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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-5244
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Intraverbal + Tact + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-04-09 to 2026-05-03)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
2. answers WH-questions about familiar topics (Intraverbal)
   Method: NET
3. tacts colors of objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-09 — 46 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 11/13 correct (87%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  tacts colors of objects: 13/15 correct (84%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×0, I×7
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 2 (2 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 0 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 2 — 2026-04-11 — 46 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/8 correct (78%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/9 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 2 (2 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 0 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 3 — 2026-04-13 — 46 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/14 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 12/15 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×3, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 8/10 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 1 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 0 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 4 — 2026-04-15 — 46 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/12 correct (73%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 10/12 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  tacts colors of objects: 12/15 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 2 (0 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 2 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 5 — 2026-04-17 — 46 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/9 correct (41%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/13 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 8/15 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×4, I×3
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 2 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 6 — 2026-04-19 — 46 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/8 correct (37%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 4/8 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 5/10 correct (50%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 1 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 0 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 7 — 2026-04-21 — 46 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/15 correct (37%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 9/14 correct (62%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  tacts colors of objects: 8/15 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×5, I×7
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 1 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 0 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 8 — 2026-04-23 — 46 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/10 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 10/15 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  tacts colors of objects: 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 1 (0 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 9 — 2026-04-25 — 46 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/9 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/8 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  tacts colors of objects: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 2 (0 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 2 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 10 — 2026-04-27 — 46 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/13 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 11/13 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 7/10 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 1 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 0 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 11 — 2026-04-29 — 46 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×14
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 9/11 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 8/11 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 2 (2 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 0 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 12 — 2026-05-01 — 46 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 12/14 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  tacts colors of objects: 11/14 correct (77%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×1, I×9
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 1 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 0 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

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

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

## Pattern Classification
motivating_operation_shift

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Fecal smearing (scatolia): automatic
  Evidence: behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 55.5%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 72%, last session: 63%).
- Fecal smearing (scatolia): mean 1.5/session (early-window mean 1.8 -> late-window mean 1.5).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

[User]
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-4415
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Reading
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-03-14 to 2026-03-30)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. requesting preferred items using a full sentence (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
5. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-03-14 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/8 correct (90%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 11/14 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 10/11 correct (94%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 9/10 correct (90%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 10/11 correct (88%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×7

Session 2 — 2026-03-16 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/10 correct (92%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 9/12 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/9 correct (92%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 8/9 correct (88%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×3
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 10/11 correct (88%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×9

Session 3 — 2026-03-18 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/9 correct (90%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 7/10 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 15/15 correct (98%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 7/8 correct (86%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 13/15 correct (89%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×5, I×1

Session 4 — 2026-03-20 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/9 correct (88%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 8/10 correct (76%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 9/9 correct (98%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×2
  sounds out CVC words: 8/10 correct (84%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/8 correct (88%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7

Session 5 — 2026-03-22 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/12 correct (87%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 7/9 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 8/8 correct (98%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 10/12 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 11/13 correct (83%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×10

Session 6 — 2026-03-24 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 11/13 correct (85%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 10/10 correct (98%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 8/10 correct (80%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 10/12 correct (82%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×4

Session 7 — 2026-03-26 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/9 correct (85%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 10/15 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×9
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 14/14 correct (98%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 6/8 correct (80%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 10/12 correct (86%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×9

Session 8 — 2026-03-28 — 60 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/8 correct (88%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 8/11 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  requesting preferred items using a full sentence: 13/13 correct (98%); latency 1.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  sounds out CVC words: 10/12 correct (80%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/10 correct (86%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×7

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Prompt dependency**: high accuracy maintained (90%–88%) but primarily at prompted levels.
- Independent responding remains low despite extended training.

## Pattern Classification
prompt_dependency

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 88.1%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 90%, last session: 88%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

[User]
Design a chaining program for the following.

Skill: making the bed
Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
Learner Level: Adolescent Learner
Baseline: Mastered at current level

Include the full Task Analysis structure.

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

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

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

Steps:
1. Strip any disheveled linens and lay them flat.  <- Learner-taught step (forward chaining starts here)
2. Straighten the bottom sheet across the mattress.
3. Place the top sheet evenly over the mattress.
4. Tuck the top sheet in at the foot of the bed.
5. Place the comforter over the top sheet.
6. Place pillows at the head of the bed.
7. Smooth the comforter surface.

