[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-8083
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Reading
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-08-20 to 2026-09-09)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. selects items by feature (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
3. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
4. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-20 — 49 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 3/9 correct (36%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  selects items by feature: 6/13 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 4/13 correct (34%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/15 correct (43%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×4, I×3

Session 2 — 2026-08-22 — 49 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 5/12 correct (40%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  selects items by feature: 8/15 correct (55%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×9
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/13 correct (38%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/11 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×8

Session 3 — 2026-08-24 — 49 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×10
  selects items by feature: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×9
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3

Session 4 — 2026-08-26 — 49 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 8/14 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×7
  selects items by feature: 6/8 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/15 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/14 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×7

Session 5 — 2026-08-28 — 49 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 8/14 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  selects items by feature: 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/10 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4

Session 6 — 2026-08-30 — 49 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  selects items by feature: 8/10 correct (79%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 10/14 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/10 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×3

Session 7 — 2026-09-01 — 49 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 5/8 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  selects items by feature: 10/12 correct (82%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/12 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×10

Session 8 — 2026-09-03 — 49 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  selects items by feature: 11/12 correct (95%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4

Session 9 — 2026-09-05 — 49 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  selects items by feature: 11/12 correct (95%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/11 correct (84%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×8

Session 10 — 2026-09-07 — 49 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 8/11 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  selects items by feature: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/9 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/10 correct (84%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×5

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Requesting more trials verbally
- Smiling during reinforcement delivery

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- Steady improvement: accuracy rose from 36% to 75% across 10 sessions.
- No clinical concerns at this time; mastery criteria should be reachable within a few additional sessions.

## Pattern Classification
mastery_progression

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
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: 58.5%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 36%, last session: 75%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Skill Target: points to named common objects
Curriculum Reference: Listener Responding L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Emerging
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

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

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

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

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: scissors, plate, blanket
Distractor stimuli: cup, crayon
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Target: completing assigned tasks in order
Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
Learner: Adolescent Learner
Mastery Status: Approaching mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: completing assigned tasks in order
- Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching mastery

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

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

Steps:
1. Review the task list for the shift.  <- Learner-taught step (forward chaining starts here)
2. Gather needed materials for the first task.
3. Complete the first task to the specified standard.
4. Mark the first task complete on the list.
5. Return materials to storage.
6. Move to the next task on the list and repeat.

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: Least-to-Most
Allow independent attempt; add progressively more intrusive prompts only if learner does not initiate.
Current prompt level: At the approaching mastery stage, use partial-physical or gestural prompts only at steps where errors occur; allow independence elsewhere.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Full chain completed within 90s across 3 consecutive sessions with independent responding on all steps.

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

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


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

[User]
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-5625
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Independent Living + Self-Care + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-05-09 to 2026-05-27)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. clocking in at start of shift (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. managing a budget (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Vocal stereotypy — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-09 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/14 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 8/14 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×1
  managing a budget: 9/14 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 15%

Session 2 — 2026-05-11 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/15 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  brushing teeth independently: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×2, I×3
  dressing (pants, shirt): 9/12 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  managing a budget: 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×4
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 13%

Session 3 — 2026-05-13 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/13 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  managing a budget: 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 16%

Session 4 — 2026-05-15 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 3/15 correct (23%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×5, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 3/8 correct (40%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  managing a budget: 2/8 correct (27%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 20%

Session 5 — 2026-05-17 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/15 correct (29%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×10
  brushing teeth independently: 6/11 correct (51%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/12 correct (66%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  managing a budget: 5/15 correct (36%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×5, I×8
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 5; PIR 27%

Session 6 — 2026-05-19 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 5/12 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  managing a budget: 4/9 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 14%

Session 7 — 2026-05-21 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 5/10 correct (47%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 8/13 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  dressing (pants, shirt): 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  managing a budget: 4/8 correct (48%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 7%

Session 8 — 2026-05-23 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 5/9 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  brushing teeth independently: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  managing a budget: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 7%

Session 9 — 2026-05-25 — 44 min — 1 observer
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 9/14 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 10/13 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×10
  managing a budget: 7/13 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 14%

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

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

## Pattern Classification
setting_event_trigger

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 47.9%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 58%, last session: 59%).
- Vocal stereotypy: mean 2.2/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 1.3).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: completing assigned tasks in order
Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
Learner: Adult 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: completing assigned tasks in order
- Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
- Learner: Adult 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: Backward chaining
Complete all steps for the learner except the last; teach the last step first, then work backward. The final reinforcer (task completion) is always present for the learner.

