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

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

Target: matches shapes (identical blocks)
Curriculum: Visual Perceptual Skills & Matching-to-Sample L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Near mastery

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

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

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

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

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Graduated Guidance
Sequence: hand over hand full -> hand over hand light -> shadow -> independent
Current prompt level: At the near mastery stage, use minimal prompts (positional or verbal hint) only when needed; expect independent responding.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: oval, diamond, heart
Distractor stimuli: circle, triangle
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-4481
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand + Math + Social Behavior
Date range: Sessions 1–6 across 12 days (2026-05-02 to 2026-05-14)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. takes turns during structured activities (Social Behavior)
   Method: PRT
2. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. requesting a break during non-preferred tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. counts objects 1–20 (Math)
   Method: DTT
5. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-02 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 4/15 correct (27%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×12
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 3/13 correct (27%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 4/11 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  counts objects 1–20: 4/14 correct (29%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/14 correct (21%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×4

Session 2 — 2026-05-04 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 4/11 correct (40%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/13 correct (38%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 5/10 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×2
  counts objects 1–20: 4/11 correct (39%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/13 correct (33%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×7

Session 3 — 2026-05-06 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 6/13 correct (50%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/11 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 9/15 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×5, I×6
  counts objects 1–20: 6/12 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/12 correct (41%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×6

Session 4 — 2026-05-08 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 5/8 correct (62%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/9 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 6/9 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  counts objects 1–20: 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/14 correct (45%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×8

Session 5 — 2026-05-10 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 8/11 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/13 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×13
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 12/15 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×10
  counts objects 1–20: 10/13 correct (76%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/10 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×3

Session 6 — 2026-05-12 — 31 min — 1 observer
  takes turns during structured activities: 12/14 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  requesting a break during non-preferred tasks: 13/15 correct (89%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  counts objects 1–20: 10/12 correct (87%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/8 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Smiling during reinforcement delivery
- Eye contact maintained throughout trials

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Rapid acquisition**: accelerated mastery from 27% to 83% across 6 sessions.
- Acquisition has exceeded expected timeline.

## Pattern Classification
rapid_acquisition

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
low

Insufficient data: only 6 sessions, high variance, and/or no IOA evidence. Recommend additional data collection before programming changes.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 6 sessions: 55.2%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 27%, last session: 83%).
- 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-5606
Profile: School-Age Learner (6–12 years)
Curricula: Mand
Date range: Sessions 1–9 across 18 days (2026-08-09 to 2026-08-27)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. single-word requests for preferred items (Mand)
   Method: NET

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-09 — 53 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/14 correct (61%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×1, I×5

Session 2 — 2026-08-11 — 53 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/10 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4

Session 3 — 2026-08-13 — 53 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 9/13 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  single-word requests for preferred items: 10/15 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×3, I×6

Session 4 — 2026-08-15 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 40% (primary); IOA 86% agreement
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 39% (primary); IOA 86% agreement
  single-word requests for preferred items: 44% (primary); IOA 86% agreement

Session 5 — 2026-08-17 — 53 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/12 correct (44%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/15 correct (42%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×5, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/12 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7

Session 6 — 2026-08-19 — 53 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/14 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 8/15 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×5, I×8
  single-word requests for preferred items: 8/15 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×7

Session 7 — 2026-08-21 — 53 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 6/11 correct (56%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/10 correct (65%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×7

Session 8 — 2026-08-23 — 53 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 10/15 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×5, I×6
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 5/8 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  single-word requests for preferred items: 6/9 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×7

Session 9 — 2026-08-25 — 53 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/11 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  indicating 'all done' when an activity is complete: 7/10 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  single-word requests for preferred items: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×8

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Playing with non-task materials
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)

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

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

## Pattern Classification
setting_event_trigger

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
high

Pattern is well-supported: 9 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 9 sessions: 57.4%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 61%, last session: 65%).
- IOA data: 86% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

Skill: identifies basic shapes in math context
Curriculum: Math L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Approaching mastery

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: identifies basic shapes in math context
- Curriculum: Math L1
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching mastery

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "What number is this?"
Variations: "Which number?"; "Tell me the number"
Presentation: Present the numeral card.

