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

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

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

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

## Mastery Criteria
Full chain completed within 120s across 3 consecutive sessions with independent responding on all steps.

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

## Generalization & Maintenance Plan
Post-mastery: probe the full chain across 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]
I need a Task Analysis program for this multi-step skill.

Target: clocking in at start of shift
Curriculum: AFLS Vocational Skills
Learner: Adult Learner
Mastery Status: Approaching mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: clocking in at start of shift
- Curriculum: AFLS Vocational 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. 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 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
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 3 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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


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

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

Target: washing hands
Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living Skills
Learner: Adolescent Learner
Mastery Status: Approaching mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: washing hands
- Curriculum: AFLS Basic Living 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: Total-task presentation
Prompt the learner through the entire chain every trial; fade prompts across all steps simultaneously.

Steps:
1. Walk to the sink.
2. Turn on the water.
3. Wet hands under the water.
4. Apply soap to hands.
5. Rub hands together for 15–20 seconds, covering fronts, backs, and between fingers.
6. Rinse hands thoroughly under the water.
7. Turn off the water.
8. Dry hands with a towel.

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

## Mastery Criteria
Full chain completed within 120s across 3 consecutive sessions with independent responding on all steps.

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

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


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

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

Skill Target: identifies 5–10 upper-case 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: identifies 5–10 upper-case 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: Most-to-Least (errorless)
Sequence: full physical -> partial physical -> gestural -> positional -> 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, A, D
Distractor stimuli: E, F
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
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
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 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]
Design a Discrete Trial Training program for the following.

Skill: traces basic shapes (circle, cross)
Curriculum: Writing L1
Learner Level: Early Learner
Baseline: Mastered at current level

Include the full DTT trial structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: traces basic shapes (circle, cross)
- Curriculum: Writing 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: "Write the target."
Variations: "Trace this"; "Copy this"; "Write {word}"
Presentation: Provide pencil and paper; deliver a clear verbal instruction naming the target letter or word.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Least-to-Most
Sequence: independent -> gestural -> positional -> partial physical -> full physical
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: triangle, star, rectangle
Distractor stimuli: circle, heart
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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


[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: Adolescent Learner
Current Mastery: Approaching mastery
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: Adolescent 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: "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 Fading
Sequence: exaggerated stimulus -> moderate fade -> minimal fade -> natural stimulus
Current prompt level: At the approaching mastery stage, deliver gestural or positional prompts; fade toward independence.

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 6 (target + 5 distractors, mixed categories)
Target stimuli: backpack, sock, pencil
Distractor stimuli: key, car, cup, blanket, scissors
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 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]
Generate a teaching program for the following target.

Skill Target: sounds out CVC words (cat, dog, run)
Curriculum Reference: Reading L2
Learner Profile: Early Learner
Current Mastery: Emerging
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: sounds out CVC words (cat, dog, run)
- Curriculum: Reading L2
- Learner: Early Learner
- Current mastery: Emerging

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "What word?"
Variations: "Read this word"; "What does it say?"
Presentation: Present the sight-word card and deliver the SD.

## Prompt Hierarchy
Strategy: Graduated Guidance
Sequence: hand over hand full -> hand over hand light -> shadow -> 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 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: brush, blanket, towel
Distractor stimuli: key, glue, apple, jacket
Rotation: Randomize position of target across trials to prevent position bias.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Skill Target: compares quantities (more/less/same)
Curriculum Reference: Math L2
Learner Profile: School-Age Learner
Current Mastery: Approaching mastery
Teaching Method: DTT

Provide the full program structure appropriate to the selected method.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: compares quantities (more/less/same)
- Curriculum: Math L2
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching mastery

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

## Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary SD: "How many?"
Variations: "Count these"; "What number is this?"
Presentation: Present the numeral card or a set of objects to count.