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

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

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

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

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


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
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-8866
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Reading + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-02-09 to 2026-03-05)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
2. indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
4. single-word requests for preferred items (Mand)
   Method: NET

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-02-09 — 59 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 10/12 correct (79%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 12/15 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2
  Non-compliance: freq 3

Session 2 — 2026-02-11 — 59 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 9/14 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×4
  single-word requests for preferred items: 8/11 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1
  Non-compliance: freq 4

Session 3 — 2026-02-13 — 59 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/11 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  single-word requests for preferred items: 11/15 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×1, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3
  Non-compliance: freq 5

Session 4 — 2026-02-15 — 59 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×0
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/12 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2
  Non-compliance: freq 5

Session 5 — 2026-02-17 — 59 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/12 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 4/10 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  single-word requests for preferred items: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×4, I×1
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3
  Non-compliance: freq 6

Session 6 — 2026-02-19 — 59 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 5/10 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 4/8 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  sounds out CVC words: 4/10 correct (42%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  single-word requests for preferred items: 4/8 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5
  Non-compliance: freq 6

Session 7 — 2026-02-21 — 59 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 6/14 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/13 correct (39%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 5/15 correct (33%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×10
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/13 correct (46%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 4
  Non-compliance: freq 5

Session 8 — 2026-02-23 — 59 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 3/9 correct (36%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 4/12 correct (36%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 3/11 correct (28%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  single-word requests for preferred items: 4/10 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5
  Non-compliance: freq 7

Session 9 — 2026-02-25 — 59 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 4/11 correct (33%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 4/14 correct (31%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 3/14 correct (23%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 4/11 correct (38%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 6
  Non-compliance: freq 7

Session 10 — 2026-02-27 — 59 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 2/8 correct (22%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 2/11 correct (20%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 2/14 correct (14%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×13
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/14 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 7
  Non-compliance: freq 7

Session 11 — 2026-03-01 — 59 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 2/9 correct (24%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 2/13 correct (16%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 1/12 correct (10%); latency 5.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 3/9 correct (32%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 7
  Non-compliance: freq 9

Session 12 — 2026-03-03 — 59 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 2/13 correct (14%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 1/9 correct (10%); latency 5.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 1/12 correct (10%); latency 5.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  single-word requests for preferred items: 3/11 correct (23%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 8
  Non-compliance: freq 10

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (72% -> 14%) 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
Self-injurious behavior (SIB): attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.
Non-compliance: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
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: 12 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 44.7%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 72%, last session: 14%).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 4.4/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 7.0).
- Non-compliance: mean 6.2/session (early-window mean 4.2 -> late-window mean 8.2).
- 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]
Generate a teaching program for the following target.

Skill Target: shows items to others spontaneously
Curriculum Reference: Social Behavior & Social Play L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Near mastery
Teaching Method: NET (Natural Environment Teaching)

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: shows items to others spontaneously
- Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Skill Target: tolerating haircut
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner Profile: Adult Learner
Current Mastery: Emerging
Teaching Method: Toleration / Systematic Desensitization

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

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

This program builds tolerance for haircut by caregiver or stylist 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 haircut (10+ minutes) completed without refusal, leaving the chair, 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. Sit in the chair with cape on for 30 seconds
2. Tolerate 1 minute of quiet sitting with cape
3. Tolerate 2 minutes of brief clipping
4. Tolerate 5 minutes of clipping
5. Tolerate 10 minutes of clipping
6. Tolerate full haircut routine

Current shaping step: At the emerging stage, begin at shaping step 1 ("Sit in the chair with cape on for 30 seconds") and advance through step 2 across sessions as tolerance stabilizes.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Skill: mands for others to stop an action
Curriculum: Mand L2
Learner Level: School-Age Learner
Baseline: Near mastery

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: mands for others to stop an action
- Curriculum: Mand L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

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

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
Briefly withhold or restrict access to the target preferred item/activity for 30–60 seconds to establish motivation before the teaching opportunity.
Primary natural context: free play.

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

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

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: performance of the requested action.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 4 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 2 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 2 different adults during the teaching phase.