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: circle, diamond, heart
Distractor stimuli: star, triangle
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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


[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: doing laundry
Curriculum Reference: AFLS Home Skills
Learner Profile: Adult Learner
Current Mastery: Generalization phase
Teaching Method: Task Analysis / Chaining

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: doing laundry
- Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
- Learner: Adult Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Skill Target: tacts emotions in self and others
Curriculum Reference: Tact L2
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Generalization phase
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: tacts emotions in self and others
- Curriculum: Tact L2
- Learner: Early 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: Least-to-Most
Sequence: independent -> gestural -> positional -> partial physical -> full physical
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: crayon, pencil, ball
Distractor stimuli: hat, shoe, bottle, napkin
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

## Reinforcement Schedule
Token economy — Tokens delivered per correct response; exchanged at session end for a back-up reinforcer appropriate to the learner (for children: candy, cookies, brief leisure-time access, preferred activity, screen time, or a favorite sensory item). Provide differential reinforcement: higher-quality reinforcement for independent correct responses than for prompted correct responses.

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

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

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe with novel stimuli, across 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]
Design a Natural Environment Teaching program for the following.

Skill: spontaneously reports past events
Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L2
Learner Level: School-Age Learner
Baseline: Generalization phase

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: spontaneously reports past events
- Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Data Collection
Opportunity-based data recording: each naturally-occasioned trial is scored for independence and topography. IOA scheduled every 5 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


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

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

Target: answers WH-questions about familiar topics
Curriculum: Intraverbal L2
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Generalization phase

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: answers WH-questions about familiar topics
- Curriculum: Intraverbal L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Generalization phase

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

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

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Verbal fill-in
Deliver a partial phrase and pause; learner completes the vocal response.
Current prompt level: At the generalization stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

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

## Generalization Tactics
- Program multiple exemplars across 4 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 3 different natural settings.
- Rotate across 2 different adults during the teaching phase.

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

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

answers WH-questions about familiar topics


[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-2202
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Intraverbal + Mand + Reading + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-08-24 to 2026-09-13)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. answers WH-questions about familiar topics (Intraverbal)
   Method: NET
2. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
3. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Elopement — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-08-24 — 30 min — 1 observer
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 8/15 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×3, I×2
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/10 correct (46%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/10 correct (45%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 5/10 correct (48%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  Elopement: freq 0

Session 2 — 2026-08-26 — 30 min — 1 observer
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 8/14 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/11 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/11 correct (50%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  sounds out CVC words: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×11
  Elopement: freq 0

Session 3 — 2026-08-28 — 30 min — 1 observer
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/14 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/11 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 5/8 correct (67%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  Elopement: freq 0

Session 4 — 2026-08-30 — 30 min — 1 observer
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/8 correct (81%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 8/12 correct (65%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×11
  Elopement: freq 0

Session 5 — 2026-09-01 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 83% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 69% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 69% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  sounds out CVC words: 84% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  Elopement: freq 1; IOA 97% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-09-03 — 30 min — 1 observer
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/8 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×5, I×0
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 11/14 correct (77%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 9/11 correct (84%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  Elopement: freq 0

Session 7 — 2026-09-05 — 30 min — 1 observer
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 12/14 correct (83%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/11 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 12/15 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 10/12 correct (84%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  Elopement: freq 0

Session 8 — 2026-09-07 — 30 min — 1 observer
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 12/14 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/13 correct (72%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×2
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 12/15 correct (77%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×11
  sounds out CVC words: 13/15 correct (84%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  Elopement: freq 1
  ABC (elopement): A = asked to finish dressing task; B = kicked at materials; C = task paused for 3 min

Session 9 — 2026-09-09 — 30 min — 1 observer
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/9 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/8 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 9/11 correct (84%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  Elopement: freq 1

Session 10 — 2026-09-11 — 30 min — 1 observer
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 8/10 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/11 correct (72%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/12 correct (77%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 8/10 correct (84%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  Elopement: freq 1

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

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
- **Skill loss following break**: performance dropped to 52% 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
Elopement: escape
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the escape function; behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

### Antecedent strategies
- 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
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 76.3%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 52%, last session: 83%).
- Elopement: mean 0.4/session (early-window mean 0.0 -> late-window mean 1.0).
- 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]
Design a chaining program for the following.

