[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-4545
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Mand + Motor Imitation
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-10-15 to 2026-10-31)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. imitates 3-step motor sequences (Motor Imitation)
   Method: DTT variant
3. indicating completion ('all done', 'finished') (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break') (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Verbal aggression — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-15 — 49 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/12 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×3
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 10/13 correct (74%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 11/13 correct (86%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  Verbal aggression: freq 3

Session 2 — 2026-10-17 — 49 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/14 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 7/10 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 9/14 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 11/14 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/11 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  Verbal aggression: freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-10-19 — 49 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/10 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 10/15 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/8 correct (69%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/13 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  Verbal aggression: freq 3

Session 4 — 2026-10-21 — 49 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/11 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 4/8 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/15 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  Verbal aggression: freq 5

Session 5 — 2026-10-23 — 49 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/11 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 6/14 correct (41%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×9
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/9 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  Verbal aggression: freq 4

Session 6 — 2026-10-25 — 49 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/14 correct (38%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/15 correct (39%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×2, I×6
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 4/9 correct (40%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/12 correct (52%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/10 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  Verbal aggression: freq 5

Session 7 — 2026-10-27 — 49 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/12 correct (32%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/11 correct (36%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 3/11 correct (25%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/11 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/14 correct (37%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  Verbal aggression: freq 6

Session 8 — 2026-10-29 — 49 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 2/8 correct (26%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 3/10 correct (26%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 2/8 correct (23%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/13 correct (35%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/12 correct (41%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  Verbal aggression: freq 6

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Aggression attempt directed at staff (hit, kick, or scratch toward adult)
- Increased response latency (3–5× baseline)
- Vocal refusal ('no', 'I don't want to')
- Self-stimulatory behavior increase during demand periods

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
- **Regression identified**: accuracy has declined from 69% to 26% across 8 sessions.
- Accompanying behavior data suggests the decline may be function-related.

## Pattern Classification
regression

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
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: 48.8%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 69%, last session: 26%).
- Verbal aggression: mean 4.2/session (early-window mean 2.5 -> late-window mean 6.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-2092
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Community + Mand + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–7 across 14 days (2026-09-21 to 2026-10-05)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. indicating 'all done' at task completion (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. requesting a break during extended tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
6. using public transportation (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Tantrum — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-09-21 — 30 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/12 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  washing hands independently: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×2
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  using public transportation: 11/15 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×5, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 5m total

Session 2 — 2026-09-23 — 30 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 6/9 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  washing hands independently: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/10 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  using public transportation: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 5m total

Session 3 — 2026-09-25 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 61% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  dressing (pants, shirt): 70% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  washing hands independently: 71% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  brushing teeth independently: 74% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 74% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  using public transportation: 74% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  Tantrum: freq 4, duration 8m total; IOA 96% agreement

Session 4 — 2026-09-27 — 30 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/8 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  washing hands independently: 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 6/9 correct (71%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/9 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  using public transportation: 9/12 correct (74%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 5, duration 15m total

Session 5 — 2026-09-29 — 30 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 9/13 correct (67%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  dressing (pants, shirt): 10/14 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×10
  washing hands independently: 6/8 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 12/15 correct (77%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/8 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  using public transportation: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×9
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 6 — 2026-10-01 — 30 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  dressing (pants, shirt): 10/15 correct (67%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×3, I×6
  washing hands independently: 9/11 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 8/10 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/9 correct (86%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×3
  using public transportation: 7/10 correct (73%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 4m total

Session 7 — 2026-10-03 — 30 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 11/15 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×11
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  washing hands independently: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 8/10 correct (79%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/10 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  using public transportation: 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 5m total

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Self-injurious behavior onset during task difficulty (self-biting, hair-pulling, head-hitting)
- Elopement from the work area
- Vocal refusal ('no', 'I don't want to')
- 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
Tantrum: attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 7 sessions of data with IOA evidence.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 7 sessions: 65.5%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 63%, last session: 70%).
- Tantrum: mean 1.9/session (early-window mean 1.0 -> late-window mean 1.0).
- IOA data: 96% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

Target: mands for a break during a non-preferred task ("break please, I need a break")
Curriculum: Mand L2
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Approaching mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: mands for a break during a non-preferred task ("break please, I need a break")
- Curriculum: Mand L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching mastery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mands for a break during a non-preferred task ("break please, I need a break")


