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

[User]
Interpret the following behavioral session log. Provide clinical concerns, pattern classification, behavior function hypothesis (if applicable), programming recommendations (antecedent / replacement / consequence / crisis), escalation level, confidence, and data-supported rationale.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-6315
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Reading + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-02-01 to 2026-02-23)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. counts objects 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
2. requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
4. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Fecal smearing (scatolia) — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-02-01 — 47 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 10/14 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 8/12 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/11 correct (78%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 12/14 correct (86%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/10 correct (81%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 0

Session 2 — 2026-02-03 — 47 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 11/15 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×10
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 9/13 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/14 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/11 correct (81%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 2 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 3 — 2026-02-05 — 47 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 10/15 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/8 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 2 (0 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 2 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 4 — 2026-02-07 — 47 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×12
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/13 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/10 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 3 (2 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 5 — 2026-02-09 — 47 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 8/14 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/10 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 3 (3 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 0 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 6 — 2026-02-11 — 47 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 5/10 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 4/11 correct (37%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/8 correct (43%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/10 correct (47%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/11 correct (43%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 4 (4 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 0 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 7 — 2026-02-13 — 47 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 5/11 correct (41%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 4/13 correct (34%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/13 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/10 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/15 correct (36%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 4 (3 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 8 — 2026-02-15 — 47 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 6/15 correct (43%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 3/9 correct (32%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/12 correct (29%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/12 correct (39%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/14 correct (27%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×8
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 6 (2 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 4 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 9 — 2026-02-17 — 47 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 3/9 correct (32%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 3/11 correct (23%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/9 correct (30%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/13 correct (31%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×3
  reads 10–20 sight words: 3/10 correct (28%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 6 (2 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 4 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 10 — 2026-02-19 — 47 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 3/11 correct (30%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 2/14 correct (12%); latency 5.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 2/8 correct (21%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 3/9 correct (31%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 1/8 correct (14%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 6 (4 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 2 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 11 — 2026-02-21 — 47 min — 1 observer
  counts objects 1–20: 3/10 correct (29%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 1/13 correct (10%); latency 5.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×10
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 1/12 correct (10%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 2/9 correct (17%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 1/9 correct (13%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 8 (5 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 3 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Self-stimulatory behavior increase during demand periods
- Crying during demand presentation
- Peer aggression (hitting or pushing peers during group activities)
- Self-injurious behavior onset during task difficulty (self-biting, hair-pulling, head-hitting)

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (73% -> 29%) with escape-indicator behaviors.
- Risk of learned helplessness and escape-maintained behavior if not addressed.

## Pattern Classification
frustration_pattern

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Fecal smearing (scatolia): attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
4 — Safety immediate

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

## Confidence
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: 50.0%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 73%, last session: 29%).
- Fecal smearing (scatolia): mean 4.0/session (early-window mean 1.3 -> late-window mean 6.7).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-6399
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-05-14 to 2026-06-03)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. single-word requests for preferred items (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. identifies numerals 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
3. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Verbal aggression — function hypothesized: attention
2. Property destruction — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-14 — 45 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  identifies numerals 1–20: 10/15 correct (64%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  Verbal aggression: freq 2
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-05-16 — 45 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/10 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  identifies numerals 1–20: 10/15 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×5, I×8
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  Verbal aggression: freq 3
  Property destruction: freq 1
  ABC (property destruction): A = staff engaged in paperwork nearby; B = yelled name + tapped staff; C = staff attended and redirected

Session 3 — 2026-05-18 — 45 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/13 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/15 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×1, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  Verbal aggression: freq 3
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 4 — 2026-05-20 — 45 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×8
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 10/13 correct (74%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  Verbal aggression: freq 2
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 5 — 2026-05-22 — 45 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 3/12 correct (24%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  identifies numerals 1–20: 3/10 correct (29%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 4/10 correct (43%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  Verbal aggression: freq 7
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 6 — 2026-05-24 — 45 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 4/11 correct (34%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  identifies numerals 1–20: 3/9 correct (38%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/10 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Verbal aggression: freq 7
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-05-26 — 45 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 3/10 correct (34%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/11 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  Verbal aggression: freq 1
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 8 — 2026-05-28 — 45 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/14 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×9
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/9 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  Verbal aggression: freq 2
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 9 — 2026-05-30 — 45 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 3/9 correct (36%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×2
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/10 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  Verbal aggression: freq 2
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 10 — 2026-06-01 — 45 min — 1 observer
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/13 correct (38%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/13 correct (65%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/13 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  Verbal aggression: freq 3
  Property destruction: freq 1