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

## Stimulus Array
Array size: field of 5 (target + 4 distractors)
Target stimuli: key, block, blanket
Distractor stimuli: ball, bottle, spoon, 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
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 3 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-9194
Profile: Early Learner (dev age 0–48 months)
Curricula: Echoic + Intraverbal + Mand + Writing
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-05-06 to 2026-05-26)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. copies simple words from model (Writing)
   Method: DTT
2. answers WH-questions about familiar topics (Intraverbal)
   Method: NET
3. indicating completion ('all done', 'finished') (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. echoes 2-word phrases (Echoic)
   Method: DTT variant

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-06 — 34 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 5/11 correct (43%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 5/14 correct (36%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 4/11 correct (35%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  echoes 2-word phrases: 4/9 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×6

Session 2 — 2026-05-08 — 34 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 6/13 correct (48%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×11
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/13 correct (44%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 5/15 correct (34%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×5, I×7
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×1, I×9

Session 3 — 2026-05-10 — 34 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 9/14 correct (65%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×6
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/12 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 5/13 correct (41%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/14 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×8

Session 4 — 2026-05-12 — 34 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 10/14 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×6
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 6/11 correct (55%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 6/12 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  echoes 2-word phrases: 7/11 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×4

Session 5 — 2026-05-14 — 34 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 10/13 correct (79%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×0, I×5
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  echoes 2-word phrases: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×4, I×8

Session 6 — 2026-05-16 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  copies simple words from model: 88% (primary); IOA 93% agreement
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 70% (primary); IOA 93% agreement
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 63% (primary); IOA 93% agreement
  echoes 2-word phrases: 76% (primary); IOA 93% agreement

Session 7 — 2026-05-18 — 34 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 7/8 correct (90%); latency 1.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 11/13 correct (81%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 10/15 correct (70%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×5, I×2
  echoes 2-word phrases: 9/10 correct (87%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×5

Session 8 — 2026-05-20 — 34 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 10/10 correct (95%); latency 2.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 7/8 correct (83%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 7/10 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  echoes 2-word phrases: 10/11 correct (89%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×7

Session 9 — 2026-05-22 — 34 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 13/14 correct (95%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×9
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 11/12 correct (92%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  echoes 2-word phrases: 14/15 correct (95%); latency 1.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×8

Session 10 — 2026-05-24 — 34 min — 1 observer
  copies simple words from model: 9/9 correct (95%); latency 1.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  answers WH-questions about familiar topics: 11/12 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  indicating completion ('all done', 'finished'): 10/12 correct (82%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  echoes 2-word phrases: 9/9 correct (95%); latency 1.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×8

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Eye contact maintained throughout trials
- Reaching for materials proactively
- Requesting more trials verbally
- 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 43% to 95% across 10 sessions.
- No clinical concerns at this time; mastery criteria should be reachable within a few additional sessions.

## Pattern Classification
mastery_progression

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
1 — Continue monitoring

Current programming is effective; no change needed.

## Confidence
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 76.8%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 43%, last session: 95%).
- IOA data: 93% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-7707
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Mand + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-07-02 to 2026-07-22)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT
2. requesting preferred items using AAC device (Mand)
   Method: NET
3. identifying community safety signs (Community)
   Method: DTT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-02 — 35 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×3, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/15 correct (55%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×5, I×0
  identifying community safety signs: 5/9 correct (54%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5

Session 2 — 2026-07-04 — 35 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/10 correct (44%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  identifying community safety signs: 4/8 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8

Session 3 — 2026-07-06 — 35 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/14 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×3, I×5
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/13 correct (49%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×10
  identifying community safety signs: 4/8 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×5

Session 4 — 2026-07-08 — 35 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/15 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 4/8 correct (52%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×4
  identifying community safety signs: 5/10 correct (49%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×6

Session 5 — 2026-07-10 — 35 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/12 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×4
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 4/10 correct (43%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  identifying community safety signs: 8/15 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×3, I×6

Session 6 — 2026-07-12 — 35 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/15 correct (43%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×0, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 8/14 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×9
  identifying community safety signs: 8/13 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×4, I×4

Session 7 — 2026-07-14 — 35 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 6/13 correct (44%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 7/14 correct (47%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×10
  identifying community safety signs: 5/9 correct (58%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×7

Session 8 — 2026-07-16 — 35 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/10 correct (37%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 5/13 correct (40%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×4, I×2
  identifying community safety signs: 9/13 correct (68%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×8

Session 9 — 2026-07-18 — 35 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 4/14 correct (32%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×3, I×6
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 6/15 correct (39%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×10
  identifying community safety signs: 10/15 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×3, I×6

