[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-2587
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Reading + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-05-20 to 2026-06-09)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. identifies numerals 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
2. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
3. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
4. requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete (Mand)
   Method: NET
6. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-20 — 51 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 5/12 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/10 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 3/12 correct (29%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/14 correct (43%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×7

Session 2 — 2026-05-22 — 51 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/13 correct (35%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 10/14 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/15 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 8/15 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×3, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 9/13 correct (73%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6

Session 3 — 2026-05-24 — 51 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 5/10 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 12/15 correct (82%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×1, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 6/15 correct (39%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/13 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 3/9 correct (30%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×5

Session 4 — 2026-05-26 — 51 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/11 correct (50%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 3/9 correct (36%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/9 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 3/9 correct (34%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/12 correct (49%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×3

Session 5 — 2026-05-28 — 51 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 6/10 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/13 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×2
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×12
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 4/9 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6

Session 6 — 2026-05-30 — 51 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/15 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×10
  sounds out CVC words: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/10 correct (79%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×3, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 4/11 correct (35%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×10

Session 7 — 2026-06-01 — 51 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 4/9 correct (47%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/13 correct (39%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/11 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8

Session 8 — 2026-06-03 — 51 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 4/12 correct (37%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 12/14 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 2/8 correct (28%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/14 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/11 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×9

Session 9 — 2026-06-05 — 51 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 4/13 correct (32%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 9/15 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×10
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/9 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 8/14 correct (58%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 9/14 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×10
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 3/11 correct (29%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×5

Session 10 — 2026-06-07 — 51 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/13 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×2
  sounds out CVC words: 6/13 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/14 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 3/11 correct (31%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×3
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/9 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×5

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

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
- **Variable performance**: accuracy fluctuating around 58% with no clear trend.
- Inconsistency may indicate stimulus-control issues or motivational variability across sessions.

## Pattern Classification
variable_performance

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 50.2%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 51%, last session: 66%).
- 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: engages in social games (peek-a-boo, tickle)
Curriculum Reference: Social Behavior & Social Play L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Mastered at current level
Teaching Method: NET (Natural Environment Teaching)

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

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

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: circle time.

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Model + immediate fade
Deliver a vocal/gestural model if no response within the motivated moment; fade to expectant look over sessions.
Current prompt level: At the mastered 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 4 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 3 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 3 different adults during the teaching phase.

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

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

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

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


[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-4343
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Independent Living + Mand + Self-Care + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-01-16 to 2026-02-07)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. simple meal preparation (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. requesting a break during extended tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. completing assigned tasks in order (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. managing a budget (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-01-16 — 59 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 5/11 correct (49%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/14 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×12
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  managing a budget: 5/10 correct (49%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 2 — 2026-01-18 — 59 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×2, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/8 correct (85%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 6/10 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  managing a budget: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 7

Session 3 — 2026-01-20 — 59 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 5/13 correct (38%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  completing assigned tasks in order: 10/15 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×14
  brushing teeth independently: 4/10 correct (41%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  managing a budget: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5

Session 4 — 2026-01-22 — 59 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 4/8 correct (54%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  completing assigned tasks in order: 5/8 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 7/15 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×5, I×2
  managing a budget: 7/15 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×4, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 5 — 2026-01-24 — 59 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×5, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 3/10 correct (30%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 12/15 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×11
  brushing teeth independently: 5/10 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  managing a budget: 5/10 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 6 — 2026-01-26 — 59 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 6/9 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/10 correct (82%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 3/11 correct (25%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  managing a budget: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-01-28 — 59 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 5/15 correct (36%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/11 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 6/11 correct (51%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  managing a budget: 5/10 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 6

Session 8 — 2026-01-30 — 59 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 6/14 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×13
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/13 correct (41%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×13
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 5/14 correct (35%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  managing a budget: 5/8 correct (67%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 7

Session 9 — 2026-02-01 — 59 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  completing assigned tasks in order: 11/14 correct (80%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 9/15 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×9
  managing a budget: 5/13 correct (36%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×3, I×2
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5

Session 10 — 2026-02-03 — 59 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 5/12 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/13 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 8/14 correct (54%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  managing a budget: 10/14 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3

Session 11 — 2026-02-05 — 59 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 5/12 correct (45%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×3, I×1
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 3/8 correct (39%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 4/12 correct (34%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  managing a budget: 6/10 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Variable performance**: accuracy fluctuating around 47% with no clear trend.
- Inconsistency may indicate stimulus-control issues or motivational variability across sessions.

