[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-3262
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Intraverbal + Listener Responding + Mand + Tact + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-10-07 to 2026-10-31)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
2. tacts common objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
3. answers WH-questions about familiar topics (Intraverbal)
   Method: NET
4. tacts colors of objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
5. indicating completion ('all done', 'finished') (Mand)
   Method: NET
6. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-07 — 40 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/9 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  tacts common objects: 11/13 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/8 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 9/12 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 9/11 correct (84%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/8 correct (82%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7

Session 2 — 2026-10-09 — 40 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/8 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  tacts common objects: 9/11 correct (84%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 11/14 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×2
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/9 correct (82%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×3

Session 3 — 2026-10-11 — 40 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  tacts common objects: 8/9 correct (87%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 11/14 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×7
  tacts colors of objects: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 10/12 correct (84%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/12 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×5

Session 4 — 2026-10-13 — 40 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 12/14 correct (86%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  tacts common objects: 9/11 correct (86%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 11/14 correct (79%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×8
  tacts colors of objects: 10/13 correct (80%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 10/13 correct (80%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/11 correct (80%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×6

Session 5 — 2026-10-15 — 40 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/12 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×0
  tacts common objects: 5/11 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 4/9 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  tacts colors of objects: 4/9 correct (47%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 7/14 correct (50%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/11 correct (56%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×8

Session 6 — 2026-10-17 — 40 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/15 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×10
  tacts common objects: 6/13 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 4/9 correct (44%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 6/13 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 5/9 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×10

Session 7 — 2026-10-19 — 40 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/8 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  tacts common objects: 6/13 correct (49%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/11 correct (42%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  tacts colors of objects: 3/8 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/15 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×1, I×6

Session 8 — 2026-10-21 — 40 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/13 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×3
  tacts common objects: 5/8 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 4/9 correct (43%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  tacts colors of objects: 3/8 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×6

Session 9 — 2026-10-23 — 40 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/11 correct (76%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  tacts common objects: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/13 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 4/8 correct (45%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 5/8 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×5

Session 10 — 2026-10-25 — 40 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/11 correct (84%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  tacts common objects: 11/15 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 6/11 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/13 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×8

Session 11 — 2026-10-27 — 40 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/10 correct (85%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  tacts common objects: 11/14 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  tacts colors of objects: 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 9/12 correct (79%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 13/15 correct (84%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×7

Session 12 — 2026-10-29 — 40 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 13/15 correct (85%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×1, I×4
  tacts common objects: 9/11 correct (84%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 10/13 correct (77%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  tacts colors of objects: 7/12 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 10/12 correct (80%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/8 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Looking away during SD presentation
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)

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

## Pattern Classification
motivating_operation_shift

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 74.9%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 82%, last session: 85%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

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

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: 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
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 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
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-2139
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math
Date range: Sessions 1–5 across 10 days (2026-08-25 to 2026-09-04)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. identifies numerals 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
2. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. single-word requests for preferred items (Mand)
   Method: NET

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-25 — 39 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 4/12 correct (35%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/14 correct (27%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  single-word requests for preferred items: 4/12 correct (36%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×3

Session 2 — 2026-08-27 — 39 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/14 correct (43%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/13 correct (39%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/13 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×6

Session 3 — 2026-08-29 — 39 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 4/8 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/14 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/9 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5

Session 4 — 2026-08-31 — 39 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/13 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×13
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/10 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 9/13 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×10

Session 5 — 2026-09-02 — 39 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/14 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 10/13 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×8

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Rapid acquisition**: accelerated mastery from 35% to 77% across 5 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: 5 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 5 sessions: 54.4%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 35%, last session: 77%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-8371
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Mand + Reading + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-02-13 to 2026-03-07)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. indicating 'all done' with a step or activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. requesting preferred items using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Mouthing — function hypothesized: automatic
2. Property destruction — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-02-13 — 34 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 6/8 correct (77%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 11/14 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 13/15 correct (87%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×5, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 9/11 correct (84%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  Mouthing: freq 1; PIR 5%
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-02-15 — 34 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 9/12 correct (76%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×10
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 9/12 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  Mouthing: freq 3; PIR 11%
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 3 — 2026-02-17 — 34 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 6/9 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 8/13 correct (62%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 7/9 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  Mouthing: freq 2; PIR 18%
  Property destruction: freq 2
  ABC (mouthing): A = waiting in line transition; B = mouthed own hand; C = staff redirected to task materials

