[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-9630
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Reading + Social Behavior
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-10-22 to 2026-11-09)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. identifies numerals 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
2. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
3. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. takes turns during structured activities (Social Behavior)
   Method: PRT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Pica — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-22 — 42 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/12 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/12 correct (44%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/11 correct (49%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)
  ABC (pica): A = quiet unstructured moment between trials; B = engaged in hand-flapping; C = no social consequence; self-terminated after 30s

Session 2 — 2026-10-24 — 42 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×5, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/12 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/11 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Pica: attempts 2 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 3 — 2026-10-26 — 42 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/12 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  takes turns during structured activities: 10/15 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 4 — 2026-10-28 — 42 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 10/13 correct (80%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/12 correct (71%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  Pica: attempts 1 (0 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 5 — 2026-10-30 — 42 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×11
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/10 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/12 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  Pica: attempts 2 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)
  ABC (pica): A = quiet unstructured moment between trials; B = engaged in hand-flapping; C = no social consequence; self-terminated after 30s

Session 6 — 2026-11-01 — 42 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/10 correct (84%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/12 correct (80%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 11/14 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/12 correct (79%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)
  ABC (pica): A = quiet unstructured moment between trials; B = engaged in hand-flapping; C = no social consequence; self-terminated after 30s

Session 7 — 2026-11-03 — 42 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 8/9 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×4
  takes turns during structured activities: 9/11 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 8 — 2026-11-05 — 42 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 13/15 correct (84%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×10
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/13 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×6
  takes turns during structured activities: 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  Pica: attempts 0

Session 9 — 2026-11-07 — 42 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/8 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/10 correct (80%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/11 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  takes turns during structured activities: 8/10 correct (79%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Skill loss following break**: performance dropped to 53% at return, recovering to 84%.
- Maintenance schedule should be reviewed and strengthened.

## Pattern Classification
skill_loss_after_break

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Pica: automatic
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the automatic function; behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 76.4%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 53%, last session: 84%).
- Pica: mean 1.1/session (early-window mean 1.3 -> late-window mean 0.7).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: mands using adjectives (big, little, more)
Curriculum: Mand L2
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Generalization phase

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: mands using adjectives (big, little, more)
- Curriculum: Mand L2
- 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: 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 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
Fluent exchange (response within 3 s of MO / opportunity) with appropriate topography, 80% of opportunities across 3 sessions.

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

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

mands using adjectives (big, little, more)


[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-6233
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Echoic + Listener Responding + Mand + Motor Imitation + Tact + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–7 across 14 days (2026-08-28 to 2026-09-11)

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-28 — 54 min — 1 observer
  echoes 2-word phrases: 2/10 correct (24%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 2/9 correct (25%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 4/11 correct (34%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/14 correct (28%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 3/15 correct (20%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×10
  tacts colors of objects: 3/11 correct (31%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×5

Session 2 — 2026-08-30 — 54 min — 1 observer
  echoes 2-word phrases: 3/9 correct (35%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/8 correct (38%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 4/9 correct (43%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 3/8 correct (40%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/14 correct (33%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  tacts colors of objects: 5/15 correct (36%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×0, I×6

Session 3 — 2026-09-01 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  echoes 2-word phrases: 42% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 45% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 53% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 46% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 41% (primary); IOA 89% agreement
  tacts colors of objects: 45% (primary); IOA 89% agreement

Session 4 — 2026-09-03 — 54 min — 1 observer
  echoes 2-word phrases: 6/12 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/13 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 7/11 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/10 correct (54%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  tacts colors of objects: 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5

Session 5 — 2026-09-05 — 54 min — 1 observer
  echoes 2-word phrases: 8/15 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 7/11 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 7/11 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×7

Session 6 — 2026-09-07 — 54 min — 1 observer
  echoes 2-word phrases: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/13 correct (77%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×5
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 9/11 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 10/13 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  tacts colors of objects: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×1, I×8

Session 7 — 2026-09-09 — 54 min — 1 observer
  echoes 2-word phrases: 8/10 correct (76%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 12/14 correct (89%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  requesting a break ('break please' or AAC 'I need a break'): 11/12 correct (92%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 8/9 correct (88%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 10/11 correct (90%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 6/8 correct (78%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Rapid acquisition**: accelerated mastery from 24% to 76% across 7 sessions.
- Acquisition has exceeded expected timeline.