## Pattern Classification
variable_performance

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Self-injurious behavior (SIB): automatic
  Evidence: behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 52.6%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 49%, last session: 45%).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 4.1/session (early-window mean 5.0 -> late-window mean 3.3).
- 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
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-5337
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-07-03 to 2026-07-19)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
2. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. clocking in at start of shift (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Toileting accident (urine or bowel) — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-03 — 30 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/15 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×8
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/9 correct (42%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 4/10 correct (40%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  washing hands independently: 5/11 correct (43%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/9 correct (49%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 2 — 2026-07-05 — 30 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/15 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/15 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 5/12 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  washing hands independently: 6/12 correct (50%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  clocking in at start of shift: 9/15 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 3 — 2026-07-07 — 30 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/12 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×9
  washing hands independently: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  clocking in at start of shift: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×3
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 4 — 2026-07-09 — 30 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/8 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×11
  brushing teeth independently: 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  washing hands independently: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  clocking in at start of shift: 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 5 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 5 — 2026-07-11 — 30 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 9/11 correct (79%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  dressing (pants, shirt): 10/15 correct (64%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  washing hands independently: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  clocking in at start of shift: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  ABC (toileting accident (urine or bowel)): A = end of 90-minute block without scheduled toileting; B = soiled (bowel) at the work table; C = staff initiated clean-up and hygiene routine; program paused

Session 6 — 2026-07-13 — 30 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 10/13 correct (80%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 9/13 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  washing hands independently: 11/15 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  clocking in at start of shift: 6/8 correct (74%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  ABC (toileting accident (urine or bowel)): A = transition from preferred activity to non-preferred task; B = voided (urine) en route to the work area; C = staff redirected to bathroom, changed clothing

Session 7 — 2026-07-15 — 30 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 10/13 correct (80%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/10 correct (73%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 8/11 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  washing hands independently: 10/14 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 8 — 2026-07-17 — 30 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/8 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 9/13 correct (73%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 8/11 correct (77%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  washing hands independently: 7/10 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  clocking in at start of shift: 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Skill loss following break**: performance dropped to 47% at return, recovering to 80%.
- Maintenance schedule should be reviewed and strengthened.

## Pattern Classification
skill_loss_after_break

Sharp drop at the start of the log followed by gradual recovery indicates skill loss following an absence.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Toileting accident (urine or bowel): automatic
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the automatic function; behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Implement booster sessions at the most-recently-effective prompt level.
- Increase session frequency temporarily until pre-break levels are recovered.

### Consequence strategies
- Review and strengthen the maintenance schedule to prevent future skill loss.
- Consider sending practice materials home during extended breaks.

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 70.3%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 47%, last session: 80%).
- Toileting accident (urine or bowel): mean 2.8/session (early-window mean 2.5 -> late-window mean 3.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

[User]
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-4624
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Mand + Self-Care + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-09-10 to 2026-09-26)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. using public transportation (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. clocking in at start of shift (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. requesting a break during extended tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. simple meal preparation (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
6. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-09-10 — 55 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 9/10 correct (91%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  clocking in at start of shift: 11/13 correct (85%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/9 correct (85%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 9/11 correct (84%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  simple meal preparation: 8/10 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  washing hands independently: 9/12 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×5

Session 2 — 2026-09-12 — 55 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 4/10 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/8 correct (47%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 4/10 correct (37%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 5/13 correct (35%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  simple meal preparation: 4/15 correct (29%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  washing hands independently: 3/8 correct (41%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4

Session 3 — 2026-09-14 — 55 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 10/11 correct (92%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  clocking in at start of shift: 9/10 correct (89%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 10/11 correct (88%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 8/9 correct (84%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 9/11 correct (83%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  washing hands independently: 9/13 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×9

Session 4 — 2026-09-16 — 55 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 5/15 correct (36%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×5, I×3
  clocking in at start of shift: 4/10 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 4/11 correct (34%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 4/11 correct (37%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 4/13 correct (32%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  washing hands independently: 4/9 correct (46%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×6

Session 5 — 2026-09-18 — 55 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 8/9 correct (86%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  clocking in at start of shift: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 11/12 correct (89%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 11/12 correct (89%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 7/8 correct (89%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  washing hands independently: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4