Steps:
1. Review the task list for the shift.
2. Gather needed materials for the first task.
3. Complete the first task to the specified standard.
4. Mark the first task complete on the list.
5. Return materials to storage.
6. Move to the next task on the list and repeat.  <- Learner-taught step (backward chaining starts here)

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: Least-to-Most
Allow independent attempt; add progressively more intrusive prompts only if learner does not initiate.
Current prompt level: At the 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 5 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


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

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

Skill Target: tolerating nail clipping
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner Profile: Adult Learner
Current Mastery: Mastered at current level
Teaching Method: Toleration / Systematic Desensitization

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

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

This program builds tolerance for 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 mastered 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 across 2 different settings (e.g., home and clinic) across 2 consecutive weeks without safety behaviors.

## Data Collection
Per-trial: duration tolerated before refusal, presence / absence of safety behaviors (crying, property destruction, SIB, aggression), staff support level, and shaping step attempted. IOA scheduled every 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full routine across 2 different settings and with 3 different adults (including the primary caregiver if relevant). Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-7206
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Self-Care + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-05-02 to 2026-05-18)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. identifying community safety signs (Community)
   Method: DTT
2. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
3. tolerating haircut (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. meal cleanup after eating (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Elopement — function hypothesized: tangible
2. Property destruction — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-02 — 39 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 7/11 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  copies simple words from model: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  tolerating haircut: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  washing hands independently: 5/9 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/9 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×1
  Elopement: freq 1
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-05-04 — 39 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 6/9 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  tolerating haircut: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  washing hands independently: 7/14 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/12 correct (67%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  Elopement: freq 0
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 3 — 2026-05-06 — 39 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  copies simple words from model: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  tolerating haircut: 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  washing hands independently: 5/8 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  Elopement: freq 5
  Property destruction: freq 4

Session 4 — 2026-05-08 — 39 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 6/9 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×3
  tolerating haircut: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  washing hands independently: 5/10 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  meal cleanup after eating: 9/14 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  Elopement: freq 4
  Property destruction: freq 4

Session 5 — 2026-05-10 — 39 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 8/12 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×1
  copies simple words from model: 7/10 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  tolerating haircut: 7/11 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  washing hands independently: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  meal cleanup after eating: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  Elopement: freq 1
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 6 — 2026-05-12 — 39 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  copies simple words from model: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  tolerating haircut: 7/11 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  washing hands independently: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  meal cleanup after eating: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×14
  Elopement: freq 1
  Property destruction: freq 0

Session 7 — 2026-05-14 — 39 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 6/8 correct (73%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 10/15 correct (64%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×10
  tolerating haircut: 9/13 correct (72%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  washing hands independently: 5/8 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/11 correct (67%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  Elopement: freq 1
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 8 — 2026-05-16 — 39 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 9/13 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 8/13 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  tolerating haircut: 11/15 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  washing hands independently: 6/9 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  meal cleanup after eating: 9/13 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  Elopement: freq 1
  Property destruction: freq 2

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Turning away from task or staff
- Self-stimulatory behavior increase during demand periods
- Peer aggression (hitting or pushing peers during group activities)

[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
Elopement: tangible
  Evidence: behavior occurs when preferred items are restricted and is followed by access to the item.
Property destruction: attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 68.3%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 67%, last session: 72%).
- Elopement: mean 1.8/session (early-window mean 0.5 -> late-window mean 1.0).
- Property destruction: mean 2.0/session (early-window mean 1.5 -> 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 help
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and staff design teaching programs for
individuals with autism. Your responses are clinically accurate, individualized
to the learner profile, follow BACB ethical guidelines, and reference no real
client data. Select the appropriate teaching method (DTT, NET, Task Analysis,
FCT, BST, PRT) based on the skill target and learner profile.

[User]
Design a chaining program for the following.