## Mastery Criteria
Independent use across 3 different adults and 2 different settings within 2 weeks.

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

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


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

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

Skill: single-word mands for preferred items
Curriculum: Mand L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Generalization phase

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: single-word mands for preferred items
- Curriculum: Mand L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
Briefly withhold or restrict access to the target preferred item/activity for 30–60 seconds to establish motivation before the teaching opportunity.
Primary natural context: leisure time.

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

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

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: immediate access to the requested item for 30–60 seconds.
Avoid contrived consequences — the functional outcome IS the reinforcer.

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 5 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 2 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 3 different adults during the teaching phase.

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

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

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


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

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

Skill: tracks print left to right
Curriculum: Reading L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Approaching mastery

Include the full DTT trial structure.

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

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Stimulus Shaping
Sequence: modified stimulus -> intermediate shape -> target stimulus
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: phone, shoe, block
Distractor stimuli: jacket, car
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
FR-2 (fixed ratio 2) — Every 2nd correct response reinforced. Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

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

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

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


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

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

Skill: tells time to the hour and half-hour
Curriculum: Math L3
Learner Level: School-Age Learner
Baseline: Developing

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tells time to the hour and half-hour
- Curriculum: Math L3
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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"; "What number is this?"
Presentation: Present the numeral card or a set of objects to count.

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 6 (target + 5 distractors, mixed categories)
Target stimuli: scissors, plate, ball
Distractor stimuli: jacket, brush, toothbrush, glue, cup
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-4235
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Mand + Reading + Tolerating Denied Access + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-09-01 to 2026-09-25)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
3. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
4. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
5. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-09-01 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 17%

Session 2 — 2026-09-03 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/10 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/8 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×11
  copies simple words from model: 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 10/14 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 15%

Session 3 — 2026-09-05 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/13 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/12 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 10/14 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 29%

Session 4 — 2026-09-07 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/13 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/12 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  copies simple words from model: 7/12 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/13 correct (53%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 26%

Session 5 — 2026-09-09 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/9 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/11 correct (40%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 9/15 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×1, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/10 correct (51%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 16%

Session 6 — 2026-09-11 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/9 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 3/8 correct (32%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/12 correct (44%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  copies simple words from model: 8/15 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×5, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 4/9 correct (43%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 16%

Session 7 — 2026-09-13 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/11 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 3/14 correct (23%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/11 correct (35%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 4/9 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×3
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 3/10 correct (34%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 20%

Session 8 — 2026-09-15 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/9 correct (38%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 3/13 correct (20%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/9 correct (30%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  copies simple words from model: 5/12 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 4/15 correct (24%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×4, I×1
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 3
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 6; PIR 23%

Session 9 — 2026-09-17 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/15 correct (23%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×10
  reads 10–20 sight words: 1/10 correct (11%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/13 correct (23%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×5
  copies simple words from model: 5/13 correct (35%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 1/9 correct (15%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 5; PIR 35%

Session 10 — 2026-09-19 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 2/10 correct (19%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 1/9 correct (10%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 2/8 correct (22%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  copies simple words from model: 2/8 correct (28%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 2/14 correct (12%); latency 5.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 6; PIR 28%

Session 11 — 2026-09-21 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 1/9 correct (11%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 1/8 correct (10%); latency 5.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 1/10 correct (14%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  copies simple words from model: 2/14 correct (17%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×8
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 1/8 correct (10%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 4
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 6; PIR 32%

Session 12 — 2026-09-23 — 59 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 1/9 correct (10%); latency 5.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 1/10 correct (10%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 1/14 correct (10%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  copies simple words from model: 1/8 correct (18%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 1/12 correct (10%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×3
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5
  Vocal stereotypy: freq 7; PIR 38%

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Pushing materials away from the work area
- Self-stimulatory behavior increase during demand periods
- Crying during demand presentation
- Self-injurious behavior onset during task difficulty (self-biting, hair-pulling, head-hitting)

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 75% to 10% across 12 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
Self-injurious behavior (SIB): automatic
  Evidence: behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.
Vocal 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
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: 12 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 42.6%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 75%, last session: 10%).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 3.5/session (early-window mean 2.8 -> late-window mean 4.8).
- Vocal stereotypy: mean 4.4/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]
Design a Discrete Trial Training program for the following.

