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

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

Skill Target: brushing teeth
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner Profile: Adult Learner
Current Mastery: Approaching mastery
Teaching Method: Task Analysis / Chaining

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: brushing teeth
- Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching mastery

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

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

Steps:
1. Collect toothbrush and toothpaste.
2. Wet the toothbrush under water.
3. Apply a pea-sized amount of toothpaste.
4. Brush upper-front teeth in small circles for 30 seconds.
5. Brush lower-front teeth in small circles for 30 seconds.
6. Brush upper-back teeth (left and right).
7. Brush lower-back teeth (left and right).
8. Spit into the sink and rinse mouth.
9. Rinse the toothbrush and return it to the holder.

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: Most-to-Least
Start with full-physical prompt at each step; fade to partial physical, gestural, verbal, independent.
Current prompt level: At the approaching mastery stage, use partial-physical or gestural prompts only at steps where errors occur; allow independence elsewhere.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Chain self-initiated from the appropriate antecedent (no verbal prompt to begin) across 3 consecutive opportunities.

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

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


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-9750
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Reading + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-08-10 to 2026-08-30)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. identifies numerals 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
2. single-word requests for preferred items (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. reads 10–20 sight words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
4. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
6. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-10 — 32 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  single-word requests for preferred items: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×5, I×0
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/11 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/10 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/15 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×5, I×10

Session 2 — 2026-08-12 — 32 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/13 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/10 correct (50%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/11 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/8 correct (62%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3

Session 3 — 2026-08-14 — 32 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/15 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×8
  single-word requests for preferred items: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×5, I×2
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/10 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/13 correct (48%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 6/13 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/12 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×5

Session 4 — 2026-08-16 — 32 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 5/9 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  single-word requests for preferred items: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/11 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 4/8 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/8 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7

Session 5 — 2026-08-18 — 32 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/10 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/9 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  reads 10–20 sight words: 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/14 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 7/14 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/15 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×5, I×6

Session 6 — 2026-08-20 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  identifies numerals 1–20: 63% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  single-word requests for preferred items: 57% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  reads 10–20 sight words: 63% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 54% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 54% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 65% (primary); IOA 97% agreement

Session 7 — 2026-08-22 — 32 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 6/10 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 8/15 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×15
  reads 10–20 sight words: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×11
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/15 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 4/9 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×1

Session 8 — 2026-08-24 — 32 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/9 correct (54%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  reads 10–20 sight words: 7/12 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×2
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/9 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 6/14 correct (46%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/13 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×12

Session 9 — 2026-08-26 — 32 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 9/15 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×4, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/11 correct (58%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/13 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 4/10 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×8

Session 10 — 2026-08-28 — 32 min — 1 observer
  identifies numerals 1–20: 7/12 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  reads 10–20 sight words: 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/10 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device (e.g., "I want cookie please"): 6/15 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×5, I×3
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1

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
- **Plateau**: accuracy has remained near 60% for 10 sessions without meaningful improvement.
- Performance is below mastery criteria; current teaching procedure may not be effective for this learner.

## Pattern Classification
plateau

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
high

Pattern is well-supported: 10 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 58.7%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 58%, last session: 61%).
- IOA data: 97% 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: using public transportation
Curriculum: AFLS Community Participation Skills
Learner: Adult Learner
Mastery Status: Emerging

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: using public transportation
- Curriculum: AFLS Community Participation Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

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

Steps:
1. Confirm the correct stop or station.  <- Learner-taught step (forward chaining starts here)
2. Purchase or have the fare ready.
3. Wait at the designated boarding area.
4. Board the vehicle when it arrives.
5. Pay the fare or present the pass.
6. Sit or stand safely.
7. Monitor the route for the correct stop.
8. Exit at the correct stop.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Skill Target: tolerating nail clipping
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner Profile: Adolescent Learner
Current Mastery: Mastered at current level
Teaching Method: Toleration / Systematic Desensitization

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current shaping step: At the mastered stage, begin at shaping step 5 ("All 10 fingernails + 10 toenails clipped") and advance through step 5 across sessions as tolerance stabilizes.