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

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

## Pattern Classification
setting_event_trigger

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Verbal aggression: attention
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the attention function; behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.
Property destruction: attention
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the attention function; behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 43.0%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 55%, last session: 38%).
- Verbal aggression: mean 3.2/session (early-window mean 2.7 -> late-window mean 2.3).
- Property destruction: mean 1.6/session (early-window mean 1.3 -> late-window mean 1.3).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: selects items by function from array of 5–8
Curriculum: LRFFC L2
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Approaching mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects items by function from array of 5–8
- Curriculum: LRFFC L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching mastery

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

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

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: pencil, toothbrush, sock
Distractor stimuli: car, hat, blanket, phone
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
80% accuracy at independent prompt level across 3 sessions.

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

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

selects items by function from array of 5–8


[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: using public transportation
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Community Participation Skills
Learner Profile: Adolescent Learner
Current Mastery: Emerging
Teaching Method: Task Analysis / Chaining

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: using public transportation
- Curriculum: AFLS Community Participation Skills
- Learner: Adolescent 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. Confirm the correct stop or station.  <- Learner-taught step (forward chaining starts here)
2. Purchase or have the fare ready.
3. Wait at the designated boarding area.
4. Board the vehicle when it arrives.
5. Pay the fare or present the pass.
6. Sit or stand safely.
7. Monitor the route for the correct stop.
8. Exit at the correct stop.

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: Most-to-Least
Start with full-physical prompt at each step; fade to partial physical, gestural, verbal, independent.
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, use full-physical or partial-physical prompts at each step; fade systematically.

## 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 3 different adults. Maintenance probes weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly.


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

[User]
Design a chaining program for the following.

Skill: clocking in at start of shift
Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
Learner Level: Adolescent Learner
Baseline: Developing

Include the full Task Analysis structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: clocking in at start of shift
- Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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. Arrive at the workplace by the scheduled time.
2. Locate the time clock or digital system.
3. Enter identification (ID card / badge / code).
4. Confirm the clock-in timestamp.
5. Notify the supervisor or check the day's task list.
6. Proceed to the assigned workstation.

## 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 developing 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 5 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


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

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

Target: answers social questions (How are you?)
Curriculum: Intraverbal L2
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Near mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: answers social questions (How are you?)
- Curriculum: Intraverbal L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

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

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
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: transition conversation.

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

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

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: 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 2 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 2 different adults during the teaching phase.

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

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

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


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

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

Target: tracks print left to right
Curriculum: Reading 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: tracks print left to right
- Curriculum: Reading 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: "What letter is this?"
Variations: "Read this letter"; "What does this say?"
Presentation: Present the letter or word on a flashcard.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Most-to-Least (errorless)
Sequence: full physical -> partial physical -> gestural -> positional -> 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: spoon, apple, pencil
Distractor stimuli: ball, block
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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


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

[User]
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-5742
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Mand + Self-Care + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-01-01 to 2026-01-25)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. requesting preferred items using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. making the bed (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-01-01 — 36 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 7/13 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×9
  washing hands independently: 4/9 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/9 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  making the bed: 4/12 correct (37%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 4/10 correct (45%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 4
  Motor stereotypy: freq 5; PIR 34%

Session 2 — 2026-01-03 — 36 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 4/9 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  washing hands independently: 7/9 correct (77%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 5/10 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  making the bed: 5/8 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 10/14 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5
  Motor stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 27%

Session 3 — 2026-01-05 — 36 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 6/11 correct (52%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  washing hands independently: 4/11 correct (40%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 10/13 correct (74%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  making the bed: 3/8 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 5/8 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3
  Motor stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 20%

Session 4 — 2026-01-07 — 36 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  washing hands independently: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 5/8 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  making the bed: 8/13 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 7/12 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 6
  Motor stereotypy: freq 6; PIR 36%

Session 5 — 2026-01-09 — 36 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 5/11 correct (45%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  washing hands independently: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  making the bed: 6/8 correct (76%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 15%