## Pattern Classification
rapid_acquisition

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 7 sessions: 49.1%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 24%, last session: 76%).
- IOA data: 89% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-6858
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Mand + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-10-08 to 2026-10-26)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. ordering in a restaurant (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. indicating 'all done' with a step or activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. meal cleanup after eating (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. requesting a break during non-preferred activities (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Pica — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-08 — 54 min — 1 observer
  ordering in a restaurant: 11/13 correct (81%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 9/10 correct (90%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  meal cleanup after eating: 10/12 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 11/13 correct (84%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/9 correct (77%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  Pica: attempts 1 (0 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 2 — 2026-10-10 — 54 min — 1 observer
  ordering in a restaurant: 10/12 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 10/11 correct (93%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  meal cleanup after eating: 12/15 correct (79%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×5, I×1
  brushing teeth independently: 7/8 correct (87%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/9 correct (76%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 3 — 2026-10-12 — 54 min — 1 observer
  ordering in a restaurant: 11/13 correct (81%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 10/12 correct (87%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 10/12 correct (85%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 9/11 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  Pica: attempts 2 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 4 — 2026-10-14 — 54 min — 1 observer
  ordering in a restaurant: 12/15 correct (80%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 10/11 correct (90%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  meal cleanup after eating: 9/10 correct (88%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 8/9 correct (88%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/9 correct (80%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 5 — 2026-10-16 — 54 min — 1 observer
  ordering in a restaurant: 9/12 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 12/13 correct (89%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/9 correct (86%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 11/12 correct (91%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 11/14 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  Pica: attempts 2 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 6 — 2026-10-18 — 54 min — 1 observer
  ordering in a restaurant: 7/10 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 9/11 correct (85%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  meal cleanup after eating: 13/15 correct (89%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×3, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 13/14 correct (90%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/8 correct (85%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Pica: attempts 1 (0 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 7 — 2026-10-20 — 54 min — 1 observer
  ordering in a restaurant: 10/14 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 8/9 correct (86%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  meal cleanup after eating: 9/10 correct (91%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 12/13 correct (92%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 12/15 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×1, I×9
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 8 — 2026-10-22 — 54 min — 1 observer
  ordering in a restaurant: 11/15 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 7/9 correct (77%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  meal cleanup after eating: 13/15 correct (89%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 12/13 correct (93%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  Pica: attempts 2 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 9 — 2026-10-24 — 54 min — 1 observer
  ordering in a restaurant: 8/12 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 11/14 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  meal cleanup after eating: 9/10 correct (94%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  Pica: attempts 2 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

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

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Prompt dependency**: high accuracy maintained (81%–71%) but primarily at prompted levels.
- Independent responding remains low despite extended training.

## Pattern Classification
prompt_dependency

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 76.3%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 81%, last session: 71%).
- Pica: mean 1.4/session (early-window mean 1.3 -> late-window mean 1.7).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

[User]
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-4995
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Reading
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-06-19 to 2026-07-09)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. counts objects 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
3. single-word requests for preferred items (Mand)
   Method: NET

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-19 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/12 correct (36%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  counts objects 1–20: 7/13 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/11 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4

Session 2 — 2026-06-21 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/11 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  counts objects 1–20: 6/11 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/14 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×7

Session 3 — 2026-06-23 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 4/8 correct (53%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  counts objects 1–20: 7/11 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/10 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×7

Session 4 — 2026-06-25 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/13 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  counts objects 1–20: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×8

Session 5 — 2026-06-27 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  counts objects 1–20: 10/14 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/10 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5

Session 6 — 2026-06-29 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 10/13 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×13
  counts objects 1–20: 9/11 correct (82%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/9 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×4

Session 7 — 2026-07-01 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/9 correct (76%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  counts objects 1–20: 12/13 correct (95%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 9/13 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×6

Session 8 — 2026-07-03 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 11/13 correct (86%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  counts objects 1–20: 10/10 correct (95%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 11/14 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×10

Session 9 — 2026-07-05 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/9 correct (95%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  counts objects 1–20: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/8 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6

Session 10 — 2026-07-07 — 46 min — 1 observer
  reads 10–20 sight words: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  counts objects 1–20: 8/8 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 10/12 correct (84%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×12

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Quick response latency (within 2–3 seconds)
- Appropriate sitting posture maintained
- Eye contact maintained throughout trials

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- Steady improvement: accuracy rose from 36% to 95% across 10 sessions.
- No clinical concerns at this time; mastery criteria should be reachable within a few additional sessions.