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

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

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

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

## Data Collection
Per-trial: duration tolerated before refusal, presence / absence of safety behaviors (crying, property destruction, SIB, aggression), staff support level, and shaping step attempted. IOA scheduled every 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


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

[User]
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-8503
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Mand + Reading + Tact
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-10-03 to 2026-10-27)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. selects items by feature (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
2. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. tacts colors of objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT
4. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
6. tacts common objects (Tact)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Elopement — function hypothesized: escape
2. Pica — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-10-03 — 43 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 11/15 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/13 correct (73%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  tacts colors of objects: 11/15 correct (71%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×4, I×4
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  tacts common objects: 9/11 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  Elopement: freq 1
  Pica: attempts 3 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 2 — 2026-10-05 — 43 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  tacts colors of objects: 7/11 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  tacts common objects: 5/8 correct (63%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  Elopement: freq 1
  Pica: attempts 3 (3 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 3 — 2026-10-07 — 43 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 7/12 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  tacts colors of objects: 10/15 correct (67%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×2, I×8
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/11 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×3
  tacts common objects: 5/8 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  Elopement: freq 3
  Pica: attempts 3 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 4 — 2026-10-09 — 43 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 5/11 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×14
  tacts colors of objects: 6/9 correct (62%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 9/15 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  tacts common objects: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  Elopement: freq 2
  Pica: attempts 5 (4 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 5 — 2026-10-11 — 43 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 5/10 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  tacts common objects: 6/14 correct (45%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×8
  Elopement: freq 4
  Pica: attempts 4 (3 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 6 — 2026-10-13 — 43 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 4/10 correct (37%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/13 correct (49%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  tacts colors of objects: 5/9 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/13 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  sounds out CVC words: 6/14 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×4
  tacts common objects: 6/14 correct (40%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  Elopement: freq 5
  Pica: attempts 6 (3 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 3 successful — item ingested)

Session 7 — 2026-10-15 — 43 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 3/9 correct (32%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/13 correct (45%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  tacts colors of objects: 7/14 correct (47%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  sounds out CVC words: 6/13 correct (43%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  tacts common objects: 3/10 correct (35%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  Elopement: freq 6
  Pica: attempts 5 (4 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

Session 8 — 2026-10-17 — 43 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 4/15 correct (26%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×4, I×2
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/11 correct (38%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  tacts colors of objects: 6/12 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 3/8 correct (39%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 3/9 correct (39%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  tacts common objects: 2/8 correct (26%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  Elopement: freq 5
  Pica: attempts 6 (6 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)

Session 9 — 2026-10-19 — 43 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 2/12 correct (13%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 4/13 correct (29%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  tacts colors of objects: 5/14 correct (38%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 3/8 correct (42%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 3/10 correct (33%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  tacts common objects: 2/12 correct (17%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  Elopement: freq 7
  Pica: attempts 7 (4 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 3 successful — item ingested)

Session 10 — 2026-10-21 — 43 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 1/10 correct (11%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 2/8 correct (28%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  tacts colors of objects: 5/13 correct (37%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 3/8 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 4/13 correct (29%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  tacts common objects: 1/10 correct (10%); latency 5.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  Elopement: freq 6
  Pica: attempts 8 (4 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 4 successful — item ingested)

Session 11 — 2026-10-23 — 43 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 1/13 correct (10%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 2/8 correct (20%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  tacts colors of objects: 5/15 correct (37%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 3/10 correct (33%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  sounds out CVC words: 3/14 correct (21%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  tacts common objects: 1/14 correct (10%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×9
  Elopement: freq 8
  Pica: attempts 8 (5 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 3 successful — item ingested)

Session 12 — 2026-10-25 — 43 min — 1 observer
  selects items by feature: 1/9 correct (10%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 1/8 correct (15%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  tacts colors of objects: 3/12 correct (25%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 3/11 correct (25%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 2/12 correct (14%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  tacts common objects: 1/9 correct (10%); latency 5.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×4
  Elopement: freq 8
  Pica: attempts 8 (7 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (75% -> 10%) with escape-indicator behaviors.
- Risk of learned helplessness and escape-maintained behavior if not addressed.