Session 10 — 2026-07-20 — 35 min — 1 observer
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 5/12 correct (39%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  requesting preferred items using AAC device: 3/8 correct (33%); latency 4.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  identifying community safety signs: 7/11 correct (59%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×6

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Leaving seat without permission
- Echolalic responding (repeating SD rather than answering)

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 48% 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
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: 44.9%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 57%, last session: 39%).
- 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 to indicate completion in context ("I'm all done with math, can I start reading?")
Curriculum: Mand L3
Learner: School-Age Learner
Mastery Status: Approaching mastery

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

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: mands to indicate completion in context ("I'm all done with math, can I start reading?")
- Curriculum: Mand L3
- Learner: School-Age Learner
- Current mastery: Approaching mastery

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

## Motivating Operation (MO) Arrangement
Set up a clearly-bounded activity with a visible endpoint (e.g., a worksheet, a puzzle, a sorting task). Wait for the learner to indicate completion verbally or via AAC; honor the indication immediately.
Primary natural context: worksheet.

## Natural Opportunity
Embed the teaching opportunity within the learner's worksheet 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 approaching mastery stage, use time delay (0 s -> 2 s -> 4 s) before delivering any model prompt; reinforce independent responses differentially.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: the activity ends immediately and the learner transitions to the next preferred activity.
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.

mands to indicate completion in context ("I'm all done with math, can I start reading?")


[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: negotiates and compromises during group activities
Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play L3
Learner Level: Adolescent Learner
Baseline: Emerging

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: negotiates and compromises during group activities
- Curriculum: Social Behavior & Social Play 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
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: peer play.

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

## Prompt Strategy
Strategy: Model + immediate fade
Deliver a vocal/gestural model if no response within the motivated moment; fade to expectant look over sessions.
Current prompt level: At the emerging 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 3 different stimuli or peers.
- Rotate between 2 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 4 sessions minimum; target agreement ≥ 80%.

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

negotiates and compromises during group activities


[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 provides explanations and reasons
Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L3
Learner Level: School-Age Learner
Baseline: Generalization phase

Include the full naturalistic teaching structure.

[Assistant]
## Program Overview
- Target skill: spontaneously provides explanations and reasons
- Curriculum: Spontaneous Vocal Behavior L3
- 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: Model + immediate fade
Deliver a vocal/gestural model if no response within the motivated moment; fade to expectant look over sessions.
Current prompt level: At the generalization stage, use expectant look only; avoid direct prompts. The MO itself should be sufficient to occasion the response.

## Natural Reinforcer
Natural reinforcer: adult attends to the comment with matching affect.
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 3 different adults during the teaching phase.

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

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

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

spontaneously provides explanations and reasons


[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-1411
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Community + Home Skills + Mand + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-07-24 to 2026-08-17)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. identifying community safety signs (Community)
   Method: DTT
2. making the bed (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. washing hands independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. requesting help when a task is difficult (Mand)
   Method: NET

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Motor stereotypy — function hypothesized: automatic
2. Property destruction — function hypothesized: attention

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-07-24 — 44 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 12/15 correct (79%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×0, I×11
  making the bed: 11/14 correct (76%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 10/13 correct (81%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  washing hands independently: 12/15 correct (78%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×5, G×4, I×2
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×4, I×3
  Motor stereotypy: freq 1; PIR 7%
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 2 — 2026-07-26 — 44 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 7/10 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  making the bed: 9/13 correct (72%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 12/15 correct (83%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×5, I×6
  washing hands independently: 8/11 correct (72%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 8/13 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×13
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 18%
  Property destruction: freq 2

Session 3 — 2026-07-28 — 44 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 11/15 correct (70%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×4, G×2, I×4
  making the bed: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 9/11 correct (78%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  washing hands independently: 9/15 correct (60%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×9
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 9/15 correct (61%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×1, I×8
  Motor stereotypy: freq 2; PIR 17%
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 4 — 2026-07-30 — 44 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 8/13 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×4, I×8
  making the bed: 5/10 correct (49%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 11/15 correct (73%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  washing hands independently: 7/12 correct (58%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 6/10 correct (57%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 14%
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 5 — 2026-08-01 — 44 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 7/10 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  making the bed: 7/13 correct (50%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×8
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 7/11 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  washing hands independently: 7/15 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×5, I×2
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 4/9 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 23%
  Property destruction: freq 4