Skill: simple meal preparation (sandwich)
Curriculum: AFLS Home Skills
Learner Level: Adult Learner
Baseline: Approaching mastery

Include the full Task Analysis structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: simple meal preparation (sandwich)
- Curriculum: AFLS Home 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: Backward chaining
Complete all steps for the learner except the last; teach the last step first, then work backward. The final reinforcer (task completion) is always present for the learner.

Steps:
1. Collect all ingredients (bread, filling, spread).
2. Place two slices of bread on the plate.
3. Apply spread to one slice.
4. Place filling on the spread slice.
5. Place the second slice on top.
6. Cut the sandwich in half if desired.
7. Place on a plate to serve.  <- Learner-taught step (backward chaining starts here)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-9539
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Independent Living + Mand + Self-Care + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-03-15 to 2026-04-04)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. simple meal preparation (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. scheduling medical appointments (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. completing assigned tasks in order (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. requesting a break during extended tasks (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
6. self-advocacy statements (Independent Living)
   Method: BST

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-03-15 — 50 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 12/15 correct (83%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×14
  scheduling medical appointments: 10/14 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/10 correct (75%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/8 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  washing hands independently: 8/10 correct (80%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  self-advocacy statements: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  Non-compliance: freq 1
  Aggression: freq 3

Session 2 — 2026-03-17 — 50 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 8/11 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  scheduling medical appointments: 6/9 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  completing assigned tasks in order: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×0, I×8
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/9 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  washing hands independently: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×5, I×2
  self-advocacy statements: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  Non-compliance: freq 3
  Aggression: freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-03-19 — 50 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 6/9 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  scheduling medical appointments: 4/8 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/11 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/10 correct (77%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  washing hands independently: 5/8 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 8/13 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  Non-compliance: freq 3
  Aggression: freq 3
  ABC (aggression): A = demand to complete math problem; B = threw materials and vocalized 'no'; C = staff removed demand, redirected

Session 4 — 2026-03-21 — 50 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 5/8 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  scheduling medical appointments: 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×9
  completing assigned tasks in order: 5/11 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/11 correct (66%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  washing hands independently: 7/12 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×2
  self-advocacy statements: 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  Non-compliance: freq 3
  Aggression: freq 2

Session 5 — 2026-03-23 — 50 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  scheduling medical appointments: 6/12 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×1, I×3
  completing assigned tasks in order: 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  washing hands independently: 9/15 correct (62%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×9
  self-advocacy statements: 6/14 correct (40%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×6
  Non-compliance: freq 3
  Aggression: freq 3

Session 6 — 2026-03-25 — 50 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 9/14 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  scheduling medical appointments: 3/9 correct (33%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/15 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×10
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  washing hands independently: 7/13 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  self-advocacy statements: 5/14 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×8
  Non-compliance: freq 3
  Aggression: freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-03-27 — 50 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 5/9 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×3
  scheduling medical appointments: 3/11 correct (29%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  completing assigned tasks in order: 2/10 correct (20%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/13 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×5
  washing hands independently: 4/8 correct (46%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 4/15 correct (25%); latency 5.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  Non-compliance: freq 4
  Aggression: freq 4

Session 8 — 2026-03-29 — 50 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×2, I×3
  scheduling medical appointments: 2/15 correct (15%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  completing assigned tasks in order: 2/11 correct (20%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  washing hands independently: 4/11 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  self-advocacy statements: 2/11 correct (19%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  Non-compliance: freq 3
  Aggression: freq 5