## Pattern Classification
frustration_pattern

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Elopement: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.
Pica: attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
4 — Safety immediate

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 36.6%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 75%, last session: 10%).
- Elopement: mean 4.7/session (early-window mean 1.8 -> late-window mean 7.2).
- Pica: mean 5.5/session (early-window mean 3.5 -> late-window mean 7.8).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Skill Target: matches letters to identical letters
Curriculum Reference: Reading L1
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Mastered at current level
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: matches letters to identical letters
- Curriculum: Reading L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Mastered at current level

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "What letter is this?"
Variations: "Read this letter"; "What does this say?"
Presentation: Present the letter flashcard.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Time Delay (progressive)
Sequence: 0s delay -> 2s delay -> 4s delay -> 6s delay -> independent
Current prompt level: At the mastered stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: J, X, Z
Distractor stimuli: T, M
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Skill Target: selects items given 2+ features/functions simultaneously
Curriculum Reference: LRFFC L3
Learner Profile: School-Age Learner
Current Mastery: Emerging
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects items given 2+ features/functions simultaneously
- Curriculum: LRFFC L3
- Learner: School-Age 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: Most-to-Least (errorless)
Sequence: full physical -> partial physical -> gestural -> positional -> independent
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 6 (target + 5 distractors, mixed categories)
Target stimuli: car, ball, toothbrush
Distractor stimuli: pencil, book, cup, block, shoe
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

## Error Correction Procedure
Prevent errors by using high prompts from the start; fade gradually. Paired with most-to-least prompt hierarchy.

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

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

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

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

selects items given 2+ features/functions simultaneously


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

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

Skill: tacts emotions in self and others
Curriculum: Tact L2
Learner Level: School-Age Learner
Baseline: Generalization phase

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts emotions in self and others
- Curriculum: Tact L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "How does he feel?"
Variations: "What emotion?"; "How is she feeling?"
Presentation: Present a photograph or emoji card depicting the target emotion.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Time Delay (progressive)
Sequence: 0s delay -> 2s delay -> 4s delay -> 6s delay -> independent
Current prompt level: At the generalization stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: scissors, shoe, brush
Distractor stimuli: ball, bottle, toothbrush, book
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-6396
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Independent Living + Mand
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-05-16 to 2026-06-03)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. doing laundry (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. self-advocacy statements (Independent Living)
   Method: BST
3. requesting assistance using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Motor stereotypy — function hypothesized: automatic

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-16 — 48 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 8/11 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 6/8 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 12/14 correct (83%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×13
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 17%

Session 2 — 2026-05-18 — 48 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 5/9 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 15%

Session 3 — 2026-05-20 — 48 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 8/14 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 19%

Session 4 — 2026-05-22 — 48 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 4/8 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 7/13 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×9
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 15%

Session 5 — 2026-05-24 — 48 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 4/8 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/9 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  Motor stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 30%
  ABC (motor stereotypy): A = quiet unstructured moment between trials; B = engaged in hand-flapping; C = no social consequence; self-terminated after 30s

Session 6 — 2026-05-26 — 48 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 7/14 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 4/9 correct (40%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 6/10 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 22%
  ABC (motor stereotypy): A = quiet unstructured moment between trials; B = engaged in hand-flapping; C = no social consequence; self-terminated after 30s

Session 7 — 2026-05-28 — 48 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 5/13 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×10
  self-advocacy statements: 3/10 correct (27%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  Motor stereotypy: freq 5; PIR 21%

Session 8 — 2026-05-30 — 48 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 5/15 correct (36%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×5, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 1/8 correct (18%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 8/15 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  Motor stereotypy: freq 5; PIR 34%

Session 9 — 2026-06-01 — 48 min — 1 observer
  doing laundry: 4/13 correct (31%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  self-advocacy statements: 1/12 correct (11%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  requesting assistance using AAC device: 4/8 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  Motor stereotypy: freq 6; PIR 38%

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Increased response latency (3–5× baseline)
- Attempts at property destruction (throwing materials, swiping items off the surface)

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Regression identified**: accuracy has declined from 77% to 31% across 9 sessions.
- Accompanying behavior data suggests the decline may be function-related.