Session 6 — 2026-08-03 — 44 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×7
  making the bed: 3/9 correct (36%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×6
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 9/14 correct (61%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×7
  washing hands independently: 7/15 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×3, G×5, I×2
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 6/12 correct (48%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×6
  Motor stereotypy: freq 3; PIR 19%
  Property destruction: freq 3

Session 7 — 2026-08-05 — 44 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 4/8 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  making the bed: 2/8 correct (30%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 7/12 correct (59%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×8
  washing hands independently: 4/10 correct (35%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 4/9 correct (43%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  Motor stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 22%
  Property destruction: freq 4

Session 8 — 2026-08-07 — 44 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 7/14 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  making the bed: 2/11 correct (20%); latency 5.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 5/9 correct (52%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  washing hands independently: 3/11 correct (26%); latency 4.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×3, I×8
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 4/14 correct (31%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  Motor stereotypy: freq 5; PIR 25%
  Property destruction: freq 5

Session 9 — 2026-08-09 — 44 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 4/9 correct (39%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  making the bed: 2/8 correct (20%); latency 5.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 6/12 correct (50%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×4, I×5
  washing hands independently: 3/15 correct (22%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×5, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 4/14 correct (28%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  Motor stereotypy: freq 4; PIR 30%
  Property destruction: freq 5

Session 10 — 2026-08-11 — 44 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 6/15 correct (39%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×5, I×6
  making the bed: 1/13 correct (10%); latency 5.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×12
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 5/12 correct (44%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  washing hands independently: 2/9 correct (21%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 2/9 correct (27%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  Motor stereotypy: freq 5; PIR 35%
  Property destruction: freq 5

Session 11 — 2026-08-13 — 44 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 4/14 correct (31%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  making the bed: 1/8 correct (10%); latency 5.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 6/15 correct (41%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  washing hands independently: 1/14 correct (10%); latency 5.6s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 1/10 correct (14%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  Motor stereotypy: freq 5; PIR 23%
  Property destruction: freq 4

Session 12 — 2026-08-15 — 44 min — 1 observer
  identifying community safety signs: 3/11 correct (31%); latency 4.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  making the bed: 1/9 correct (10%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 3/8 correct (35%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  washing hands independently: 1/12 correct (10%); latency 5.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 2/14 correct (16%); latency 5.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×8
  Motor stereotypy: freq 5; PIR 31%
  Property destruction: freq 6

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Peer aggression (hitting or pushing peers during group activities)
- Elopement from the work area
- Vocal refusal ('no', 'I don't want to')
- Increased response latency (3–5× baseline)

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Regression identified**: accuracy has declined from 79% to 31% across 12 sessions.
- Accompanying behavior data suggests the decline may be function-related.

## Pattern Classification
regression

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

## Behavior Function Hypothesis
Motor stereotypy: automatic
  Evidence: behavior persists across contexts without clear social mediation.
Property destruction: attention
  Evidence: behavior occurs during low-attention periods and results in social attention contingently.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
3 — Supervisor review

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 54.9%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 79%, last session: 31%).
- Motor stereotypy: mean 3.5/session (early-window mean 2.0 -> late-window mean 4.8).
- Property destruction: mean 3.8/session (early-window mean 2.5 -> late-window mean 5.0).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-9328
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Independent Living + Mand + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access + Vocational
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-06-09 to 2026-06-29)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. completing assigned tasks in order (Vocational)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. scheduling medical appointments (Independent Living)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. doing laundry (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
5. indicating 'all done' at task completion (Mand)
   Method: NET
6. wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-06-09 — 52 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 7/11 correct (64%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 3/8 correct (44%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  scheduling medical appointments: 6/9 correct (64%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  doing laundry: 6/9 correct (65%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×7
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 8/15 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×8
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/10 correct (42%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  Verbal aggression: freq 4
  Non-compliance: freq 3