Session 9 — 2026-03-31 — 50 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 7/14 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×9
  scheduling medical appointments: 1/10 correct (10%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  completing assigned tasks in order: 2/12 correct (14%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 5/12 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  washing hands independently: 3/8 correct (35%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 1/14 correct (11%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×9
  Non-compliance: freq 5
  Aggression: freq 4

Session 10 — 2026-04-02 — 50 min — 1 observer
  simple meal preparation: 5/13 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  scheduling medical appointments: 2/15 correct (10%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  completing assigned tasks in order: 1/9 correct (10%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  requesting a break during extended tasks: 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  washing hands independently: 4/14 correct (30%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  self-advocacy statements: 1/13 correct (10%); latency 5.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  Non-compliance: freq 5
  Aggression: freq 5

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Regression identified**: accuracy has declined from 83% to 41% across 10 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
Non-compliance: escape
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the escape function; behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.
Aggression: escape
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the escape function; behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
4 — Safety immediate

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 62.1%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 83%, last session: 41%).
- Non-compliance: mean 3.3/session (early-window mean 2.3 -> late-window mean 4.3).
- Aggression: mean 3.4/session (early-window mean 2.7 -> late-window mean 4.7).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-6128
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Mand + Motor Imitation + Reading
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-07-24 to 2026-08-15)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. imitates 3-step motor sequences (Motor Imitation)
   Method: DTT variant
2. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
3. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
4. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Non-compliance — function hypothesized: escape
2. Fecal smearing (scatolia) — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-24 — 57 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 5/14 correct (33%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/13 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 8/13 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/9 correct (31%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×3
  Non-compliance: freq 4
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 0

Session 2 — 2026-07-26 — 57 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/13 correct (49%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 6/10 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/11 correct (44%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  Non-compliance: freq 5
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 1 (0 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 3 — 2026-07-28 — 57 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 8/13 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 4/10 correct (36%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 7/15 correct (44%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×12
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/13 correct (46%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  Non-compliance: freq 3
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 1 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 0 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 4 — 2026-07-30 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 37% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 50% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  sounds out CVC words: 49% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 26% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  Non-compliance: freq 7; IOA 97% agreement
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 0; IOA 97% agreement

Session 5 — 2026-08-01 — 57 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 8/14 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 4/12 correct (32%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×10
  sounds out CVC words: 3/9 correct (37%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/9 correct (30%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  Non-compliance: freq 5
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 4 (2 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 2 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 6 — 2026-08-03 — 57 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/11 correct (35%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/10 correct (51%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 3/8 correct (33%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/12 correct (43%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  Non-compliance: freq 2
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 0

Session 7 — 2026-08-05 — 57 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/13 correct (49%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  sounds out CVC words: 4/14 correct (30%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×13
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/8 correct (40%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  Non-compliance: freq 7
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 0

Session 8 — 2026-08-07 — 57 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/13 correct (31%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/11 correct (41%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  sounds out CVC words: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/8 correct (39%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  Non-compliance: freq 6
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 0

Session 9 — 2026-08-09 — 57 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 5/9 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 3/8 correct (32%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 4/11 correct (38%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/9 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  Non-compliance: freq 6
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 0

Session 10 — 2026-08-11 — 57 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 8/12 correct (64%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 3/11 correct (27%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 3/8 correct (39%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  Non-compliance: freq 6
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 2 (1 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 1 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

Session 11 — 2026-08-13 — 57 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/12 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 4/9 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×2
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/11 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  Non-compliance: freq 6
  Fecal smearing (scatolia): attempts 4 (2 intercepted — staff redirected before smearing; 2 completed — feces transferred to skin, clothing, or surface)

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Stereotypic behavior during inter-trial intervals
- Looking away during SD presentation
- Leaving seat without permission
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Variable performance**: accuracy fluctuating around 43% with no clear trend.
- Inconsistency may indicate stimulus-control issues or motivational variability across sessions.