## Pattern Classification
regression

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 52.8%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 77%, last session: 31%).
- Motor stereotypy: mean 3.9/session (early-window mean 3.0 -> late-window mean 5.3).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-6176
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Independent Living + Mand + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-08-01 to 2026-08-19)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. scheduling medical appointments (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. indicating 'all done' at task completion (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. using public transportation (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. simple meal preparation (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-01 — 40 min — 1 observer
  scheduling medical appointments: 9/12 correct (78%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  washing hands independently: 8/10 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 7/9 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  using public transportation: 12/13 correct (92%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  simple meal preparation: 12/14 correct (87%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×6

Session 2 — 2026-08-03 — 40 min — 1 observer
  scheduling medical appointments: 10/14 correct (73%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×9
  washing hands independently: 9/12 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 9/11 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  using public transportation: 11/13 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  simple meal preparation: 12/15 correct (83%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×3, I×4

Session 3 — 2026-08-05 — 40 min — 1 observer
  scheduling medical appointments: 6/9 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  washing hands independently: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×11
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  using public transportation: 11/13 correct (87%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×6
  simple meal preparation: 12/14 correct (84%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×7

Session 4 — 2026-08-07 — 40 min — 1 observer
  scheduling medical appointments: 9/13 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  washing hands independently: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 10/12 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×1
  using public transportation: 11/13 correct (82%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×4
  simple meal preparation: 11/13 correct (86%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×7

Session 5 — 2026-08-09 — 40 min — 1 observer
  scheduling medical appointments: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  washing hands independently: 8/10 correct (76%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  using public transportation: 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  simple meal preparation: 9/10 correct (89%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×5

Session 6 — 2026-08-11 — 40 min — 1 observer
  scheduling medical appointments: 11/15 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×5, I×5
  washing hands independently: 7/10 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  using public transportation: 13/15 correct (84%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  simple meal preparation: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×6

Session 7 — 2026-08-13 — 40 min — 1 observer
  scheduling medical appointments: 9/12 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×4, I×7
  washing hands independently: 10/15 correct (67%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 7/9 correct (77%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  using public transportation: 10/13 correct (77%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  simple meal preparation: 7/8 correct (90%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5

Session 8 — 2026-08-15 — 40 min — 1 observer
  scheduling medical appointments: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  washing hands independently: 6/9 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×2
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×5
  using public transportation: 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  simple meal preparation: 12/13 correct (96%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×7

Session 9 — 2026-08-17 — 40 min — 1 observer
  scheduling medical appointments: 6/9 correct (69%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  washing hands independently: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 9/12 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×3
  using public transportation: 9/13 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  simple meal preparation: 10/10 correct (98%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×2

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

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 (78%–69%) but primarily at prompted levels.
- Independent responding remains low despite extended training.

## Pattern Classification
prompt_dependency

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 71.6%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 78%, last session: 69%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Skill Target: ordering in a restaurant
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Community Participation Skills
Learner Profile: Adolescent Learner
Current Mastery: Approaching mastery
Teaching Method: Task Analysis / Chaining

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: ordering in a restaurant
- Curriculum: AFLS Community Participation Skills
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching mastery

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

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

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

## Prompt Strategy Per Step
Strategy: Most-to-Least
Start with full-physical prompt at each step; fade to partial physical, gestural, verbal, independent.
Current prompt level: At the approaching mastery stage, use partial-physical or gestural prompts only at steps where errors occur; allow independence elsewhere.

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Chain self-initiated from the appropriate antecedent (no verbal prompt to begin) across 3 consecutive opportunities.