## Pattern Classification
mastery_progression

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 68.6%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 36%, last session: 95%).
- 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 correct item from an array of 2
Curriculum: Listener Responding L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Emerging

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects correct item from an array of 2
- Curriculum: Listener Responding L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

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

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: plate, bottle, shoe
Distractor stimuli: toothbrush, backpack
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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


[System]
You are an expert ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) clinical assistant. You
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-5099
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-06-02 to 2026-06-20)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. single-word requests for preferred items (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-02 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/13 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/10 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/14 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×2
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×6

Session 2 — 2026-06-04 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×8
  single-word requests for preferred items: 9/14 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/15 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×5, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/11 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6

Session 3 — 2026-06-06 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/14 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/14 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/12 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/11 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×4

Session 4 — 2026-06-08 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/13 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/9 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×6

Session 5 — 2026-06-10 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/15 correct (69%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/9 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/13 correct (46%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/14 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×7

Session 6 — 2026-06-12 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/15 correct (64%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×5, I×8
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/10 correct (62%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/14 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/15 correct (45%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×5

Session 7 — 2026-06-14 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/10 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/15 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/13 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×3
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×5, I×8

Session 8 — 2026-06-16 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/13 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/11 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/15 correct (40%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/13 correct (76%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×5

Session 9 — 2026-06-18 — 52 min — 1 observer
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/9 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/9 correct (68%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/14 correct (43%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 4/9 correct (46%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×0
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/15 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×11

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Playing with non-task materials
- Leaving seat without permission

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Plateau**: accuracy has remained near 67% for 9 sessions without meaningful improvement.
- Performance is below mastery criteria; current teaching procedure may not be effective for this learner.

## Pattern Classification
plateau

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 64.4%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 64%, last session: 71%).
- 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 Natural Environment Teaching program for the following.

Skill: spontaneously uses social phrases appropriately
Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L2
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Emerging

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: spontaneously uses social phrases appropriately
- Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

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

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

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

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

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 3 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 3 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 5 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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

spontaneously uses social phrases appropriately


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-4715
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Mand
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-01-25 to 2026-02-10)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. making the bed (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. requesting preferred items using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. ordering in a restaurant (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Motor stereotypy — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-01-25 — 48 min — 1 observer
  making the bed: 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 11/15 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  ordering in a restaurant: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 15%

Session 2 — 2026-01-27 — 48 min — 1 observer
  making the bed: 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/9 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  ordering in a restaurant: 7/10 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 14%

Session 3 — 2026-01-29 — 48 min — 1 observer
  making the bed: 5/12 correct (39%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 4/12 correct (30%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  ordering in a restaurant: 4/9 correct (46%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 15%

Session 4 — 2026-01-31 — 48 min — 1 observer
  making the bed: 6/15 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 3/10 correct (33%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 4/9 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 14%

Session 5 — 2026-02-02 — 48 min — 1 observer
  making the bed: 5/13 correct (38%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 4/10 correct (37%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 4/8 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 14%

Session 6 — 2026-02-04 — 48 min — 1 observer
  making the bed: 4/10 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 4/9 correct (40%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 4/9 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 16%

Session 7 — 2026-02-06 — 48 min — 1 observer
  making the bed: 4/8 correct (51%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 4/10 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  ordering in a restaurant: 5/9 correct (51%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 16%

Session 8 — 2026-02-08 — 48 min — 1 observer
  making the bed: 7/12 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/12 correct (48%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  ordering in a restaurant: 6/10 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 16%

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

[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
Motor stereotypy: 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
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: 52.7%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 75%, last session: 55%).
- Motor stereotypy: mean 2.4/session (early-window mean 2.5 -> late-window mean 2.5).
- 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-7461
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Mand + Reading + Tact
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-04-25 to 2026-05-17)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
3. tacts common objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
4. selects items by feature (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
5. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-25 — 57 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/12 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  tacts common objects: 4/10 correct (36%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  selects items by feature: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/11 correct (38%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 1 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 2 — 2026-04-27 — 57 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/13 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 6/14 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  tacts common objects: 4/12 correct (36%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  selects items by feature: 5/11 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/14 correct (41%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 3 — 2026-04-29 — 57 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/13 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 4/8 correct (48%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  tacts common objects: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  selects items by feature: 8/14 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 4 — 2026-05-01 — 57 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 5/10 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  tacts common objects: 9/15 correct (58%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  selects items by feature: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  ABC (toileting accident (urine or bowel)): A = end of 90-minute block without scheduled toileting; B = soiled (bowel) at the work table; C = staff initiated clean-up and hygiene routine; program paused