Session 6 — 2026-01-11 — 36 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 9/15 correct (63%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×5, I×1
  washing hands independently: 11/14 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/12 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  making the bed: 4/9 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 6/15 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 4
  Motor stereotypy: freq 5; PIR 29%

Session 7 — 2026-01-13 — 36 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  washing hands independently: 6/11 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 7/15 correct (50%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×1, I×9
  making the bed: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  copies simple words from model: 6/9 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 7
  Motor stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 10%

Session 8 — 2026-01-15 — 36 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 6/8 correct (74%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  washing hands independently: 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 10/13 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×11
  making the bed: 10/13 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 5/14 correct (36%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 7
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 15%

Session 9 — 2026-01-17 — 36 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  washing hands independently: 6/9 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 12/15 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  making the bed: 7/11 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  copies simple words from model: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 4
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 21%

Session 10 — 2026-01-19 — 36 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×2, I×8
  washing hands independently: 6/14 correct (40%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  making the bed: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 6
  Motor stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 12%

Session 11 — 2026-01-21 — 36 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×8
  washing hands independently: 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  making the bed: 5/11 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 4
  Motor stereotypy: freq 6; PIR 32%

Session 12 — 2026-01-23 — 36 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 9/12 correct (76%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  washing hands independently: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/11 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  making the bed: 7/14 correct (51%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 6
  Motor stereotypy: freq 7; PIR 23%

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Variable performance**: accuracy fluctuating around 67% 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): escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.
Motor stereotypy: 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: 12 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 60.1%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 57%, last session: 76%).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 4.9/session (early-window mean 4.5 -> late-window mean 5.0).
- Motor stereotypy: mean 3.9/session (early-window mean 4.8 -> late-window mean 4.2).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: clocking in at start of shift
Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
Learner: Adolescent Learner
Mastery Status: Approaching mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: clocking in at start of shift
- Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching mastery

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

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

Steps:
1. Arrive at the workplace by the scheduled time.
2. Locate the time clock or digital system.
3. Enter identification (ID card / badge / code).
4. Confirm the clock-in timestamp.
5. Notify the supervisor or check the day's task list.
6. Proceed to the assigned workstation.

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

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Full chain completed within 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 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


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

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

Skill: tolerating nail clipping
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner Level: Adolescent Learner
Baseline: Emerging

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current shaping step: At the emerging stage, begin at shaping step 1 ("1 fingernail clipped") and advance through step 2 across sessions as tolerance stabilizes.

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

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
End-goal activity tolerated across 2 different settings (e.g., home and clinic) across 2 consecutive weeks without safety behaviors.

## Data Collection
Per-trial: duration tolerated before refusal, presence / absence of safety behaviors (crying, property destruction, SIB, aggression), staff support level, and shaping step attempted. IOA scheduled every 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


[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-9345
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Mand + Self-Care + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-10-20 to 2026-11-05)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. completing assigned tasks in order (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. doing laundry (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. requesting assistance using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-20 — 55 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 7/15 correct (50%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×5, I×1
  doing laundry: 7/15 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/9 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  washing hands independently: 6/9 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  Non-compliance: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-10-22 — 55 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 4/8 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/13 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×4
  doing laundry: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  washing hands independently: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  Non-compliance: freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-10-24 — 55 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  completing assigned tasks in order: 10/13 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×3
  doing laundry: 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  washing hands independently: 9/13 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  Non-compliance: freq 11

Session 4 — 2026-10-26 — 55 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 8/15 correct (55%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×2, I×3
  completing assigned tasks in order: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  doing laundry: 9/15 correct (63%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  washing hands independently: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  Non-compliance: freq 11

Session 5 — 2026-10-28 — 55 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 8/13 correct (64%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/9 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  doing laundry: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 10/15 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×10
  washing hands independently: 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  Non-compliance: freq 3

Session 6 — 2026-10-30 — 55 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  doing laundry: 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 10/14 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  washing hands independently: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×12
  Non-compliance: freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-11-01 — 55 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 7/11 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  completing assigned tasks in order: 11/13 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  doing laundry: 8/11 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  washing hands independently: 8/11 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  Non-compliance: freq 2

Session 8 — 2026-11-03 — 55 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  completing assigned tasks in order: 9/11 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  doing laundry: 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 10/14 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  washing hands independently: 10/14 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  Non-compliance: freq 4