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

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


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-2204
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Mand + Reading + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-01-06 to 2026-01-28)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. meal cleanup after eating (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. indicating 'all done' with a step or activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
4. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
5. tolerating haircut (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
6. making the bed (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-01-06 — 53 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 4/8 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 5/15 correct (31%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×1, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 3/8 correct (42%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/10 correct (48%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  tolerating haircut: 5/12 correct (42%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  making the bed: 4/9 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1

Session 2 — 2026-01-08 — 53 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 3/8 correct (42%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 6/13 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 5/10 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/8 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  tolerating haircut: 7/14 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  making the bed: 8/15 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×11

Session 3 — 2026-01-10 — 53 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×3, I×2
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 5/10 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  sounds out CVC words: 9/15 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×13
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  tolerating haircut: 8/15 correct (51%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×13
  making the bed: 8/13 correct (63%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×9

Session 4 — 2026-01-12 — 53 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 8/14 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×0, I×10
  sounds out CVC words: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/9 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  tolerating haircut: 9/14 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  making the bed: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×5

Session 5 — 2026-01-14 — 53 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 5/8 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×3
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  tolerating haircut: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×3
  making the bed: 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×8

Session 6 — 2026-01-16 — 53 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/11 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  sounds out CVC words: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/14 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  tolerating haircut: 6/8 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  making the bed: 9/11 correct (80%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×10

Session 7 — 2026-01-18 — 53 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 7/9 correct (76%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 11/14 correct (82%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/11 correct (74%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  tolerating haircut: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×5, I×4
  making the bed: 13/14 correct (92%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×6

Session 8 — 2026-01-20 — 53 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 13/15 correct (86%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×13
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 10/12 correct (82%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  sounds out CVC words: 10/12 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/10 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  tolerating haircut: 8/9 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  making the bed: 10/11 correct (92%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×4

Session 9 — 2026-01-22 — 53 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 14/15 correct (92%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×3, I×7
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 7/8 correct (93%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 12/14 correct (86%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/8 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  tolerating haircut: 11/12 correct (91%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  making the bed: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×13

Session 10 — 2026-01-24 — 53 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 9/9 correct (95%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 11/12 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 14/15 correct (95%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/9 correct (87%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  tolerating haircut: 9/10 correct (90%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  making the bed: 12/13 correct (95%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×7

Session 11 — 2026-01-26 — 53 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/8 correct (95%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 11/12 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 12/13 correct (91%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  tolerating haircut: 8/8 correct (95%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  making the bed: 8/8 correct (95%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Requesting more trials verbally
- Smiling during reinforcement delivery
- Quick response latency (within 2–3 seconds)

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- Steady improvement: accuracy rose from 44% to 95% 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.

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 69.8%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 44%, 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 items by function (find something you eat with)
Curriculum: Listener Responding L2
Learner Level: School-Age Learner
Baseline: Developing

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: selects items by function (find something you eat with)
- Curriculum: Listener Responding L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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

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

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: phone, book, pencil
Distractor stimuli: scissors, ball, block, cup
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

## 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.

selects items by function (find something you eat with)


[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-7079
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Mand
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-05-20 to 2026-06-09)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. identifying community safety signs (Community)
   Method: DTT
2. requesting preferred items using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. requesting a break during non-preferred activities (Mand)
   Method: NET

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-20 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/13 correct (44%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 3/9 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 0

Session 2 — 2026-05-22 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 7/11 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 5/10 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 6/15 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 0

Session 3 — 2026-05-24 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×3
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 6/13 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×2, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 4 — 2026-05-26 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 7/8 correct (83%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 10/14 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×2, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 5 — 2026-05-28 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 8/10 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/11 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 0

Session 6 — 2026-05-30 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 9/11 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 12/15 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×9
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 0

Session 7 — 2026-06-01 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 7/8 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 12/15 correct (80%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 8/12 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 8 — 2026-06-03 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 10/12 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 10/13 correct (80%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 6/9 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

Session 9 — 2026-06-05 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 9/11 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/10 correct (80%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 9/13 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 1

Session 10 — 2026-06-07 — 59 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 12/14 correct (83%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 11/14 correct (80%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 11/15 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×5, I×4
  Self-injurious behavior (SIB): freq 2

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Playing with non-task materials
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)
- Leaving seat without permission