Session 6 — 2026-09-20 — 55 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 5/15 correct (34%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×12
  clocking in at start of shift: 6/15 correct (37%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×5, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 4/10 correct (39%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 4/13 correct (34%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×8
  simple meal preparation: 3/10 correct (32%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  washing hands independently: 6/12 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×8

Session 7 — 2026-09-22 — 55 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 12/14 correct (89%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  clocking in at start of shift: 12/14 correct (83%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/9 correct (93%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 12/14 correct (87%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  simple meal preparation: 10/12 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  washing hands independently: 7/9 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3

Session 8 — 2026-09-24 — 55 min — 1 observer
  using public transportation: 5/15 correct (34%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  clocking in at start of shift: 5/14 correct (38%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×12
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 4/13 correct (34%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 3/8 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  simple meal preparation: 3/10 correct (30%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  washing hands independently: 4/8 correct (45%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3

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

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

## Pattern Classification
generalization_failure

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 62.9%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 91%, last session: 34%).
- 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 NET program for this skill.

Target: spontaneously tells stories or narratives
Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L3
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: spontaneously tells stories or narratives
- Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L3
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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

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

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Verbal fill-in
Deliver a partial phrase and pause; learner completes the vocal response.
Current prompt level: At the mastered stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

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

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

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

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

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

spontaneously tells stories or narratives


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

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

Skill: selects by single function from array of 3
Curriculum: LRFFC L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Near mastery

Include the full DTT trial structure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
80% accuracy across 2 consecutive sessions with at least 10 trials each.

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

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

selects by single function from array of 3


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-5679
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Mand + Reading + Tact
Date range: Sessions 1–6 across 12 days (2026-09-06 to 2026-09-18)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. tacts common objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
2. requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break') (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
5. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-09-06 — 40 min — 1 observer
  tacts common objects: 3/8 correct (35%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 3/8 correct (38%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/15 correct (28%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×5, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 5/14 correct (33%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/15 correct (26%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×5, I×3

Session 2 — 2026-09-08 — 40 min — 1 observer
  tacts common objects: 6/13 correct (45%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 4/8 correct (47%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/8 correct (35%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 3/8 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/15 correct (39%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×9

Session 3 — 2026-09-10 — 40 min — 1 observer
  tacts common objects: 5/10 correct (53%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 7/14 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/13 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 5/10 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/15 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×12

Session 4 — 2026-09-12 — 40 min — 1 observer
  tacts common objects: 10/15 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×10
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/10 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 5/9 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×2
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/14 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×9

Session 5 — 2026-09-14 — 40 min — 1 observer
  tacts common objects: 6/8 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/11 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/9 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 8/12 correct (67%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/12 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×7

Session 6 — 2026-09-16 — 40 min — 1 observer
  tacts common objects: 11/14 correct (82%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/8 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/8 correct (67%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 12/15 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×7

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

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Rapid acquisition**: accelerated mastery from 35% to 82% across 6 sessions.
- Acquisition has exceeded expected timeline.

## Pattern Classification
rapid_acquisition

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
low

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 6 sessions: 58.8%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 35%, last session: 82%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: traces basic shapes (circle, cross)
Curriculum: Writing L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Near mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: traces basic shapes (circle, cross)
- Curriculum: Writing L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

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

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

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

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

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

## Reinforcement Schedule
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% accuracy across 3 consecutive sessions.

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

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


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

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

Target: meal cleanup
Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
Learner: Adult Learner
Mastery Status: Emerging

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: meal cleanup
- Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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. Stack used dishes on one side of the table.  <- Learner-taught step (forward chaining starts here)
2. Carry dishes to the sink or dishwasher.
3. Rinse food residue into the trash or disposal.
4. Load dishes into the dishwasher (or wash by hand).
5. Wipe the table with a damp cloth.
6. Put away any leftover food into containers.
7. Place containers in the refrigerator.

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: Graduated Guidance
Hand-over-hand physical guidance with fading pressure; move to shadow, then independent.
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, provide hand-over-hand guidance at each step; reduce physical pressure across sessions.