Session 5 — 2026-05-03 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 54% (primary); IOA 92% agreement
  sounds out CVC words: 55% (primary); IOA 92% agreement
  tacts common objects: 66% (primary); IOA 92% agreement
  selects items by feature: 68% (primary); IOA 92% agreement
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 66% (primary); IOA 92% agreement
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 5 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents; IOA 92% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-05-05 — 57 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  tacts common objects: 10/15 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×5, I×1
  selects items by feature: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×13
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 7 — 2026-05-07 — 57 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  tacts common objects: 8/10 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  selects items by feature: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×5, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 11/14 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 8 — 2026-05-09 — 57 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/13 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 10/13 correct (80%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×9
  tacts common objects: 7/9 correct (82%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  selects items by feature: 9/11 correct (83%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/10 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 9 — 2026-05-11 — 57 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/8 correct (81%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  tacts common objects: 13/14 correct (92%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×11
  selects items by feature: 8/10 correct (81%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 11/12 correct (94%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  ABC (toileting accident (urine or bowel)): A = during demand sequence at the work table; B = voided (urine) without signaling need; C = staff paused programming, changed clothing, resumed after 10 min

Session 10 — 2026-05-13 — 57 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 12/15 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×11
  sounds out CVC words: 9/10 correct (86%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  tacts common objects: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  selects items by feature: 9/11 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/10 correct (93%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 11 — 2026-05-15 — 57 min — 1 observer
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/8 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 8/8 correct (95%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  tacts common objects: 11/12 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  selects items by feature: 10/11 correct (90%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 14/15 correct (95%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×11
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 1 accidents

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Requesting more trials verbally
- Quick response latency (within 2–3 seconds)
- Appropriate sitting posture maintained
- Eye contact maintained throughout trials

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- Steady improvement: accuracy rose from 45% to 80% across 11 sessions.
- No clinical concerns at this time; mastery criteria should be reachable within a few additional sessions.

## Pattern Classification
mastery_progression

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 62.2%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 45%, last session: 80%).
- Toileting accident (urine or bowel): mean 2.7/session (early-window mean 2.3 -> late-window mean 2.7).
- IOA data: 92% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

Target: meal cleanup
Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
Learner: Adult Learner
Mastery Status: Mastered at current level

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: meal cleanup
- Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: 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. Stack used dishes on one side of the table.  <- Learner-taught step (forward chaining starts here)
2. Carry dishes to the sink or dishwasher.
3. Rinse food residue into the trash or disposal.
4. Load dishes into the dishwasher (or wash by hand).
5. Wipe the table with a damp cloth.
6. Put away any leftover food into containers.
7. Place containers in the refrigerator.

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: 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]
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-8783
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-10-11 to 2026-10-31)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
2. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
3. selects items by feature (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Toileting accident (urine or bowel) — function hypothesized: escape
2. Property destruction — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-11 — 52 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/11 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/12 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  selects items by feature: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-10-13 — 52 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/14 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  selects items by feature: 7/13 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-10-15 — 52 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×5, I×2
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  selects items by feature: 8/13 correct (63%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 5 in-toilet / 0 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 4 — 2026-10-17 — 52 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  selects items by feature: 6/9 correct (64%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 1 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 8

Session 5 — 2026-10-19 — 52 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/9 correct (72%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×3
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/11 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  selects items by feature: 6/9 correct (63%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×3
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 0 in-toilet / 5 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 8

Session 6 — 2026-10-21 — 52 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/10 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  selects items by feature: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-10-23 — 52 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/13 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  selects items by feature: 9/12 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 8 — 2026-10-25 — 52 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/15 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×12
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  selects items by feature: 11/15 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×12
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 9 — 2026-10-27 — 52 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/9 correct (76%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  selects items by feature: 10/13 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 5 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 10 — 2026-10-29 — 52 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/9 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  selects items by feature: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents
  Property destruction: freq 3

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Peer aggression (hitting or pushing peers during group activities)
- Aggression attempt directed at staff (hit, kick, or scratch toward adult)

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

## Pattern Classification
extinction_burst

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Toileting accident (urine or bowel): escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.
Property destruction: attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

## 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: 70.1%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 65%, last session: 71%).
- Toileting accident (urine or bowel): mean 2.1/session (early-window mean 1.3 -> late-window mean 1.7).
- Property destruction: mean 3.5/session (early-window mean 2.3 -> late-window mean 2.3).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

