prompt level: At the mastered stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Skill: reads simple 2–3 word phrases
Curriculum: Reading L2
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Developing

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: reads simple 2–3 word phrases
- Curriculum: Reading L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "What word?"
Variations: "Read this word"; "What does it say?"
Presentation: Present the sight-word card and deliver the SD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Target: follows instructions involving temporal concepts (before, after)
Curriculum: Listener Responding L3
Learner: Adolescent Learner
Mastery Status: Developing

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: follows instructions involving temporal concepts (before, after)
- Curriculum: Listener Responding L3
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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

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

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Shaping
Sequence: modified stimulus -> intermediate shape -> target stimulus
Current prompt level: At the developing stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 6 (target + 5 distractors, mixed categories)
Target stimuli: phone, backpack, toothbrush
Distractor stimuli: bottle, book, towel, key, napkin
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

follows instructions involving temporal concepts (before, after)


[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-5719
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Mand + Self-Care + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–7 across 14 days (2026-01-20 to 2026-02-03)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. meal cleanup after eating (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
4. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. identifying community safety signs (Community)
   Method: DTT
6. requesting a break during non-preferred activities (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Tantrum — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-01-20 — 37 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 6/9 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  meal cleanup after eating: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 6/11 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/10 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  identifying community safety signs: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 9/15 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 3m total

Session 2 — 2026-01-22 — 37 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/8 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  identifying community safety signs: 8/11 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×5, I×7
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 10m total

Session 3 — 2026-01-24 — 37 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 8/11 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/14 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×11
  copies simple words from model: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/11 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  identifying community safety signs: 8/11 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/12 correct (60%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 5, duration 25m total

Session 4 — 2026-01-26 — 37 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  meal cleanup after eating: 5/9 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×0
  copies simple words from model: 8/14 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×0
  identifying community safety signs: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 6/11 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  Tantrum: freq 7, duration 28m total

Session 5 — 2026-01-28 — 37 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  copies simple words from model: 5/8 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/8 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  identifying community safety signs: 6/8 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/12 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 15m total

Session 6 — 2026-01-30 — 37 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/9 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  identifying community safety signs: 13/15 correct (85%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×5, I×4
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/11 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 2m total

Session 7 — 2026-02-01 — 37 min — 1 observer
  washing hands independently: 7/9 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  copies simple words from model: 9/13 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  identifying community safety signs: 11/14 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 12m total

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Increased response latency (3–5× baseline)
- Vocal refusal ('no', 'I don't want to')
- Self-stimulatory behavior increase during demand periods

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

## Pattern Classification
extinction_burst

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 7 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 7 sessions: 73.2%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 68%, last session: 83%).
- Tantrum: mean 3.1/session (early-window mean 1.5 -> late-window mean 2.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

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

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

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

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

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

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Expectant look (pause)
Deliver no prompt — maintain eye contact and hold the preferred item until the learner responds.
Current prompt level: At the approaching mastery stage, use time delay (0 s -> 2 s -> 4 s) before delivering any model prompt; reinforce independent responses differentially.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Skill: spontaneously uses humor appropriately
Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L3
Learner Level: School-Age Learner
Baseline: Near mastery

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Independent use with a peer in unstructured free play across 2 consecutive sessions.

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

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