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

## Reinforcement
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
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 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-7884
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Intraverbal + Mand + Reading + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–7 across 14 days (2026-10-19 to 2026-11-02)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
2. answers WH-questions about familiar topics (Intraverbal)
   Method: NET
3. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
4. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Verbal aggression — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-19 — 33 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/15 correct (45%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×5, I×8
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  sounds out CVC words: 4/10 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/13 correct (40%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  Verbal aggression: freq 2
  ABC (verbal aggression): A = transition to non-preferred activity; B = dropped to floor, cried; C = transition delayed, preferred item offered

Session 2 — 2026-10-21 — 33 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×1
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 4/8 correct (54%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 6/11 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/13 correct (47%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  Verbal aggression: freq 2
  ABC (verbal aggression): A = demand to complete math problem; B = threw materials and vocalized 'no'; C = staff removed demand, redirected

Session 3 — 2026-10-23 — 33 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/11 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 9/15 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×5, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 6/9 correct (62%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×3
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/9 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  Verbal aggression: freq 0

Session 4 — 2026-10-25 — 33 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/9 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 7/10 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 10/15 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  Verbal aggression: freq 2

Session 5 — 2026-10-27 — 33 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 11/15 correct (71%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 10/14 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  Verbal aggression: freq 1
  ABC (verbal aggression): A = demand to complete math problem; B = threw materials and vocalized 'no'; C = staff removed demand, redirected

Session 6 — 2026-10-29 — 33 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/14 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×9
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 10/13 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 11/15 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/11 correct (76%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  Verbal aggression: freq 2

Session 7 — 2026-10-31 — 33 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/12 correct (79%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×2
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 8/10 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 8/11 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/8 correct (76%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  Verbal aggression: freq 1

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Skill loss following break**: performance dropped to 45% at return, recovering to 79%.
- Maintenance schedule should be reviewed and strengthened.

## Pattern Classification
skill_loss_after_break

Sharp drop at the start of the log followed by gradual recovery indicates skill loss following an absence.

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Verbal aggression: escape
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the escape function; behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- Implement booster sessions at the most-recently-effective prompt level.
- Increase session frequency temporarily until pre-break levels are recovered.

### Consequence strategies
- Review and strengthen the maintenance schedule to prevent future skill loss.
- Consider sending practice materials home during extended breaks.

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 7 sessions: 69.5%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 45%, last session: 79%).
- Verbal aggression: mean 1.4/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 1.5).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Skill: tacts colors of objects
Curriculum: Tact L2
Learner Level: School-Age Learner
Baseline: Near mastery

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts colors of objects
- Curriculum: Tact L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Target: names items in categories when given the category
Curriculum: Intraverbal L2
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: names items in categories when given the category
- Curriculum: Intraverbal L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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
Engage the learner in a naturalistic conversation on a topic of demonstrated interest. Pause at natural turn boundaries to invite the target response.
Primary natural context: leisure chat.

## Natural Opportunity
Embed the teaching opportunity within the learner's leisure chat 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 mastered stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: conversation continues with adult's naturally matched reply.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

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

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

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

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

names items in categories when given the category


[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: ordering in a restaurant
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Community Participation Skills
Learner Profile: Adult Learner
Current Mastery: Generalization phase
Teaching Method: Task Analysis / Chaining

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: ordering in a restaurant
- Curriculum: AFLS Community Participation 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: Total-task presentation
Prompt the learner through the entire chain every trial; fade prompts across all steps simultaneously.

Steps:
1. Approach the counter or wait to be seated.
2. Review the menu.
3. Decide on a choice.
4. Place the order verbally (or with an AAC device).
5. Respond to clarifying questions.
6. Pay using money or a card.
7. Wait for the order and collect it.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Full chain completed within 60s 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 2 different adults. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-4806
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-08-27 to 2026-09-18)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. requesting preferred items using a full sentence (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. single-word requests for preferred items (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. requesting a break during non-preferred tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-27 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 8/15 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×12

Session 2 — 2026-08-29 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×10
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 9/15 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×6

Session 3 — 2026-08-31 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 10/15 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×9
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/11 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 5/12 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 10/14 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×7

Session 4 — 2026-09-02 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 6/11 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/14 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×11
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×2, I×3
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 10/15 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×8

Session 5 — 2026-09-04 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 10/14 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/14 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 7/15 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×11
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 8/11 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×6

Session 6 — 2026-09-06 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/10 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 7/14 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/11 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×3

Session 7 — 2026-09-08 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/11 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/11 correct (45%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 4/9 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×3
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/14 correct (55%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 9/14 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×6

Session 8 — 2026-09-10 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 59% (primary); IOA 82% agreement
  single-word requests for preferred items: 40% (primary); IOA 82% agreement
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 51% (primary); IOA 82% agreement
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 59% (primary); IOA 82% agreement
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 68% (primary); IOA 82% agreement