[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-6263
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Reading
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-09-17 to 2026-10-09)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. counts objects 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
3. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
5. identifies numerals 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-09-17 — 52 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/12 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×2
  counts objects 1–20: 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 6/11 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/11 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×9

Session 2 — 2026-09-19 — 52 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/11 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  counts objects 1–20: 6/12 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/13 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  sounds out CVC words: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/11 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6

Session 3 — 2026-09-21 — 52 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  counts objects 1–20: 5/10 correct (48%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 8/15 correct (56%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×10
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×5

Session 4 — 2026-09-23 — 52 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  counts objects 1–20: 3/8 correct (39%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/13 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 6/10 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/9 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×3

Session 5 — 2026-09-25 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 51% (primary); IOA 93% agreement
  counts objects 1–20: 49% (primary); IOA 93% agreement
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 45% (primary); IOA 93% agreement
  sounds out CVC words: 63% (primary); IOA 93% agreement
  identifies numerals 1–20: 56% (primary); IOA 93% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-09-27 — 52 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 4/9 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  counts objects 1–20: 6/14 correct (43%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/15 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×5, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 5/10 correct (51%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×7

Session 7 — 2026-09-29 — 52 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/9 correct (51%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  counts objects 1–20: 5/10 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/13 correct (36%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 5/8 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×3

Session 8 — 2026-10-01 — 52 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/10 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  counts objects 1–20: 5/14 correct (37%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/11 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 8/14 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×12
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×8

Session 9 — 2026-10-03 — 52 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×2
  counts objects 1–20: 3/8 correct (40%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/14 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×9
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/13 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×5

Session 10 — 2026-10-05 — 52 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/15 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×10
  counts objects 1–20: 4/13 correct (34%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/10 correct (43%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  sounds out CVC words: 8/15 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×5, I×7
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/14 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×9

Session 11 — 2026-10-07 — 52 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/13 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  counts objects 1–20: 4/12 correct (36%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/10 correct (40%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 5/9 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/10 correct (49%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×6

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Plateau**: accuracy has remained near 52% for 11 sessions without meaningful improvement.
- Performance is below mastery criteria; current teaching procedure may not be effective for this learner.

## Pattern Classification
plateau

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 54.3%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 46%, last session: 58%).
- IOA data: 93% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

[User]
Design a chaining program for the following.

Skill: completing assigned tasks in order
Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
Learner Level: Adult Learner
Baseline: Generalization phase

Include the full Task Analysis structure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Full chain completed within 60s across 3 consecutive sessions with independent responding on all steps.

## Data Collection
Per-step data: each step is scored for independence / prompt level on every trial. IOA scheduled every 4 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 Discrete Trial Training program for the following.

Skill: counts objects 1–5 with 1:1 correspondence
Curriculum: Math L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Approaching mastery

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: counts objects 1–5 with 1:1 correspondence
- Curriculum: Math 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: "How many?"
Variations: "Count these"; "How many are there?"
Presentation: Present the set of objects to count.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Time Delay (progressive)
Sequence: 0s delay -> 2s delay -> 4s delay -> 6s delay -> independent
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: 2, 5, 4
Distractor stimuli: 1, 3
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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