## Pattern Classification
variable_performance

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Non-compliance: escape
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the escape function; behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.
Fecal smearing (scatolia): attention
  Evidence: ABC events in the log support the attention function; behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 48.4%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 33%, last session: 52%).
- Non-compliance: mean 5.2/session (early-window mean 4.0 -> late-window mean 6.0).
- Fecal smearing (scatolia): mean 1.1/session (early-window mean 0.7 -> late-window mean 2.0).
- 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]
Generate a teaching program for the following target.

Skill Target: mands using polite social conventions
Curriculum Reference: Mand L3
Learner Profile: Adolescent Learner
Current Mastery: Emerging
Teaching Method: NET (Natural Environment Teaching)

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: mands using polite social conventions
- Curriculum: Mand L3
- Learner: Adolescent Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
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 emerging stage, begin with a model prompt delivered during the motivated moment; fade to expectant look across sessions.

## 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 2 different adults during the teaching phase.

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

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

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


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

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

Skill: responds to peer initiations appropriately
Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L2
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Developing

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: responds to peer initiations appropriately
- Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Developing

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

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

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Model + immediate fade
Deliver a vocal/gestural model if no response within the motivated moment; fade to expectant look over sessions.
Current prompt level: At the developing stage, begin with a model prompt delivered during the motivated moment; fade to expectant look across sessions.

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

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

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

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

responds to peer initiations appropriately


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

[User]
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-3069
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Listener Responding + Mand + Motor Imitation + Reading
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-06-09 to 2026-07-01)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. imitates 3-step motor sequences (Motor Imitation)
   Method: DTT variant
2. single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad") (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. selects items by feature (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
5. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Motor stereotypy — function hypothesized: automatic
2. Aggression — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-09 — 48 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/14 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  selects items by feature: 6/9 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×1
  sounds out CVC words: 11/14 correct (77%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 20%
  Aggression: freq 1

Session 2 — 2026-06-11 — 48 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 9/13 correct (70%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 9/11 correct (78%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  selects items by feature: 5/8 correct (68%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 19%
  Aggression: freq 1

Session 3 — 2026-06-13 — 48 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 9/13 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×3, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/9 correct (71%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/8 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  selects items by feature: 9/14 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×6
  sounds out CVC words: 7/9 correct (79%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 18%
  Aggression: freq 1

Session 4 — 2026-06-15 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 68% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 75% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 65% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  selects items by feature: 63% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  sounds out CVC words: 72% (primary); IOA 97% agreement
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 15%; IOA 97% agreement
  Aggression: freq 1; IOA 97% agreement

Session 5 — 2026-06-17 — 48 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 5/10 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 5/11 correct (49%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/10 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×3
  selects items by feature: 5/12 correct (39%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  sounds out CVC words: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×1, I×9
  Motor stereotypy: freq 8; PIR 36%
  Aggression: freq 6

Session 6 — 2026-06-19 — 48 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/12 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×3
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 4/8 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/9 correct (56%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  selects items by feature: 5/11 correct (46%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 7/13 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  Motor stereotypy: freq 10; PIR 50%
  Aggression: freq 5

Session 7 — 2026-06-21 — 48 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 8/15 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/11 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×3
  selects items by feature: 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 10/15 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×10
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 9%
  Aggression: freq 2

Session 8 — 2026-06-23 — 48 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/11 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  selects items by feature: 8/13 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 10/13 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  Motor stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 24%
  Aggression: freq 2

Session 9 — 2026-06-25 — 48 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/9 correct (64%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 10/14 correct (72%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×3, I×3
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/13 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  selects items by feature: 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  sounds out CVC words: 9/12 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 22%
  Aggression: freq 2

Session 10 — 2026-06-27 — 48 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 9/13 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 7/10 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 10/15 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×11
  selects items by feature: 6/9 correct (63%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  sounds out CVC words: 6/8 correct (74%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 16%
  Aggression: freq 1

Session 11 — 2026-06-29 — 48 min — 1 observer
  imitates 3-step motor sequences: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  single-word mands for preferred items (e.g., "cookie", "iPad"): 6/8 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 10/14 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  selects items by feature: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  sounds out CVC words: 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 9%
  Aggression: freq 2

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)
- Leaving seat without permission

[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
Motor stereotypy: automatic
  Evidence: behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.
Aggression: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## 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
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 62.3%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 74%, last session: 71%).
- Motor stereotypy: mean 3.7/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 2.3).
- Aggression: mean 2.2/session (early-window mean 1.0 -> late-window mean 1.7).
- 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 DTT program for this skill.