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

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

## Pattern Classification
extinction_burst

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 59.7%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 50%, last session: 68%).
- Non-compliance: mean 4.8/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 3.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Skill Target: follows conditional instructions (if X, then Y)
Curriculum Reference: Listener Responding L3
Learner Profile: School-Age Learner
Current Mastery: Mastered at current level
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: follows conditional instructions (if X, then Y)
- Curriculum: Listener Responding L3
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "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: Graduated Guidance
Sequence: hand over hand full -> hand over hand light -> shadow -> independent
Current prompt level: At the mastered stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 6 (target + 5 distractors, mixed categories)
Target stimuli: plate, brush, glue
Distractor stimuli: cup, sock, pencil, block, apple
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
Token economy — Tokens delivered per correct response; exchanged at session end for a back-up reinforcer appropriate to the learner (for children: candy, cookies, brief leisure-time access, preferred activity, screen time, or a favorite sensory item). Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

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

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

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

follows conditional instructions (if X, then Y)


[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 requests desired items without prompts
Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Emerging

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: spontaneously requests desired items without prompts
- Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

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

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Expectant look (pause)
Deliver no prompt — maintain eye contact and hold the preferred item until the learner responds.
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, begin with a model prompt delivered during the motivated moment; fade to expectant look across sessions.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
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.

spontaneously requests desired items without prompts


[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: matches colors (identical chips)
Curriculum Reference: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Approaching mastery
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: matches colors (identical chips)
- Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching mastery

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "Match"
Variations: "Find the same"; "Put with same"
Presentation: Present the sample stimulus and an array of comparison stimuli simultaneously.

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: red, blue, orange
Distractor stimuli: green, white
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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


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

[User]
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-6948
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Intraverbal + Listener Responding + Mand + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-02-13 to 2026-03-07)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. selects items by feature (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
2. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. answers WH-questions about familiar topics (Intraverbal)
   Method: NET
4. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
5. indicating completion ('all done', 'finished') (Mand)
   Method: NET

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-02-13 — 35 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 8/10 correct (82%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/10 correct (91%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 10/12 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 7/9 correct (82%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1

Session 2 — 2026-02-15 — 35 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 5/14 correct (36%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/10 correct (42%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/15 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/11 correct (37%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 5/15 correct (31%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×9

Session 3 — 2026-02-17 — 35 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 9/11 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/9 correct (87%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/15 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×12
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×2

Session 4 — 2026-02-19 — 35 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 6/13 correct (45%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/12 correct (36%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 4/11 correct (40%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/14 correct (41%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 3/11 correct (31%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8

Session 5 — 2026-02-21 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  selects items by feature: 83% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 88% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 82% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 81% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 78% (primary); IOA 89% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-02-23 — 35 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 4/9 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×2
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/15 correct (34%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×5, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 4/9 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/9 correct (44%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 3/10 correct (27%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×8

Session 7 — 2026-02-25 — 35 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 6/8 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 11/14 correct (82%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×8
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/12 correct (79%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 8/11 correct (74%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×9

Session 8 — 2026-02-27 — 35 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 5/13 correct (37%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/15 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×10
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/10 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/14 correct (35%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 3/10 correct (29%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4

Session 9 — 2026-03-01 — 35 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 13/15 correct (85%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/10 correct (91%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/11 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 7/10 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×4

Session 10 — 2026-03-03 — 35 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 4/10 correct (41%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/10 correct (37%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/14 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/15 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×9
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 3/9 correct (31%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×7

Session 11 — 2026-03-05 — 35 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 7/9 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/12 correct (84%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×4
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 10/13 correct (77%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×3, I×2

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

[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
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 63.2%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 82%, last session: 82%).
- IOA data: 89% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

[User]
Interpret the following behavioral session log. Provide clinical concerns, pattern classification, behavior function hypothesis (if applicable), programming recommendations (antecedent / replacement / consequence / crisis), escalation level, confidence, and data-supported rationale.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-3217
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Mand + Tact + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-04-12 to 2026-05-02)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. indicating completion ('all done', 'finished') (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. tacts common objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
4. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-12 — 55 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/11 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  tacts common objects: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/14 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×8

Session 2 — 2026-04-14 — 55 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 6/12 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/11 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  tacts common objects: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7

Session 3 — 2026-04-16 — 55 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  tacts common objects: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5

Session 4 — 2026-04-18 — 55 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  tacts common objects: 6/10 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/11 correct (67%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8