counts objects 1–5 with 1:1 correspondence


[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-4021
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Independent Living + Mand + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-07-10 to 2026-07-28)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
2. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. indicating 'all done' at task completion (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. scheduling medical appointments (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-10 — 53 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 11/15 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×1, I×9
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  scheduling medical appointments: 9/11 correct (80%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  Non-compliance: freq 1
  Pica: attempts 2 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 2 — 2026-07-12 — 53 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/10 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 8/11 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  scheduling medical appointments: 9/12 correct (78%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  Non-compliance: freq 3
  Pica: attempts 3 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 3 — 2026-07-14 — 53 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×0, I×9
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 8/13 correct (64%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  scheduling medical appointments: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×7
  Non-compliance: freq 2
  Pica: attempts 3 (3 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 4 — 2026-07-16 — 53 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/9 correct (51%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/11 correct (48%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  scheduling medical appointments: 8/12 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  Non-compliance: freq 4
  Pica: attempts 4 (4 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 5 — 2026-07-18 — 53 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/12 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  dressing (pants, shirt): 3/8 correct (41%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 5/11 correct (42%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  scheduling medical appointments: 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  Non-compliance: freq 5
  Pica: attempts 5 (4 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 6 — 2026-07-20 — 53 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/11 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/13 correct (39%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 4/10 correct (37%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  scheduling medical appointments: 6/12 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  Non-compliance: freq 5
  Pica: attempts 6 (6 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 7 — 2026-07-22 — 53 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/13 correct (33%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/12 correct (32%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 4/13 correct (33%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  scheduling medical appointments: 4/10 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  Non-compliance: freq 5
  Pica: attempts 6 (5 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 8 — 2026-07-24 — 53 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/14 correct (34%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  dressing (pants, shirt): 2/10 correct (19%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 3/14 correct (21%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  scheduling medical appointments: 3/9 correct (36%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  Non-compliance: freq 5
  Pica: attempts 8 (5 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 3 successful — item ingested)

Session 9 — 2026-07-26 — 53 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 2/8 correct (23%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  dressing (pants, shirt): 2/10 correct (16%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 3/14 correct (19%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  scheduling medical appointments: 3/15 correct (21%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×4, I×4
  Non-compliance: freq 6
  Pica: attempts 7 (6 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (78% -> 23%) 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
Non-compliance: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.
Pica: 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: 9 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 48.8%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 78%, last session: 23%).
- Non-compliance: mean 4.0/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 5.3).
- Pica: mean 4.9/session (early-window mean 2.7 -> late-window mean 7.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-8120
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Reading + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-09-19 to 2026-10-05)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. tolerating haircut (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. identifying community safety signs (Community)
   Method: DTT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-09-19 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 3/8 correct (33%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  tolerating haircut: 4/15 correct (28%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×14
  identifying community safety signs: 3/12 correct (23%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×3

Session 2 — 2026-09-21 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/11 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  tolerating haircut: 4/11 correct (36%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  identifying community safety signs: 4/12 correct (34%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×7

Session 3 — 2026-09-23 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/8 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  tolerating haircut: 6/13 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  identifying community safety signs: 4/8 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4

Session 4 — 2026-09-25 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/9 correct (55%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  tolerating haircut: 6/10 correct (55%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  identifying community safety signs: 6/10 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5

Session 5 — 2026-09-27 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  tolerating haircut: 9/14 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  identifying community safety signs: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×1, I×4

Session 6 — 2026-09-29 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  tolerating haircut: 6/8 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  identifying community safety signs: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×3

Session 7 — 2026-10-01 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  tolerating haircut: 10/12 correct (87%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  identifying community safety signs: 8/9 correct (85%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4

Session 8 — 2026-10-03 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/10 correct (90%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  tolerating haircut: 14/15 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  identifying community safety signs: 10/11 correct (92%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Rapid acquisition**: accelerated mastery from 33% to 90% across 8 sessions.
- Acquisition has exceeded expected timeline.

## Pattern Classification
rapid_acquisition

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
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: 60.1%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 33%, last session: 90%).
- 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-2637
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Mand + Reading + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–7 across 14 days (2026-03-22 to 2026-04-05)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. requesting a break during non-preferred activities (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
3. requesting help when a task is difficult (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-03-22 — 34 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 3/11 correct (26%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/15 correct (22%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 4/13 correct (31%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 4/14 correct (26%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×9

Session 2 — 2026-03-24 — 34 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 3/10 correct (33%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/12 correct (34%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×2
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 6/14 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 3/10 correct (34%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×5

Session 3 — 2026-03-26 — 34 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 5/11 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/12 correct (42%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 5/10 correct (46%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7

Session 4 — 2026-03-28 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 54% (primary); IOA 94% agreement
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 51% (primary); IOA 94% agreement
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 61% (primary); IOA 94% agreement
  sounds out CVC words: 50% (primary); IOA 94% agreement

Session 5 — 2026-03-30 — 34 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 9/14 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/12 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 8/11 correct (76%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 8/13 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×9

Session 6 — 2026-04-01 — 34 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/11 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 9/10 correct (87%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 6/9 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×6

Session 7 — 2026-04-03 — 34 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/8 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/12 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 10/11 correct (95%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 8/10 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7

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

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Rapid acquisition**: accelerated mastery from 26% to 84% across 7 sessions.
- Acquisition has exceeded expected timeline.