Session 2 — 2026-06-11 — 52 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/9 correct (84%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×2
  brushing teeth independently: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×5, I×5
  scheduling medical appointments: 7/15 correct (48%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×5, PP×5, G×0, I×5
  doing laundry: 6/9 correct (68%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×4
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 5/14 correct (39%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×4, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/13 correct (50%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×1, G×4, I×4
  Verbal aggression: freq 3
  Non-compliance: freq 3

Session 3 — 2026-06-13 — 52 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 4/8 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 5/9 correct (52%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  scheduling medical appointments: 7/11 correct (61%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  doing laundry: 8/12 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 4/9 correct (49%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/15 correct (37%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  Verbal aggression: freq 1
  Non-compliance: freq 4

Session 4 — 2026-06-15 — 52 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/11 correct (58%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  brushing teeth independently: 6/10 correct (55%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  scheduling medical appointments: 10/14 correct (74%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×4, I×8
  doing laundry: 8/12 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×8
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 7/15 correct (49%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×5, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/13 correct (50%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×3, I×8
  Verbal aggression: freq 3
  Non-compliance: freq 1

Session 5 — 2026-06-17 — 52 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/10 correct (82%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 5/9 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×5
  scheduling medical appointments: 8/11 correct (75%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  doing laundry: 8/10 correct (81%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 6/15 correct (43%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×2, I×9
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/8 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  Verbal aggression: freq 2
  Non-compliance: freq 5

Session 6 — 2026-06-19 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  completing assigned tasks in order: 51% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  brushing teeth independently: 45% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  scheduling medical appointments: 71% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  doing laundry: 61% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 46% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 51% (primary); IOA 96% agreement
  Verbal aggression: freq 3; IOA 96% agreement
  Non-compliance: freq 2; IOA 96% agreement

Session 7 — 2026-06-21 — 52 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 6/8 correct (80%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×5
  scheduling medical appointments: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  doing laundry: 5/9 correct (59%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 5/12 correct (39%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 4/13 correct (33%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×7
  Verbal aggression: freq 4
  Non-compliance: freq 6

Session 8 — 2026-06-23 — 52 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 8/13 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 4/9 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  scheduling medical appointments: 5/10 correct (53%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×4
  doing laundry: 6/11 correct (51%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 2/10 correct (24%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 5/10 correct (52%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  Verbal aggression: freq 1
  Non-compliance: freq 2

Session 9 — 2026-06-25 — 52 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 10/13 correct (78%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  brushing teeth independently: 4/8 correct (48%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  scheduling medical appointments: 11/15 correct (76%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×12
  doing laundry: 5/8 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×2
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 4/12 correct (30%); latency 4.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×4
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×7
  Verbal aggression: freq 2
  Non-compliance: freq 3

Session 10 — 2026-06-27 — 52 min — 1 observer
  completing assigned tasks in order: 13/15 correct (84%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×5, G×2, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 6/9 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  scheduling medical appointments: 12/15 correct (77%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×7
  doing laundry: 7/15 correct (50%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×5, I×5
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 6/10 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×5
  wait calmly when a preferred activity is denied: 6/9 correct (61%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×3
  Verbal aggression: freq 4
  Non-compliance: freq 4

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Playing with non-task materials
- Delayed responding (>5 seconds consistently)
- 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
- **Variable performance**: accuracy fluctuating around 74% 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
Verbal aggression: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.
Non-compliance: escape
  Evidence: behavior occurs in the context of demand presentation and terminates contingent on task removal.

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
high

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 69.2%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 64%, last session: 84%).
- Verbal aggression: mean 2.7/session (early-window mean 2.7 -> late-window mean 2.3).
- Non-compliance: mean 3.3/session (early-window mean 3.3 -> late-window mean 3.0).
- IOA data: 96% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

[User]
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-5412
Profile: Adult Learner (18+ years)
Curricula: Independent Living + Mand + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-01-14 to 2026-01-30)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. indicating 'all done' at task completion (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. self-advocacy statements (Independent Living)
   Method: BST
3. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

DECELERATION TARGETS
1. Verbal aggression — function hypothesized: escape

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-01-14 — 34 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 11/13 correct (82%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  self-advocacy statements: 13/15 correct (85%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×4, I×7
  brushing teeth independently: 10/14 correct (69%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×4, G×4, I×6
  Verbal aggression: freq 2
  ABC (verbal aggression): A = demand to complete math problem; B = threw materials and vocalized 'no'; C = staff removed demand, redirected