Skill: operating the dishwasher
Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
Learner Level: Adolescent Learner
Baseline: Mastered at current level

Include the full Task Analysis structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: operating the dishwasher
- Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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

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

Steps:
1. Collect dirty dishes from the table and sink area.  <- Learner-taught step (forward chaining starts here)
2. Scrape any solid food residue into the trash.
3. Rinse dishes briefly under water.
4. Open the dishwasher door.
5. Load plates and bowls into the bottom rack.
6. Load cups, glasses, and small items into the top rack.
7. Place utensils handle-down in the utensil basket.
8. Add detergent to the detergent dispenser.
9. Close the dishwasher door.
10. Select the appropriate wash cycle and press Start.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-5575
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Mand + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-01-13 to 2026-01-29)

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-01-13 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/13 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  doing laundry: 7/14 correct (49%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/8 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/14 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  simple meal preparation: 5/9 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×4

Session 2 — 2026-01-15 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  doing laundry: 5/11 correct (48%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/13 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  simple meal preparation: 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×5

Session 3 — 2026-01-17 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 5/9 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  doing laundry: 6/13 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/12 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/11 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 8/11 correct (69%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×5

Session 4 — 2026-01-19 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  completing assigned tasks in order: 66% (primary); IOA 94% agreement
  doing laundry: 44% (primary); IOA 94% agreement
  dressing (pants, shirt): 53% (primary); IOA 94% agreement
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 73% (primary); IOA 94% agreement
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 59% (primary); IOA 94% agreement
  simple meal preparation: 68% (primary); IOA 94% agreement

Session 5 — 2026-01-21 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/11 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  doing laundry: 7/13 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/8 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/10 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 7/11 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×5

Session 6 — 2026-01-23 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/9 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  doing laundry: 6/15 correct (39%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×3, I×3
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/10 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/8 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  simple meal preparation: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×11

Session 7 — 2026-01-25 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/13 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  doing laundry: 6/12 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/10 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 10/14 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  simple meal preparation: 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×5

Session 8 — 2026-01-27 — 54 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  doing laundry: 3/10 correct (32%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 3/8 correct (40%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 7/10 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/11 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  simple meal preparation: 7/13 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×4

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)
- Looking away during SD presentation

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
- **Plateau**: accuracy has remained near 65% for 8 sessions without meaningful improvement.
- Performance is below mastery criteria; current teaching procedure may not be effective for this learner.

## Pattern Classification
plateau

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 63.9%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 63%, last session: 67%).
- IOA data: 94% 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]
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-1294
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Mand + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-07-16 to 2026-08-05)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. requesting help when a task is difficult (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. indicating 'all done' with a step or activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. identifying community safety signs (Community)
   Method: DTT
5. requesting a break during non-preferred activities (Mand)
   Method: NET
6. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-16 — 48 min — 1 observer
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 8/15 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×0, I×9
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/11 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 6/9 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  identifying community safety signs: 9/13 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 6/8 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×5

Session 2 — 2026-07-18 — 48 min — 1 observer
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 6/9 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×3
  identifying community safety signs: 8/12 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6

Session 3 — 2026-07-20 — 48 min — 1 observer
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 6/11 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 8/11 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  identifying community safety signs: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 8/11 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3

Session 4 — 2026-07-22 — 48 min — 1 observer
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 9/12 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  identifying community safety signs: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/10 correct (56%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×5

Session 5 — 2026-07-24 — 48 min — 1 observer
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 4/14 correct (29%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 4/12 correct (29%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×3
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 4/10 correct (40%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  identifying community safety signs: 6/14 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 4/11 correct (35%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/9 correct (31%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×5

Session 6 — 2026-07-26 — 48 min — 1 observer
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 4/11 correct (38%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 5/14 correct (37%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  identifying community safety signs: 6/13 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 4/9 correct (42%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/12 correct (36%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×4

Session 7 — 2026-07-28 — 48 min — 1 observer
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 5/10 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/14 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×12
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 7/12 correct (56%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  identifying community safety signs: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 4/9 correct (47%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/12 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×4

Session 8 — 2026-07-30 — 48 min — 1 observer
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 7/13 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/12 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×13
  identifying community safety signs: 7/12 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/15 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/13 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×6

Session 9 — 2026-08-01 — 48 min — 1 observer
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 7/13 correct (53%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 5/9 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  identifying community safety signs: 7/10 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/14 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×10
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/9 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×3

Session 10 — 2026-08-03 — 48 min — 1 observer
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 8/12 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  identifying community safety signs: 6/9 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3

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

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

## Pattern Classification
setting_event_trigger

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 51.2%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 55%, last session: 59%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
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-2923
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-03-24 to 2026-04-15)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. identifies numerals 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
2. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
3. indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete (Mand)
   Method: NET

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-03-24 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/10 correct (85%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 7/8 correct (82%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/8 correct (82%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6

Session 2 — 2026-03-26 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 11/14 correct (78%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 8/11 correct (76%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 10/12 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×9

Session 3 — 2026-03-28 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/11 correct (85%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 11/14 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×13
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 11/13 correct (87%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×6