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Skill loss following break**: performance dropped to 57% at return, recovering to 83%.
- 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
Self-injurious behavior (SIB): escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 78.3%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 57%, last session: 83%).
- Self-injurious behavior (SIB): mean 0.8/session (early-window mean 0.3 -> 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]
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-5994
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-03-18 to 2026-04-07)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
3. ordering in a restaurant (Community)
   Method: Task Analysis

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-03-18 — 31 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/11 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  Pica: attempts 2 (0 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 2 successful — item ingested)
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 1 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 0 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 2 — 2026-03-20 — 31 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 9/11 correct (79%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/10 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  Pica: attempts 1 (0 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 1 (0 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 3 — 2026-03-22 — 31 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×3, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  ordering in a restaurant: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 2 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 4 — 2026-03-24 — 31 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 9/13 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  Pica: attempts 3 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 1 (0 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 5 — 2026-03-26 — 31 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/12 correct (44%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/9 correct (35%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  ordering in a restaurant: 5/10 correct (46%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  Pica: attempts 5 (4 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 3 (2 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 6 — 2026-03-28 — 31 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 4/9 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/11 correct (37%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  ordering in a restaurant: 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Pica: attempts 5 (3 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 2 successful — item ingested)
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 4 (2 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 2 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 7 — 2026-03-30 — 31 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/12 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/9 correct (47%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  ordering in a restaurant: 7/13 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  Pica: attempts 2 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 2 (2 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 0 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 8 — 2026-04-01 — 31 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/11 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/15 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×5, I×2
  ordering in a restaurant: 7/12 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×4
  Pica: attempts 2 (2 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 2 (0 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 2 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 9 — 2026-04-03 — 31 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 7/10 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  Pica: attempts 2 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 1 successful — item ingested)
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 2 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 10 — 2026-04-05 — 31 min — 1 observer
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/8 correct (62%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/15 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×3, I×6
  ordering in a restaurant: 10/14 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×5
  Pica: attempts 1 (1 unsuccessful — staff retrieved item before ingestion; 0 successful — item ingested)
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 2 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

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

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

## Pattern Classification
setting_event_trigger

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Pica: attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.
Fecal smearing (scatolia): automatic
  Evidence: behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

### Crisis plan
- If the setting event involves a medical concern (seizure-like activity, injury, illness): stop the program immediately, follow the facility's medical-incident protocol, and refer to the appropriate medical professional. Medical events are NOT behavioral targets and must not be treated as ABA programming issues.
- If behavior escalates during the setting-event window: use verbal de-escalation and environmental safety first; do not add demand. Only staff currently certified in the facility's crisis-prevention framework may use physical intervention, and only if imminent safety risk warrants it AND the learner's BIP specifically authorizes it (contraindications and BIP restrictions may rule it out).
- Coordinate with caregivers, the medical team, and the supervising BCBA; document the setting event and the associated behavior for pattern analysis. Review the BIP in light of the setting-event data.

## 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: 10 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 61.8%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 77%, last session: 62%).
- Pica: mean 2.4/session (early-window mean 1.3 -> late-window mean 1.7).
- Fecal smearing (scatolia): mean 2.0/session (early-window mean 1.3 -> late-window mean 2.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

Target: mands for information using "why"
Curriculum: Mand L3
Learner: Adolescent Learner
Mastery Status: Near mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: mands for information using "why"
- Curriculum: Mand L3
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Near mastery

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

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
Briefly withhold or restrict access to the target preferred item/activity for 30–60 seconds to establish motivation before the teaching opportunity.
Primary natural context: 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: Expectant look (pause)
Deliver no prompt — maintain eye contact and hold the preferred item until the learner responds.
Current prompt level: At the near mastery stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: 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 3 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 3 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.


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

[User]
Design a chaining program for the following.

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

Include the full Task Analysis structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: clocking in at start of shift
- Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: 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: Total-task presentation
Prompt the learner through the entire chain every trial; fade prompts across all steps simultaneously.

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

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

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

## Reinforcement
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
Chain self-initiated from the appropriate antecedent (no verbal prompt to begin) across 3 consecutive opportunities.

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

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