## Pattern Classification
rapid_acquisition

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 7 sessions of data with IOA evidence.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 7 sessions: 55.0%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 26%, last session: 84%).
- IOA data: 94% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

Skill Target: completing assigned tasks in order
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Vocational Skills
Learner Profile: Adolescent Learner
Current Mastery: Near mastery
Teaching Method: Task Analysis / Chaining

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Reinforcement
Differential per-step + terminal — Small per-step reinforcement for independent responses; larger reinforcer at chain completion.
Pair the terminal reinforcer with the natural consequence of the completed task (e.g., clean hands, clean dishes, completed routine).

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

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

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


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You 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: showering
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Developing

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: showering
- Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
- Learner: School-Age 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: Backward chaining
Complete all steps for the learner except the last; teach the last step first, then work backward. The final reinforcer (task completion) is always present for the learner.

Steps:
1. Enter the shower and close the curtain.
2. Turn on the water and adjust temperature.
3. Wet body completely.
4. Apply soap to a washcloth.
5. Wash body systematically (face -> torso -> arms -> legs -> feet).
6. Rinse all soap off.
7. Apply shampoo and rub into hair.
8. Rinse hair completely.
9. Turn off the water.
10. Exit the shower and dry off with a towel.  <- Learner-taught step (backward chaining starts here)

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

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


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

[User]
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-5912
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Independent Living + Mand + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-04-09 to 2026-05-03)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. managing a budget (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. requesting a break during extended tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. self-advocacy statements (Independent Living)
   Method: BST
4. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Property destruction — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-09 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/12 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  self-advocacy statements: 5/8 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  Property destruction: freq 0

Session 2 — 2026-04-11 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 9/14 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 4/9 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 7/13 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 3 — 2026-04-13 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 5/8 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 4/10 correct (40%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 7/12 correct (62%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 6/13 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  Property destruction: freq 0

Session 4 — 2026-04-15 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 4/8 correct (56%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/14 correct (48%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  self-advocacy statements: 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 6/14 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  Property destruction: freq 0

Session 5 — 2026-04-17 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 4/10 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 6/14 correct (42%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  Property destruction: freq 0

Session 6 — 2026-04-19 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 7/12 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/13 correct (42%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  self-advocacy statements: 8/13 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 5/13 correct (40%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  Property destruction: freq 0

Session 7 — 2026-04-21 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/11 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 4/8 correct (51%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 4/11 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  Property destruction: freq 0

Session 8 — 2026-04-23 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 5/8 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/15 correct (42%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×5, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 8/14 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  brushing teeth independently: 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  Property destruction: freq 1

Session 9 — 2026-04-25 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 9/15 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/15 correct (35%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×9
  self-advocacy statements: 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 6/15 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×5, I×9
  Property destruction: freq 0

Session 10 — 2026-04-27 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/10 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 8/13 correct (63%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  brushing teeth independently: 5/12 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  Property destruction: freq 0

Session 11 — 2026-04-29 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 4/10 correct (43%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 8/12 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 4/9 correct (42%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  Property destruction: freq 0

Session 12 — 2026-05-01 — 32 min — 1 observer
  managing a budget: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×13
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 4/8 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  self-advocacy statements: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 6/13 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×11
  Property destruction: freq 1

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Plateau**: accuracy has remained near 66% for 12 sessions without meaningful improvement.
- Performance is below mastery criteria; current teaching procedure may not be effective for this learner.

## Pattern Classification
plateau

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
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: 62.8%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 63%, last session: 68%).
- Property destruction: mean 0.2/session (early-window mean 0.2 -> late-window mean 0.2).
- 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]
Design a systematic desensitization / toleration program for the following.

Skill: tolerating medical exam
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner Level: Adult 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 medical exam
- Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging
- Approach: Toleration / systematic desensitization (caregiver-delivered activity)

This program builds tolerance for routine medical exam by clinician 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
full routine exam (stethoscope, blood pressure cuff, otoscope, temperature) completed without refusal 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. Enter and sit in the exam room
2. Tolerate stethoscope contact for 5 seconds
3. Tolerate blood pressure cuff on arm
4. Tolerate otoscope in ear
5. Tolerate temperature reading
6. Tolerate full routine exam

Current shaping step: At the emerging stage, begin at shaping step 1 ("Enter and sit in the exam room") 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 with 2 different caregivers (primary caregiver + one other) across 2 consecutive weeks.