Session 4 — 2026-02-19 — 34 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 10/15 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 5/8 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  Mouthing: freq 2; PIR 13%
  Property destruction: freq 2
  ABC (property destruction): A = transition to non-preferred activity; B = dropped to floor, cried; C = transition delayed, preferred item offered

Session 5 — 2026-02-21 — 34 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 7/12 correct (60%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×1, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  Mouthing: freq 3; PIR 21%
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 6 — 2026-02-23 — 34 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 4/8 correct (53%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 6/11 correct (50%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  Mouthing: freq 4; PIR 21%
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 7 — 2026-02-25 — 34 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 6/13 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 5/12 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 5/13 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 7/15 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×8
  Mouthing: freq 5; PIR 21%
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 8 — 2026-02-27 — 34 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 4/9 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 5/12 correct (42%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 5/13 correct (39%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 3/8 correct (40%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Mouthing: freq 5; PIR 20%
  Property destruction: freq 4
  ABC (property destruction): A = worksheet task presented; B = refused + pushed materials away; C = task removed for 2 min

Session 9 — 2026-03-01 — 34 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 3/8 correct (32%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 5/13 correct (37%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×3, I×2
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 2/8 correct (26%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 3/9 correct (29%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  Mouthing: freq 5; PIR 22%
  Property destruction: freq 4

Session 10 — 2026-03-03 — 34 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 4/15 correct (28%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 4/11 correct (35%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 2/10 correct (21%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 3/12 correct (29%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  Mouthing: freq 5; PIR 22%
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 11 — 2026-03-05 — 34 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 5/15 correct (32%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×5, I×5
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 3/8 correct (34%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 2/13 correct (16%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  brushing teeth independently: 1/9 correct (17%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  Mouthing: freq 5; PIR 33%
  Property destruction: freq 4

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Attempts at property destruction (throwing materials, swiping items off the surface)
- Self-stimulatory behavior increase during demand periods

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Regression identified**: accuracy has declined from 77% to 32% across 11 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
Mouthing: automatic
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the automatic function; behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.
Property destruction: escape
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the escape function; behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 11 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 52.1%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 77%, last session: 32%).
- Mouthing: mean 3.6/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 5.0).
- Property destruction: mean 2.5/session (early-window mean 1.7 -> late-window mean 3.7).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: traces letters of own name
Curriculum: Writing L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Near mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: traces letters of own name
- Curriculum: Writing L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "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 near mastery stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: O, B, A
Distractor stimuli: E, Y
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 across 2 consecutive sessions with at least 10 trials each.

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

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


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
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-9146
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Math + Reading + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-09-09 to 2026-09-25)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
2. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
3. counts objects 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Property destruction — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-09-09 — 45 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 9/11 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  reads 10–20 sight words: 11/14 correct (82%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  counts objects 1–20: 8/10 correct (80%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-09-11 — 45 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/9 correct (83%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 12/15 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×5, I×5
  counts objects 1–20: 12/14 correct (86%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×13
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-09-13 — 45 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/8 correct (84%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/10 correct (85%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  counts objects 1–20: 13/15 correct (86%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 4 — 2026-09-15 — 45 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 9/11 correct (81%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/11 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  counts objects 1–20: 7/8 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 5 — 2026-09-17 — 45 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/9 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×2
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/12 correct (83%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  counts objects 1–20: 7/8 correct (85%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 6 — 2026-09-19 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  copies simple words from model: 83% (primary); IOA 82% agreement
  reads 10–20 sight words: 86% (primary); IOA 82% agreement
  counts objects 1–20: 86% (primary); IOA 82% agreement
  Property destruction: freq 2; IOA 82% agreement