[User]
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-3400
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Mand + Reading
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-09-27 to 2026-10-19)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
3. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
4. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
5. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-09-27 — 54 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 4/8 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 11/14 correct (82%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  sounds out CVC words: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/14 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/11 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  Non-compliance: freq 5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 0 in-toilet / 4 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 2 — 2026-09-29 — 54 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/14 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/9 correct (81%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×0
  sounds out CVC words: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/8 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/14 correct (46%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  Non-compliance: freq 7
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 4 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 3 — 2026-10-01 — 54 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/11 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 10/12 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/14 correct (45%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/9 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  Non-compliance: freq 5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 0 in-toilet / 5 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 4 — 2026-10-03 — 54 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/11 correct (72%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/11 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 9/12 correct (74%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  Non-compliance: freq 3
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 5 — 2026-10-05 — 54 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/14 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 11/15 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×1, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 7/10 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 4/9 correct (40%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/14 correct (41%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  Non-compliance: freq 2
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 1 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 6 — 2026-10-07 — 54 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/10 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/10 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  Non-compliance: freq 1
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 7 — 2026-10-09 — 54 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/13 correct (49%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 5/9 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 3/8 correct (35%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  Non-compliance: freq 3
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 8 — 2026-10-11 — 54 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 10/15 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  reads 10–20 sight words: 11/12 correct (88%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×3
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/15 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×11
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/10 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  Non-compliance: freq 5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 9 — 2026-10-13 — 54 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/8 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/14 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 10/13 correct (80%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/13 correct (71%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/8 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Non-compliance: freq 6
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 3 accidents; BM: 1 in-toilet / 0 accidents

Session 10 — 2026-10-15 — 54 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/10 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×10
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  Non-compliance: freq 5
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 3 in-toilet / 2 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 1 accidents

Session 11 — 2026-10-17 — 54 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/10 correct (82%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 7/10 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 3/8 correct (37%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×6
  Non-compliance: freq 3
  Toileting accident (urine or bowel): urine: 2 in-toilet / 6 accidents; BM: 0 in-toilet / 0 accidents

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

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

## Pattern Classification
variable_performance

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Non-compliance: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.
Toileting accident (urine or bowel): automatic
  Evidence: behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 58.6%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 48%, last session: 67%).
- Non-compliance: mean 4.1/session (early-window mean 5.7 -> late-window mean 4.7).
- Toileting accident (urine or bowel): mean 3.5/session (early-window mean 4.3 -> late-window mean 4.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-2656
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Intraverbal + Listener Responding
Date range: Sessions 1–6 across 12 days (2026-06-08 to 2026-06-20)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
2. selects items by feature (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
3. answers WH-questions about familiar topics (Intraverbal)
   Method: NET

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-08 — 41 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/13 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  selects items by feature: 6/10 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/11 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2
  ABC (self-injurious behavior (sib)): A = adult attention diverted to another learner; B = vocalized loudly + approached staff; C = staff turned to address behavior

Session 2 — 2026-06-10 — 41 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/12 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  selects items by feature: 10/15 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×0, I×10
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2
  ABC (self-injurious behavior (sib)): A = adult attention diverted to another learner; B = vocalized loudly + approached staff; C = staff turned to address behavior

Session 3 — 2026-06-12 — 41 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/11 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  selects items by feature: 8/14 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5

Session 4 — 2026-06-14 — 41 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/14 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  selects items by feature: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 5

Session 5 — 2026-06-16 — 41 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/15 correct (60%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×2, I×7
  selects items by feature: 6/9 correct (64%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 10/14 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×13
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2
  ABC (self-injurious behavior (sib)): A = adult attention diverted to another learner; B = vocalized loudly + approached staff; C = staff turned to address behavior

Session 6 — 2026-06-18 — 41 min — 1 observer
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  selects items by feature: 7/12 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Self-injurious behavior onset during task difficulty (self-biting, hair-pulling, head-hitting)
- Self-stimulatory behavior increase during demand periods
- Increased response latency (3–5× baseline)
- Aggression attempt directed at staff (hit, kick, or scratch toward adult)

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

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

## Pattern Classification
extinction_burst

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Self-injurious behavior (SIB): attention
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the attention function; behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 6 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 6 sessions: 58.2%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 58%, last session: 57%).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 2.8/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 1.5).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: toileting routine
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner: Adolescent Learner
Mastery Status: Near mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: toileting routine
- Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

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

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

Steps:
1. Recognize the need and walk to the bathroom.  <- Learner-taught step (forward chaining starts here)
2. Close the door for privacy.
3. Lower clothing appropriately.
4. Sit on the toilet.
5. Complete the elimination.
6. Use toilet paper correctly.
7. Stand and pull clothing up.
8. Flush the toilet.
9. Wash hands.

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

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

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

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

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