Session 9 — 2026-09-12 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/15 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/14 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×10
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 11/14 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×7

Session 10 — 2026-09-14 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/12 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 3/8 correct (34%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 8/14 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/9 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×4

Session 11 — 2026-09-16 — 44 min — 1 observer
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 6/8 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/13 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 4/8 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Leaving seat without permission
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Plateau**: accuracy has remained near 64% for 11 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: 11 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 64.3%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 52%, last session: 77%).
- IOA data: 82% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-6052
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Mand + Reading + Self-Care + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-05-11 to 2026-05-29)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. identifying community safety signs (Community)
   Method: DTT
2. requesting a break during non-preferred activities (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
4. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-11 — 60 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 12/12 correct (96%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 14/15 correct (94%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×4, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 10/11 correct (89%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/8 correct (98%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 2 — 2026-05-13 — 60 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 10/10 correct (97%); latency 1.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 9/9 correct (95%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 7/8 correct (88%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 9/11 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 12/12 correct (97%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×0
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 3 — 2026-05-15 — 60 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 14/14 correct (98%); latency 1.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 9/10 correct (94%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  copies simple words from model: 11/13 correct (85%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 10/12 correct (87%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 13/14 correct (96%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 0

Session 4 — 2026-05-17 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  identifying community safety signs: 98% (primary); IOA 85% agreement
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 90% (primary); IOA 85% agreement
  copies simple words from model: 83% (primary); IOA 85% agreement
  brushing teeth independently: 85% (primary); IOA 85% agreement
  reads 10–20 sight words: 88% (primary); IOA 85% agreement
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 0; IOA 85% agreement

Session 5 — 2026-05-19 — 60 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 13/13 correct (98%); latency 1.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 9/10 correct (94%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 8/9 correct (83%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×0
  brushing teeth independently: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 13/14 correct (90%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 0

Session 6 — 2026-05-21 — 60 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 9/9 correct (98%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×1
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/8 correct (93%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 11/14 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 10/12 correct (85%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/12 correct (84%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 7 — 2026-05-23 — 60 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 9/9 correct (98%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 10/11 correct (87%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  copies simple words from model: 10/12 correct (80%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 10/12 correct (86%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/9 correct (87%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 0

Session 8 — 2026-05-25 — 60 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 11/11 correct (98%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 9/10 correct (88%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 10/11 correct (91%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/11 correct (86%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 9 — 2026-05-27 — 60 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 12/12 correct (98%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 9/10 correct (88%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  copies simple words from model: 6/8 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 13/15 correct (89%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/8 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 0

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

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Prompt dependency**: high accuracy maintained (96%–98%) but primarily at prompted levels.
- Independent responding remains low despite extended training.

## Pattern Classification
prompt_dependency

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Self-injurious behavior (SIB): 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
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
high

Pattern is well-supported: 9 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 97.7%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 96%, last session: 98%).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 0.6/session (early-window mean 0.7 -> late-window mean 0.7).
- IOA data: 85% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

Skill: mands to indicate completion in context ("I'm all done with math, can I start reading?")
Curriculum: Mand L3
Learner Level: Adolescent Learner
Baseline: Mastered at current level

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: mands to indicate completion in context ("I'm all done with math, can I start reading?")
- Curriculum: Mand L3
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
Set up a clearly-bounded activity with a visible endpoint (e.g., a worksheet, a puzzle, a sorting task). Wait for the learner to indicate completion verbally or via AAC; honor the indication immediately.
Primary natural context: sorting task.

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Model + immediate fade
Deliver a vocal/gestural model if no response within the motivated moment; fade to expectant look over sessions.
Current prompt level: At the mastered stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: the activity ends immediately and the learner transitions to the next preferred activity.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 4 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 3 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 3 different adults during the teaching phase.

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

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

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

mands to indicate completion in context ("I'm all done with math, can I start reading?")


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

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

Target: answers hypothetical questions
Curriculum: Intraverbal L3
Learner: Adolescent Learner
Mastery Status: Developing

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: answers hypothetical questions
- Curriculum: Intraverbal L3
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
Engage the learner in a naturalistic conversation on a topic of demonstrated interest. Pause at natural turn boundaries to invite the target response.
Primary natural context: leisure chat.

## Natural Opportunity
Embed the teaching opportunity within the learner's leisure chat 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 developing stage, begin with a model prompt delivered during the motivated moment; fade to expectant look across sessions.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: conversation continues with adult's naturally matched reply.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

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

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

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

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