Session 7 — 2026-09-21 — 45 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 10/12 correct (80%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/11 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  counts objects 1–20: 12/13 correct (90%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×10
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 8 — 2026-09-23 — 45 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  counts objects 1–20: 9/10 correct (85%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  Property destruction: freq 2

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Prompt dependency**: high accuracy maintained (81%–78%) 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: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 80.9%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 81%, last session: 78%).
- Property destruction: mean 2.1/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 2.0).
- IOA data: 82% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


[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-6092
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Mand + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-07-16 to 2026-08-05)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. completing assigned tasks in order (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. simple meal preparation (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. requesting assistance using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
6. doing laundry (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-16 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  simple meal preparation: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 5/11 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 6/11 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/12 correct (44%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  doing laundry: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 2 — 2026-07-18 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/11 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  simple meal preparation: 7/14 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 4/9 correct (43%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/8 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  doing laundry: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×14
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-07-20 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/10 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 4/9 correct (50%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×11
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 3/8 correct (37%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  doing laundry: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 4 — 2026-07-22 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  simple meal preparation: 6/10 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 4/8 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 3/8 correct (33%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  doing laundry: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 5 — 2026-07-24 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 5/10 correct (54%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 6/11 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/13 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 10/14 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/15 correct (39%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  doing laundry: 5/8 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 6 — 2026-07-26 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  simple meal preparation: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×4
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 7/12 correct (56%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/14 correct (31%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  doing laundry: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-07-28 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  simple meal preparation: 9/15 correct (62%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×2, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 8/12 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/13 correct (40%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  doing laundry: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 8 — 2026-07-30 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/15 correct (56%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×13
  simple meal preparation: 6/10 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/10 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 5/8 correct (67%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/10 correct (39%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  doing laundry: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 9 — 2026-08-01 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/11 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  simple meal preparation: 9/14 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/15 correct (35%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×10
  doing laundry: 5/8 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 10 — 2026-08-03 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  simple meal preparation: 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/15 correct (33%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×0, I×8
  doing laundry: 8/14 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Plateau**: accuracy has remained near 63% for 10 sessions without meaningful improvement.
- Performance is below mastery criteria; current teaching procedure may not be effective for this learner.

## Pattern Classification
plateau

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 60.5%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 57%, last session: 69%).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 2.8/session (early-window mean 2.7 -> 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]
I need a DTT program for this skill.

Target: tacts common objects (ball, cup, shoe)
Curriculum: Tact L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Generalization phase

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts common objects (ball, cup, shoe)
- Curriculum: Tact L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "What is this?"
Variations: "Tell me what you see"; "What's that?"; "Name this"
Presentation: Present the target stimulus within visual field and ask while pointing to it.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Time Delay (progressive)
Sequence: 0s delay -> 2s delay -> 4s delay -> 6s delay -> 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: phone, pencil, napkin
Distractor stimuli: hat, backpack
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

## Data Collection
Trial-by-trial data recording prompt level and response accuracy. IOA scheduled every 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: sorts items into 2–3 categories
Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L2
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Approaching mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: sorts items into 2–3 categories
- Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L2
- 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: "Match"
Variations: "Find the same"; "Put with same"
Presentation: Present the sample stimulus and an array of comparison stimuli simultaneously.

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: towel, napkin, jacket
Distractor stimuli: pencil, apple, cup, phone
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
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 3 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-5252
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Tolerating Denied Access + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-03-10 to 2026-03-26)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. doing laundry (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
3. clocking in at start of shift (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-03-10 — 35 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 9/11 correct (85%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 13/15 correct (87%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/9 correct (85%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×7

Session 2 — 2026-03-12 — 35 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 2/8 correct (26%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 3/9 correct (33%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  clocking in at start of shift: 2/8 correct (28%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7

Session 3 — 2026-03-14 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  doing laundry: 90% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 80% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  clocking in at start of shift: 81% (primary); IOA 91% agreement