Session 5 — 2026-04-20 — 55 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 4/14 correct (30%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/10 correct (30%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  tacts common objects: 5/14 correct (33%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×10
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/15 correct (27%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×8

Session 6 — 2026-04-22 — 55 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 5/15 correct (34%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/8 correct (32%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  tacts common objects: 4/11 correct (37%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/15 correct (32%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×1, I×9

Session 7 — 2026-04-24 — 55 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 5/10 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/10 correct (39%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  tacts common objects: 5/13 correct (40%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/15 correct (35%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×10

Session 8 — 2026-04-26 — 55 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 5/11 correct (49%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/12 correct (47%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×4
  tacts common objects: 4/8 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/15 correct (37%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×0, I×10

Session 9 — 2026-04-28 — 55 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/10 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  tacts common objects: 6/11 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/11 correct (42%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5

Session 10 — 2026-04-30 — 55 min — 1 observer
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 5/9 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/12 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  tacts common objects: 8/12 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×5

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

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

## Pattern Classification
setting_event_trigger

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 49.6%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 60%, last session: 58%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

[User]
Interpret the following behavioral session log. Provide clinical concerns, pattern classification, behavior function hypothesis (if applicable), programming recommendations (antecedent / replacement / consequence / crisis), escalation level, confidence, and data-supported rationale.

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-8979
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Mand + Reading + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-06-02 to 2026-06-26)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. tolerating haircut (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. requesting preferred items using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
5. requesting help when a task is difficult (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Non-compliance — function hypothesized: escape
2. Motor stereotypy — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-02 — 31 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×1
  tolerating haircut: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/14 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 9/15 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×8
  Non-compliance: freq 1
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 9%

Session 2 — 2026-06-04 — 31 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 9/15 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×12
  tolerating haircut: 10/15 correct (66%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/10 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/11 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  Non-compliance: freq 1
  Motor stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 8%

Session 3 — 2026-06-06 — 31 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 8/12 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  tolerating haircut: 8/11 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/15 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×0, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  Non-compliance: freq 2
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 19%

Session 4 — 2026-06-08 — 31 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  tolerating haircut: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 5/8 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  Non-compliance: freq 0
  Motor stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 14%

Session 5 — 2026-06-10 — 31 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 4/12 correct (34%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  tolerating haircut: 4/11 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 3/9 correct (28%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/12 correct (32%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 2/9 correct (25%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  Non-compliance: freq 3
  Motor stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 22%

Session 6 — 2026-06-12 — 31 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 3/9 correct (38%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  tolerating haircut: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 5/14 correct (32%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/14 correct (39%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×12
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 4/12 correct (34%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  Non-compliance: freq 4
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 9%

Session 7 — 2026-06-14 — 31 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 5/11 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  tolerating haircut: 7/12 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 4/10 correct (36%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/13 correct (47%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 4/11 correct (37%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  Non-compliance: freq 1
  Motor stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 6%

Session 8 — 2026-06-16 — 31 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 6/12 correct (50%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  tolerating haircut: 7/11 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/14 correct (45%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×9
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 4/10 correct (40%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  Non-compliance: freq 0
  Motor stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 6%

Session 9 — 2026-06-18 — 31 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 5/8 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  tolerating haircut: 8/12 correct (67%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/10 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 4/9 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  Non-compliance: freq 1
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 19%

Session 10 — 2026-06-20 — 31 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 5/8 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  tolerating haircut: 8/12 correct (67%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/15 correct (47%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×3, I×7
  Non-compliance: freq 1
  Motor stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 14%

Session 11 — 2026-06-22 — 31 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  tolerating haircut: 9/13 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  Non-compliance: freq 2
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 11%

Session 12 — 2026-06-24 — 31 min — 1 observer
  brushing teeth independently: 10/15 correct (64%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×5, I×4
  tolerating haircut: 5/8 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  Non-compliance: freq 1
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 11%

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

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

## Pattern Classification
setting_event_trigger

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Non-compliance: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.
Motor stereotypy: automatic
  Evidence: behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 56.2%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 60%, last session: 64%).
- Non-compliance: mean 1.4/session (early-window mean 1.0 -> late-window mean 1.2).
- Motor stereotypy: mean 1.8/session (early-window mean 1.5 -> late-window mean 1.8).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.