Session 2 — 2026-01-16 — 34 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 6/8 correct (79%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 8/10 correct (78%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×2, I×2
  brushing teeth independently: 7/10 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  Verbal aggression: freq 4

Session 3 — 2026-01-18 — 34 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 9/12 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  self-advocacy statements: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 9/14 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×8
  Verbal aggression: freq 4

Session 4 — 2026-01-20 — 34 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 5/8 correct (60%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×7
  self-advocacy statements: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  brushing teeth independently: 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×3, I×5
  Verbal aggression: freq 5

Session 5 — 2026-01-22 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 54% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  self-advocacy statements: 61% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  brushing teeth independently: 54% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  Verbal aggression: freq 6; IOA 91% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-01-24 — 34 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 5/9 correct (55%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×0, I×3
  self-advocacy statements: 5/10 correct (55%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 5/12 correct (46%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×5
  Verbal aggression: freq 6
  ABC (verbal aggression): A = asked to finish dressing task; B = kicked at materials; C = task paused for 3 min

Session 7 — 2026-01-26 — 34 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 4/9 correct (42%); latency 4.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×0, I×9
  self-advocacy statements: 6/12 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 4/9 correct (41%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  Verbal aggression: freq 7

Session 8 — 2026-01-28 — 34 min — 1 observer
  indicating 'all done' at task completion: 3/9 correct (36%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  self-advocacy statements: 4/9 correct (45%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×1, I×3
  brushing teeth independently: 3/9 correct (38%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×5
  Verbal aggression: freq 6

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

[Assistant]
## Clinical Concerns
- **Frustration pattern**: declining accuracy (82% -> 36%) 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
Verbal 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
- **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
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: 8 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 60.1%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 82%, last session: 36%).
- Verbal aggression: mean 5.0/session (early-window mean 3.0 -> late-window mean 6.5).
- IOA data: 91% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

[User]
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-7461
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Mand + Self-Care + Tolerating Denied Access
Date range: Sessions 1–12 across 24 days (2026-04-27 to 2026-05-21)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. requesting a break during non-preferred activities (Mand)
   Method: NET
2. making the bed (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. tolerating haircut (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied (Tolerating Denied Access)
   Method: FCT

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-04-27 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×7
  making the bed: 8/11 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  tolerating haircut: 9/12 correct (76%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×1, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/12 correct (71%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×6

Session 2 — 2026-04-29 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/10 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  making the bed: 7/10 correct (65%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  tolerating haircut: 10/13 correct (73%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×2, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/10 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×7

Session 3 — 2026-05-01 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 8/12 correct (68%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  making the bed: 10/14 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×11
  tolerating haircut: 10/13 correct (75%); latency 2.4s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×12
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 11/15 correct (73%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×0, I×9

Session 4 — 2026-05-03 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 10/15 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×1, I×7
  making the bed: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×6
  tolerating haircut: 10/15 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×2, I×13
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/15 correct (67%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×5, I×7

Session 5 — 2026-05-05 — IOA SESSION — 2 observers
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 46% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  making the bed: 46% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  tolerating haircut: 47% (primary); IOA 91% agreement
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 40% (primary); IOA 91% agreement

Session 6 — 2026-05-07 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 6/11 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×7
  making the bed: 7/14 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×2, I×6
  tolerating haircut: 4/8 correct (49%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×3
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 3/8 correct (43%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×6

Session 7 — 2026-05-09 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/12 correct (57%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×2, I×5
  making the bed: 4/8 correct (56%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  tolerating haircut: 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/13 correct (52%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×2, I×10

Session 8 — 2026-05-11 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 9/15 correct (63%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×4, I×8
  making the bed: 7/12 correct (60%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×2, I×4
  tolerating haircut: 8/14 correct (58%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×4, G×0, I×9
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 7/11 correct (59%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×2, I×6

Session 9 — 2026-05-13 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×8
  making the bed: 10/15 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×4, G×4, I×3
  tolerating haircut: 9/15 correct (60%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×1, PP×5, G×1, I×8
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 8/12 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×3, I×8