Session 4 — 2026-03-16 — 35 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 3/11 correct (26%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/10 correct (37%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/14 correct (30%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×12

Session 5 — 2026-03-18 — 35 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 7/8 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/10 correct (80%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  clocking in at start of shift: 11/13 correct (87%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×7

Session 6 — 2026-03-20 — 35 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 2/9 correct (28%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 3/10 correct (34%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/14 correct (26%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×3, I×3

Session 7 — 2026-03-22 — 35 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 7/8 correct (85%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/10 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  clocking in at start of shift: 13/15 correct (87%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×11

Session 8 — 2026-03-24 — 35 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 3/8 correct (32%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/11 correct (34%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/15 correct (28%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×1, I×5

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Looking away during SD presentation
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals
- Leaving seat without permission
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)

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
- **Generalization failure**: strong performance in training context but failure to generalize to novel conditions.
- Skill may be under restricted stimulus control.

## Pattern Classification
generalization_failure

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 8 sessions of data with IOA evidence.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 56.9%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 85%, last session: 32%).
- IOA data: 91% 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 NET program for this skill.

Target: mands for missing items needed to complete an activity
Curriculum: Mand L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Generalization phase

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: the missing item is provided, activity can continue.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

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

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

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

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

mands for missing items needed to complete an activity


[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: selects items by function when item not visible
Curriculum: LRFFC L2
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Approaching mastery

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects items by function when item not visible
- Curriculum: LRFFC L2
- 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: "Touch [target item]"
Variations: "Point to [target item]"; "Give me [target item]"; "Show me [target item]"
Presentation: Present an array of items on the table and deliver a clear verbal SD.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Fading
Sequence: exaggerated stimulus -> moderate fade -> minimal fade -> natural stimulus
Current prompt level: At the approaching mastery stage, deliver gestural or positional prompts; fade toward independence.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: jacket, ball, backpack
Distractor stimuli: apple, plate, block, key
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
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 3 natural contexts. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.

selects items by function when item not visible


[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-2005
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Mand + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–7 across 14 days (2026-04-06 to 2026-04-20)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
3. completing assigned tasks in order (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. requesting a break during extended tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Aggression — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-06 — 50 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/8 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/13 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/12 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×3
  washing hands independently: 9/15 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×10
  Aggression: freq 1

Session 2 — 2026-04-08 — 50 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/15 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/10 correct (74%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  washing hands independently: 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  Aggression: freq 3

Session 3 — 2026-04-10 — 50 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/11 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/8 correct (73%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×9
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×9
  washing hands independently: 5/9 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  Aggression: freq 5

Session 4 — 2026-04-12 — 50 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/14 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/15 correct (53%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×9
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  washing hands independently: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  Aggression: freq 5

Session 5 — 2026-04-14 — 50 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/11 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  completing assigned tasks in order: 5/10 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 10/14 correct (74%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  washing hands independently: 7/13 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  Aggression: freq 2

Session 6 — 2026-04-16 — 50 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/9 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×5, I×3
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/8 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  washing hands independently: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  Aggression: freq 2

Session 7 — 2026-04-18 — 50 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/11 correct (67%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/8 correct (78%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 12/15 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×11
  washing hands independently: 6/11 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  Aggression: freq 1

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Peer aggression (hitting or pushing peers during group activities)
- Turning away from task or staff
- Aggression attempt directed at staff (hit, kick, or scratch toward adult)
- Crying during demand presentation

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

## Pattern Classification
extinction_burst

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 7 sessions: 58.9%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 54%, last session: 67%).
- Aggression: mean 2.7/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 1.5).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
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-9867
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Independent Living + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-04-02 to 2026-04-18)

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. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. self-advocacy statements (Independent Living)
   Method: BST
5. simple meal preparation (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-02 — 58 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 12/14 correct (86%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 10/11 correct (87%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  washing hands independently: 9/12 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×2
  self-advocacy statements: 9/10 correct (86%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 7/8 correct (91%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5