Skill: selects items by comparison (which is heavier)
Curriculum: LRFFC L3
Learner Level: School-Age Learner
Baseline: Near mastery

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects items by comparison (which is heavier)
- Curriculum: LRFFC L3
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

selects items by comparison (which is heavier)


[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: taking medication as prescribed
Curriculum: AFLS Independent Living Skills
Learner Level: Adult Learner
Baseline: Developing

Include the full Task Analysis structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: taking medication as prescribed
- Curriculum: AFLS Independent Living Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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

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

Steps:
1. Check the medication schedule at the scheduled time.
2. Collect the correct medication bottle.
3. Confirm the dose against the label.
4. Measure or count the correct dose.
5. Take the medication with water.
6. Log the dose in the medication tracker.
7. Return the bottle to its storage location.

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

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

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

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

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

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full chain across 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 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 familiar people by name
Curriculum Reference: Tact L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Approaching mastery
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts familiar people by name
- Curriculum: Tact 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: "What is this?"
Variations: "Tell me what you see"; "What's that?"; "Name this"
Presentation: Present the target stimulus within visual field and ask while pointing to it.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Time Delay (progressive)
Sequence: 0s delay -> 2s delay -> 4s delay -> 6s delay -> independent
Current prompt level: At the approaching mastery stage, deliver gestural or positional prompts; fade toward independence.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: book, napkin, key
Distractor stimuli: brush, backpack
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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


[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: provides definitions of words
Curriculum: Intraverbal L3
Learner: Adolescent Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: provides definitions of words
- Curriculum: Intraverbal L3
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Data Collection
Opportunity-based data recording: each naturally-occasioned trial is scored for independence and topography. IOA scheduled every 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.


[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-6454
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Mand + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-02-03 to 2026-02-27)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. requesting assistance using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. simple meal preparation (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. clocking in at start of shift (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. doing laundry (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-02-03 — 31 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×9
  simple meal preparation: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  clocking in at start of shift: 8/9 correct (86%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  doing laundry: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×3, I×5

Session 2 — 2026-02-05 — 31 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 11/15 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×4, I×1
  simple meal preparation: 10/14 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  clocking in at start of shift: 11/13 correct (81%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  doing laundry: 7/10 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×10

Session 3 — 2026-02-07 — 31 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/8 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  simple meal preparation: 8/11 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  clocking in at start of shift: 13/15 correct (88%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  doing laundry: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×9

Session 4 — 2026-02-09 — 31 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 11/15 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×9
  simple meal preparation: 10/14 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  clocking in at start of shift: 12/14 correct (85%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  doing laundry: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×3

Session 5 — 2026-02-11 — 31 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 5/13 correct (36%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  simple meal preparation: 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  clocking in at start of shift: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  doing laundry: 5/12 correct (38%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×9

Session 6 — 2026-02-13 — 31 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 3/11 correct (32%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  simple meal preparation: 3/9 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  clocking in at start of shift: 6/11 correct (52%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  doing laundry: 4/12 correct (32%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×8

Session 7 — 2026-02-15 — 31 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/15 correct (37%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×10
  simple meal preparation: 5/13 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  clocking in at start of shift: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  doing laundry: 3/9 correct (34%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×2

Session 8 — 2026-02-17 — 31 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 5/13 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  simple meal preparation: 5/14 correct (35%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×13
  clocking in at start of shift: 7/14 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  doing laundry: 4/9 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4

Session 9 — 2026-02-19 — 31 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 4/9 correct (45%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  simple meal preparation: 6/15 correct (38%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×3, I×7
  clocking in at start of shift: 5/9 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×3
  doing laundry: 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×7

Session 10 — 2026-02-21 — 31 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 6/13 correct (45%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  clocking in at start of shift: 9/15 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  doing laundry: 7/11 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×4

Session 11 — 2026-02-23 — 31 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  simple meal preparation: 5/10 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  clocking in at start of shift: 6/9 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×0
  doing laundry: 5/8 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6

Session 12 — 2026-02-25 — 31 min — 1 observer
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×0, I×6
  simple meal preparation: 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  clocking in at start of shift: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  doing laundry: 6/9 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×2