Session 10 — 2026-05-15 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  making the bed: 5/8 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  tolerating haircut: 6/9 correct (69%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×6
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/14 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×0, I×8

Session 11 — 2026-05-17 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×0
  making the bed: 8/12 correct (66%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×7
  tolerating haircut: 11/15 correct (73%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×0, I×10
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 9/14 correct (68%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×1, I×7

Session 12 — 2026-05-19 — 46 min — 1 observer
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 10/15 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×5
  making the bed: 10/15 correct (66%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×8
  tolerating haircut: 6/8 correct (73%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×4
  wait calmly when access to preferred item is denied: 10/15 correct (68%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×3, I×10

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

## 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: 12 sessions of data, low variance, and IOA evidence confirm reliability.

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 12 sessions: 63.4%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 70%, last session: 67%).
- IOA data: 91% agreement on IOA session — adequate.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-3679
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Mand + Reading + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–8 across 16 days (2026-05-22 to 2026-06-07)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. sounds out CVC words (Reading)
   Method: DTT
2. brushing teeth independently (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. requesting a break during non-preferred activities (Mand)
   Method: NET
4. tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis

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

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-05-22 — 43 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 10/15 correct (64%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×11
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 5/10 correct (53%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×6
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 5/9 correct (56%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×3
  Non-compliance: freq 3

Session 2 — 2026-05-24 — 43 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 7/9 correct (73%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/14 correct (51%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  Non-compliance: freq 3

Session 3 — 2026-05-26 — 43 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 8/12 correct (67%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×1, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 6/9 correct (61%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 4/8 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×5
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×3, G×4, I×7
  Non-compliance: freq 9

Session 4 — 2026-05-28 — 43 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×4, I×4
  brushing teeth independently: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×1
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 4/8 correct (55%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×0, I×5
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 8/12 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×4, I×1
  Non-compliance: freq 9

Session 5 — 2026-05-30 — 43 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 6/8 correct (71%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  brushing teeth independently: 6/9 correct (67%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×8
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 10/15 correct (64%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×5, G×3, I×5
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 7/11 correct (67%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×6
  Non-compliance: freq 4

Session 6 — 2026-06-01 — 43 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 9/11 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  brushing teeth independently: 9/13 correct (69%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×10
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/11 correct (66%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×1, I×7
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 9/14 correct (67%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×9
  Non-compliance: freq 2

Session 7 — 2026-06-03 — 43 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 11/14 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×8
  brushing teeth independently: 5/8 correct (65%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×1, I×4
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/11 correct (66%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×3, G×2, I×4
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 8/12 correct (70%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  Non-compliance: freq 3

Session 8 — 2026-06-05 — 43 min — 1 observer
  sounds out CVC words: 11/14 correct (81%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×6
  brushing teeth independently: 8/10 correct (75%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×6
  requesting a break during non-preferred activities: 7/11 correct (63%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  tolerating tooth brushing by caregiver: 9/12 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×4
  Non-compliance: freq 2

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS (across sessions)
- Vocal refusal ('no', 'I don't want to')
- Attempts at property destruction (throwing materials, swiping items off the surface)

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

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

## Pattern Classification
extinction_burst

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

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 8 sessions: 73.1%.
- Trend direction: upward (first session: 64%, last session: 81%).
- Non-compliance: mean 4.4/session (early-window mean 3.0 -> late-window mean 2.5).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.


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

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

LEARNER PROFILE
Synthetic ID: SYN-1789
Profile: Adolescent Learner (13–17 years)
Curricula: Home Skills + Mand + Self-Care
Date range: Sessions 1–10 across 20 days (2026-03-13 to 2026-04-02)

ACCELERATION PROGRAMS
1. meal cleanup after eating (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
2. dressing (pants, shirt) (Self-Care)
   Method: Task Analysis
3. making the bed (Home Skills)
   Method: Task Analysis
4. indicating 'all done' with a step or activity (Mand)
   Method: NET
5. requesting help when a task is difficult (Mand)
   Method: NET