Session 4 — 2026-03-30 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/9 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 6/14 correct (40%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×7

Session 5 — 2026-04-01 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/11 correct (50%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  copies simple words from model: 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/13 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×7

Session 6 — 2026-04-03 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/9 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 4/11 correct (37%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/10 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×7

Session 7 — 2026-04-05 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  identifies numerals 1–20: 59% (primary); IOA 84% agreement
  copies simple words from model: 38% (primary); IOA 84% agreement
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 70% (primary); IOA 84% agreement

Session 8 — 2026-04-07 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/13 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 4/10 correct (43%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 11/15 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×0, I×8

Session 9 — 2026-04-09 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/14 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 11/14 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×6

Session 10 — 2026-04-11 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/9 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  copies simple words from model: 7/13 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 13/15 correct (85%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×2, I×5

Session 11 — 2026-04-13 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/8 correct (73%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 11/13 correct (85%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×4

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

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
- **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
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 67.3%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 85%, last session: 73%).
- IOA data: 84% 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-3050
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-09-11 to 2026-10-05)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Elopement — function hypothesized: escape
2. Tantrum — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-09-11 — 33 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/9 correct (85%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/12 correct (83%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/13 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  Elopement: freq 2
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 6m total

Session 2 — 2026-09-13 — 33 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/8 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/8 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/15 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×13
  Elopement: freq 2
  Tantrum: freq 2, duration 8m total

Session 3 — 2026-09-15 — 33 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 10/14 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/13 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/9 correct (64%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  Elopement: freq 2
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 12m total

Session 4 — 2026-09-17 — 33 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/9 correct (63%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/13 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  Elopement: freq 3
  Tantrum: freq 3, duration 15m total

Session 5 — 2026-09-19 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 65% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 59% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 59% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  Elopement: freq 5; IOA 91% agreement
  Tantrum: freq 4, duration 8m total; IOA 91% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-09-21 — 33 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/13 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/13 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  Elopement: freq 4
  Tantrum: freq 5, duration 25m total

Session 7 — 2026-09-23 — 33 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/14 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×13
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/8 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/12 correct (47%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  Elopement: freq 5
  Tantrum: freq 5, duration 10m total

Session 8 — 2026-09-25 — 33 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/12 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/15 correct (34%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×5, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/8 correct (43%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  Elopement: freq 6
  Tantrum: freq 5, duration 15m total

Session 9 — 2026-09-27 — 33 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/12 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 2/9 correct (26%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/12 correct (40%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×9
  Elopement: freq 7
  Tantrum: freq 6, duration 30m total

Session 10 — 2026-09-29 — 33 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/15 correct (37%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/13 correct (20%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/9 correct (33%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  Elopement: freq 7
  Tantrum: freq 8, duration 24m total

Session 11 — 2026-10-01 — 33 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/13 correct (35%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 1/11 correct (13%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 2/8 correct (29%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  Elopement: freq 7
  Tantrum: freq 8, duration 40m total

Session 12 — 2026-10-03 — 33 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 2/10 correct (25%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 1/11 correct (11%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 2/11 correct (21%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  Elopement: freq 9
  Tantrum: freq 8, duration 40m total

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Vocal refusal ('no', 'I don't want to')
- Crying during demand presentation
- Pushing materials away from the work area
- Attempts at property destruction (throwing materials, swiping items off the surface)

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (85% -> 25%) with escape-indicator behaviors.
- Risk of learned helplessness and escape-maintained behavior if not addressed.

## Pattern Classification
frustration_pattern

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Elopement: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.
Tantrum: attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
4 — Safety immediate

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

## Confidence
high

Pattern is well-supported: 12 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 54.3%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 85%, last session: 25%).
- Elopement: mean 4.9/session (early-window mean 2.2 -> late-window mean 7.5).
- Tantrum: mean 5.0/session (early-window mean 2.8 -> late-window mean 7.5).
- IOA data: 91% 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-3442
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Social Behavior + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-01-08 to 2026-01-28)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. takes turns during structured activities (Social Behavior)
   Method: PRT
2. requesting preferred items using a full sentence (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
5. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
6. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Verbal aggression — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-01-08 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 11/14 correct (79%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 10/10 correct (95%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  copies simple words from model: 10/11 correct (91%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 13/15 correct (90%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  Verbal aggression: freq 1

Session 2 — 2026-01-10 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 8/11 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/10 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 11/11 correct (98%); latency 1.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  copies simple words from model: 10/11 correct (87%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/8 correct (90%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/10 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  Verbal aggression: freq 1