Target: points to named body parts
Curriculum: Listener Responding L1
Learner: Early Learner
Mastery Status: Generalization phase

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: points to named body parts
- Curriculum: Listener Responding L1
- Learner: Early 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: "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: Stimulus Shaping
Sequence: modified stimulus -> intermediate shape -> target stimulus
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 3 (target + 2 distractors)
Target stimuli: glue, phone, brush
Distractor stimuli: ball, key
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

## Reinforcement Schedule
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
90% first-trial-correct across 5 consecutive sessions.

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

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


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

[User]
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-8854
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Echoic + Listener Responding + Mand + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–11 across 22 days (2026-06-04 to 2026-06-26)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. mands for missing items needed to complete an activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. 2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please") (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. echoes 2-word phrases (Echoic)
   Method: DTT variant
4. follows 1-step motor instructions (Listener Responding)
   Method: DTT
5. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Tantrum — function hypothesized: tangible

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-04 — 44 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 11/15 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×5, I×9
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 10/14 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  echoes 2-word phrases: 9/11 correct (85%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 13/15 correct (85%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/8 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 2 — 2026-06-06 — 44 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 9/11 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  echoes 2-word phrases: 9/10 correct (86%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 3 — 2026-06-08 — 44 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/9 correct (78%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/10 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  echoes 2-word phrases: 12/15 correct (83%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×0, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 9/11 correct (81%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 4 — 2026-06-10 — 44 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 3/8 correct (42%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/11 correct (51%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  echoes 2-word phrases: 4/10 correct (43%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/11 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/9 correct (30%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 4m total

Session 5 — 2026-06-12 — 44 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 3/8 correct (40%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×5
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 5/11 correct (48%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  echoes 2-word phrases: 6/12 correct (49%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/10 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/15 correct (29%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×2, I×6
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 4m total

Session 6 — 2026-06-14 — 44 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/15 correct (40%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×5, G×1, I×9
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/13 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  echoes 2-word phrases: 5/11 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/11 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/8 correct (37%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Tantrum: freq 1, duration 5m total

Session 7 — 2026-06-16 — 44 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 5/14 correct (38%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  echoes 2-word phrases: 4/9 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 7/13 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/13 correct (46%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 8 — 2026-06-18 — 44 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/14 correct (46%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×4, I×4
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/12 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×2
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/10 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 9 — 2026-06-20 — 44 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 6/11 correct (52%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×9
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/14 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×1, I×7
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/12 correct (62%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×8
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/12 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×7
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 10 — 2026-06-22 — 44 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 7/11 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 7/10 correct (71%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/11 correct (66%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/8 correct (57%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  Tantrum: freq 0

Session 11 — 2026-06-24 — 44 min — 1 observer
  mands for missing items needed to complete an activity: 8/13 correct (63%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  2-word mand phrases (e.g., "more cracker", "open please"): 9/12 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×3
  echoes 2-word phrases: 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  follows 1-step motor instructions: 8/11 correct (73%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/10 correct (64%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  Tantrum: freq 0

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)
- Looking away during SD presentation
- Leaving seat without permission

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

## Pattern Classification
motivating_operation_shift

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Tantrum: tangible
  Evidence: behavior occurs when preferred items are restricted and is followed by access to the item.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

Pattern is supported but alternatives cannot be fully excluded: 11 sessions of data; no IOA session included.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 11 sessions: 55.6%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 74%, last session: 63%).
- Tantrum: mean 0.3/session (early-window mean 0.0 -> late-window mean 0.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.