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

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

## Pattern Classification
motivating_operation_shift

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 54.7%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 74%, last session: 68%).
- 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-4411
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Mand + Reading + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-10-28 to 2026-11-17)

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

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-28 — 50 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 4/14 correct (31%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×9
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/9 correct (62%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/12 correct (62%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/10 correct (29%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  Mouthing: freq 2; PIR 14%
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  ABC (toileting accident (urine or bowel)): A = end of 90-minute block without scheduled toileting; B = soiled (bowel) at the work table; C = staff initiated clean-up and hygiene routine; program paused

Session 2 — 2026-10-30 — 50 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 6/13 correct (42%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 3/10 correct (27%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  Mouthing: freq 2; PIR 14%
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 3 — 2026-11-01 — 50 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 5/9 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 4/11 correct (39%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/9 correct (65%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 3/10 correct (34%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/9 correct (42%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  Mouthing: freq 1; PIR 11%
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 5 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 4 — 2026-11-03 — 50 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 5/12 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 4/14 correct (31%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×11
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/9 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/13 correct (49%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  Mouthing: freq 5; PIR 20%
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  ABC (toileting accident (urine or bowel)): A = during group activity without requesting bathroom; B = voided (urine) in seat; C = staff removed learner from group, changed clothing, re-entered after clean-up

Session 5 — 2026-11-05 — 50 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 5/9 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 7/12 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/9 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/12 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  Mouthing: freq 5; PIR 20%
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 6 — 2026-11-07 — 50 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 4/10 correct (41%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 5/14 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 3/10 correct (32%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/12 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  Mouthing: freq 1; PIR 5%
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 7 — 2026-11-09 — 50 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 5/10 correct (50%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 5/11 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/12 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  Mouthing: freq 2; PIR 8%
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 8 — 2026-11-11 — 50 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/11 correct (40%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/12 correct (26%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  Mouthing: freq 4; PIR 20%
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  ABC (mouthing): A = waiting in line transition; B = mouthed own hand; C = staff redirected to task materials

Session 9 — 2026-11-13 — 50 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 3/8 correct (31%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 3/9 correct (34%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 7/13 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/15 correct (36%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×5, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/13 correct (35%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  Mouthing: freq 4; PIR 22%
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 10 — 2026-11-15 — 50 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/15 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 8/13 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/13 correct (34%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  Mouthing: freq 5; PIR 16%
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

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

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Variable performance**: accuracy fluctuating around 41% with no clear trend.
- Inconsistency may indicate stimulus-control issues or motivational variability across sessions.

## Pattern Classification
variable_performance

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Mouthing: automatic
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the automatic function; behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.
Toileting accident (urine or bowel): escape
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the escape function; behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 47.6%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 31%, last session: 50%).
- Mouthing: mean 3.1/session (early-window mean 1.7 -> late-window mean 4.3).
- Toileting accident (urine or bowel): mean 3.3/session (early-window mean 3.3 -> late-window mean 3.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: writes own name independently
Curriculum: Writing L2
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Developing

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: writes own name independently
- Curriculum: Writing L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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

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

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

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

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

## Reinforcement Schedule
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 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 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: doing laundry
Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
Learner: Adolescent 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: doing laundry
- Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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

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

Steps:
1. Sort laundry by color (lights / darks / whites).
2. Load the washing machine with one color group.
3. Add detergent according to instructions.
4. Select the correct wash cycle and start the machine.
5. When complete, move clothes to the dryer.
6. Start the dryer on the correct cycle.
7. When dry, fold clothes by category.
8. Put folded clothes away in drawers or closet.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Full chain completed independently with 2 different adults in 2 different settings across 2 consecutive days.

## Data Collection
Per-step data: each step is scored for independence / prompt level on every trial. IOA scheduled every 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You 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 shapes (circle, square, triangle)
Curriculum Reference: Tact L2
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 shapes (circle, square, triangle)
- Curriculum: Tact L2
- 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 shape?"
Variations: "What shape is this?"; "Tell me the shape"
Presentation: Present a clearly-shaped object or shape card and ask while pointing to it.

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: square, rectangle, diamond
Distractor stimuli: triangle, oval, circle, heart
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 across 2 consecutive sessions with at least 10 trials each.

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

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