SESSION DATA

Session 1 — 2026-03-13 — 41 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 9/12 correct (76%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×2, I×6
  dressing (pants, shirt): 9/11 correct (79%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×0, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  making the bed: 13/15 correct (86%); latency 1.9s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×14
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 9/12 correct (74%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×4, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/10 correct (74%); latency 2.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×2, I×6

Session 2 — 2026-03-15 — 41 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/10 correct (80%); latency 2.2s; prompts FP×0, PP×0, G×1, I×9
  dressing (pants, shirt): 11/14 correct (75%); latency 2.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×8
  making the bed: 8/9 correct (84%); latency 2.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×0, I×5
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 9/12 correct (78%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×0, PP×2, G×0, I×10
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 8/12 correct (69%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×4, I×6

Session 3 — 2026-03-17 — 41 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 8/11 correct (76%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×1, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  dressing (pants, shirt): 7/9 correct (73%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×1, I×6
  making the bed: 10/12 correct (86%); latency 2.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×4, G×3, I×2
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 8/11 correct (71%); latency 3.1s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/9 correct (74%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×5

Session 4 — 2026-03-19 — 41 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 6/15 correct (38%); latency 4.4s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×5, I×4
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/14 correct (46%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×7
  making the bed: 6/11 correct (53%); latency 3.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×2
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 4/11 correct (37%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×1, I×6
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 6/13 correct (47%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×3

Session 5 — 2026-03-21 — 41 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 5/11 correct (41%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  dressing (pants, shirt): 3/8 correct (40%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×2, I×4
  making the bed: 6/12 correct (48%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×6
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 5/12 correct (39%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×5
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 5/11 correct (48%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×0, I×8

Session 6 — 2026-03-23 — 41 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 4/9 correct (39%); latency 4.2s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 5/10 correct (47%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  making the bed: 7/13 correct (52%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×3, I×7
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 5/14 correct (36%); latency 4.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×0, G×0, I×12
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 5/10 correct (53%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×3, G×3, I×1

Session 7 — 2026-03-25 — 41 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 5/13 correct (42%); latency 4.1s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×4, I×7
  dressing (pants, shirt): 6/11 correct (54%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×3, I×3
  making the bed: 7/13 correct (56%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×2, G×0, I×9
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 5/11 correct (42%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/12 correct (59%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×2, PP×4, G×4, I×2

Session 8 — 2026-03-27 — 41 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/15 correct (47%); latency 3.9s; prompts FP×1, PP×3, G×5, I×6
  dressing (pants, shirt): 8/14 correct (60%); latency 3.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×0, I×10
  making the bed: 8/13 correct (60%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×4, PP×3, G×3, I×3
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 4/10 correct (45%); latency 4.0s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×2, I×5
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 6/9 correct (64%); latency 3.3s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×1, I×3

Session 9 — 2026-03-29 — 41 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/13 correct (55%); latency 3.8s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  dressing (pants, shirt): 10/15 correct (65%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×2, G×5, I×3
  making the bed: 8/13 correct (65%); latency 3.2s; prompts FP×4, PP×0, G×1, I×8
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 7/13 correct (54%); latency 3.4s; prompts FP×3, PP×0, G×4, I×6
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 7/10 correct (72%); latency 2.6s; prompts FP×3, PP×2, G×0, I×5

Session 10 — 2026-03-31 — 41 min — 1 observer
  meal cleanup after eating: 7/13 correct (57%); latency 3.5s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×1, I×8
  dressing (pants, shirt): 11/15 correct (73%); latency 2.8s; prompts FP×5, PP×0, G×0, I×10
  making the bed: 6/8 correct (70%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×1, PP×2, G×0, I×5
  indicating 'all done' with a step or activity: 7/11 correct (62%); latency 3.0s; prompts FP×2, PP×1, G×2, I×6
  requesting help when a task is difficult: 11/15 correct (72%); latency 2.7s; prompts FP×3, PP×1, G×3, I×8

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

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

## Pattern Classification
motivating_operation_shift

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

## Programming Recommendations

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

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

## Escalation Level
2 — Adjust next session

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

## Confidence
moderate

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

## Data-Supported Rationale
- Mean accuracy across 10 sessions: 55.1%.
- Trend direction: downward (first session: 76%, last session: 57%).
- No IOA session in this log; reliability of measurements cannot be independently verified.