Session 2 — 2026-04-04 — 58 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 3/9 correct (35%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/14 correct (37%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  washing hands independently: 2/9 correct (25%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 5/11 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  simple meal preparation: 5/11 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×4

Session 3 — 2026-04-06 — 58 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 13/15 correct (90%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 11/13 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  washing hands independently: 9/11 correct (80%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  self-advocacy statements: 12/14 correct (86%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×10
  simple meal preparation: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×11

Session 4 — 2026-04-08 — 58 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 3/10 correct (34%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 3/9 correct (32%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  washing hands independently: 3/13 correct (23%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 6/15 correct (37%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×5, I×4
  simple meal preparation: 5/12 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×5

Session 5 — 2026-04-10 — 58 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/9 correct (89%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  washing hands independently: 11/13 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  self-advocacy statements: 13/15 correct (89%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×15
  simple meal preparation: 11/13 correct (87%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×8

Session 6 — 2026-04-12 — 58 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 3/8 correct (34%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/11 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  washing hands independently: 3/11 correct (27%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 5/13 correct (40%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 3/8 correct (43%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5

Session 7 — 2026-04-14 — 58 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/10 correct (93%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 14/15 correct (92%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  washing hands independently: 11/14 correct (76%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×9
  self-advocacy statements: 7/8 correct (89%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  simple meal preparation: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×11

Session 8 — 2026-04-16 — 58 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 3/9 correct (39%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/11 correct (40%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  washing hands independently: 2/8 correct (28%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 5/12 correct (42%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  simple meal preparation: 4/11 correct (41%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4

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

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

## Pattern Classification
generalization_failure

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 61.9%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 86%, last session: 39%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: traces letters of own name
Curriculum: Writing L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Generalization phase

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: traces letters of own name
- 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: Stimulus Fading
Sequence: exaggerated stimulus -> moderate fade -> minimal fade -> natural stimulus
Current prompt level: At the generalization stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: Z, R, J
Distractor stimuli: C, S
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 across 2 consecutive sessions with at least 10 trials each.

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

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


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

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

Skill: tacts body parts
Curriculum: Tact L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Emerging

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts body parts
- Curriculum: Tact L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "What is this?"
Variations: "Tell me"; "Name this body part"
Presentation: Point to the target body part (on self, learner, or doll) and ask.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Skill Target: mands to indicate completion of a step or activity ("all done with this one")
Curriculum Reference: Mand L2
Learner Profile: Early 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: mands to indicate completion of a step or activity ("all done with this one")
- Curriculum: Mand L2
- Learner: Early 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
Set up a clearly-bounded activity with a visible endpoint (e.g., a worksheet, a puzzle, a sorting task). Wait for the learner to indicate completion verbally or via AAC; honor the indication immediately.
Primary natural context: meal.

## Natural Opportunity
Embed the teaching opportunity within the learner's meal 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: the activity ends immediately and the learner transitions to the next preferred activity.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

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

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

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

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

mands to indicate completion of a step or activity ("all done with this one")


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

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

Target: engages in social games (peek-a-boo, tickle)
Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Emerging

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: engages in social games (peek-a-boo, tickle)
- Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

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

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

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

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: 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 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 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.

engages in social games (peek-a-boo, tickle)


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

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

Skill: tolerating nail clipping
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner Level: Adult Learner
Baseline: Generalization phase

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

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

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

## Toleration End Goal
all 10 fingernails (and optionally toenails) clipped by caregiver without refusal, pulling hand away, or safety behaviors

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

1. 1 fingernail clipped
2. 2 fingernails clipped in one sitting
3. 5 fingernails clipped (one hand)
4. All 10 fingernails clipped
5. All 10 fingernails + 10 toenails clipped

Current shaping step: At the generalization stage, begin at shaping step 5 ("All 10 fingernails + 10 toenails clipped") and advance through step 5 across sessions as tolerance stabilizes.

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

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

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

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

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

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full routine across 2 different settings and with 2 different adults (including the primary caregiver if relevant). Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.