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

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


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-8917
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Echoic + Listener Responding + Mand + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-08-17 to 2026-09-04)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break') (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
3. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
4. echoes 2-word phrases (Echoic)
   Method: DTT variant

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Motor stereotypy — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-17 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 10/12 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/10 correct (83%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 11/13 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  echoes 2-word phrases: 11/15 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 15%

Session 2 — 2026-08-19 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 11/14 correct (81%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/8 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  echoes 2-word phrases: 10/15 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×10
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 15%

Session 3 — 2026-08-21 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/14 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/11 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  echoes 2-word phrases: 6/11 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  Motor stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 23%

Session 4 — 2026-08-23 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/11 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/10 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  echoes 2-word phrases: 6/11 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  Motor stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 17%

Session 5 — 2026-08-25 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/14 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  Motor stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 17%

Session 6 — 2026-08-27 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 4/9 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/14 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  echoes 2-word phrases: 4/9 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  Motor stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 23%

Session 7 — 2026-08-29 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 5/11 correct (44%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/14 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×8
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×3
  echoes 2-word phrases: 4/11 correct (35%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  Motor stereotypy: freq 6; PIR 18%

Session 8 — 2026-08-31 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 4/10 correct (37%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×3
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/10 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  echoes 2-word phrases: 3/9 correct (30%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  Motor stereotypy: freq 6; PIR 37%

Session 9 — 2026-09-02 — 54 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 3/11 correct (28%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/8 correct (46%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 3/8 correct (40%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  echoes 2-word phrases: 3/9 correct (31%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  Motor stereotypy: freq 6; PIR 24%

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

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
- **Regression identified**: accuracy has declined from 81% to 28% across 9 sessions.
- Accompanying behavior data suggests the decline may be function-related.

## Pattern Classification
regression

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 54.7%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 81%, last session: 28%).
- Motor stereotypy: mean 4.3/session (early-window mean 3.0 -> late-window mean 6.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Skill Target: tacts common animals
Curriculum Reference: Tact L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Emerging
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

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

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "What animal is this?"
Variations: "What is this?"; "Name this animal"
Presentation: Present an animal picture card and ask while pointing.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Fading
Sequence: exaggerated stimulus -> moderate fade -> minimal fade -> natural stimulus
Current prompt level: At the emerging stage, begin at higher prompt levels (full-physical or partial-physical) with systematic fading.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: lion, fish, duck
Distractor stimuli: chicken, monkey
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 with 2 different therapists and 2 different settings.

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

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe with novel stimuli, across 2 additional therapists, and in at least 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-1903
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Reading + Social Behavior
Date range: Sessions 1–7 across 14 days (2026-02-18 to 2026-03-04)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
4. takes turns during structured activities (Social Behavior)
   Method: PRT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-02-18 — 35 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 2/10 correct (22%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 3/14 correct (22%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/14 correct (38%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×12
  takes turns during structured activities: 3/12 correct (22%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×9

Session 2 — 2026-02-20 — 35 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 4/11 correct (34%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 3/10 correct (33%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/9 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  takes turns during structured activities: 4/13 correct (28%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×13

Session 3 — 2026-02-22 — 35 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/13 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/12 correct (42%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/13 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  takes turns during structured activities: 4/11 correct (38%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×8

Session 4 — 2026-02-24 — 35 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×8
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/9 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/12 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/10 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×7

Session 5 — 2026-02-26 — 35 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/8 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/10 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1

Session 6 — 2026-02-28 — 35 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/9 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/11 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 12/15 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×10
  takes turns during structured activities: 7/11 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5

Session 7 — 2026-03-02 — 35 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 12/15 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×2, I×7
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/9 correct (79%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 11/12 correct (90%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  takes turns during structured activities: 12/15 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×5, I×6

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Rapid acquisition**: accelerated mastery from 22% to 77% across 7 sessions.
- Acquisition has exceeded expected timeline.

## Pattern Classification
rapid_acquisition

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 7 sessions: 52.0%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 22%, last session: 77%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.