Session 3 — 2026-01-12 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 8/10 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 11/14 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 12/12 correct (98%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 8/8 correct (95%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 11/13 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  Verbal aggression: freq 1

Session 4 — 2026-01-14 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 10/13 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 10/10 correct (98%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 8/8 correct (95%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/8 correct (89%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/11 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  Verbal aggression: freq 1

Session 5 — 2026-01-16 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 12/15 correct (83%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×9
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 12/12 correct (98%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 13/14 correct (91%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/10 correct (87%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/9 correct (77%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  Verbal aggression: freq 2

Session 6 — 2026-01-18 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/11 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 10/14 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 10/10 correct (98%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 10/10 correct (97%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/10 correct (85%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 7 — 2026-01-20 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 10/12 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 9/13 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 14/14 correct (98%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  copies simple words from model: 11/11 correct (98%); latency 1.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/10 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  Verbal aggression: freq 1

Session 8 — 2026-01-22 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 11/13 correct (88%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/12 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 15/15 correct (98%); latency 1.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 15/15 correct (98%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×3, I×3
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 12/15 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/9 correct (76%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 9 — 2026-01-24 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 10/12 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 7/10 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 14/14 correct (98%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×9
  copies simple words from model: 8/8 correct (98%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×10
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  Verbal aggression: freq 1

Session 10 — 2026-01-26 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 11/13 correct (86%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/12 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 14/14 correct (98%); latency 1.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 8/8 correct (98%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 11/15 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 11/14 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  Verbal aggression: freq 2

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Prompt dependency**: high accuracy maintained (79%–86%) 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
Verbal aggression: 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
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: 81.8%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 79%, last session: 86%).
- Verbal aggression: mean 1.0/session (early-window mean 1.0 -> late-window mean 1.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Skill Target: tacts abstract concepts (same/different, first/last)
Curriculum Reference: Tact L3
Learner Profile: Adolescent Learner
Current Mastery: Mastered at current level
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts abstract concepts (same/different, first/last)
- Curriculum: Tact L3
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "What 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: Stimulus Fading
Sequence: exaggerated stimulus -> moderate fade -> minimal fade -> natural stimulus
Current prompt level: At the mastered stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 6 (target + 5 distractors, mixed categories)
Target stimuli: crayon, key, backpack
Distractor stimuli: phone, hat, spoon, scissors, jacket
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
90% first-trial-correct across 5 consecutive sessions.

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

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

tacts abstract concepts (same/different, first/last)


[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: responds to peer initiations appropriately
Curriculum Reference: Social Behavior & Social Play 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: responds to peer initiations appropriately
- Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play 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
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: 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 near mastery stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

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

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 3 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 2 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 2 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 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.

responds to peer initiations appropriately


[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-6950
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Intraverbal + Listener Responding + Mand
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-05-06 to 2026-05-24)

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

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Property destruction — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-06 — 38 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/10 correct (86%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  selects items by feature: 8/11 correct (76%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  Property destruction: freq 0

Session 2 — 2026-05-08 — 38 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 10/13 correct (80%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/9 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  selects items by feature: 10/15 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×5, I×9
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 3 — 2026-05-10 — 38 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/12 correct (73%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 10/14 correct (68%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/9 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  selects items by feature: 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×2
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 4 — 2026-05-12 — 38 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  selects items by feature: 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 5 — 2026-05-14 — 38 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×10
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/12 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  selects items by feature: 4/9 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  Property destruction: freq 4

Session 6 — 2026-05-16 — 38 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/8 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  selects items by feature: 5/14 correct (37%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  Property destruction: freq 4

Session 7 — 2026-05-18 — 38 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/11 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/9 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/12 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  selects items by feature: 3/10 correct (34%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  Property destruction: freq 4

Session 8 — 2026-05-20 — 38 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/15 correct (31%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×3, I×3
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/10 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  selects items by feature: 3/11 correct (29%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  Property destruction: freq 5

Session 9 — 2026-05-22 — 38 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 3/12 correct (29%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×4
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/15 correct (45%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/9 correct (40%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  selects items by feature: 2/11 correct (22%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  Property destruction: freq 5

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (86% -> 29%) with escape-indicator behaviors.
- Risk of learned helplessness and escape-maintained behavior if not addressed.

## Pattern Classification
frustration_pattern

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 56.3%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 86%, last session: 29%).
- Property destruction: mean 3.2/session (early-window mean 1.3 -> late-window mean 4.7).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.