To audit reinforcement and exposure histories before a relapse claim, map Gio's programmed and obtained reinforcement for target and alternative responses, response-independent events, quality, delay, magnitude, schedule, context, outside access, treatment exposure, thinning, interruptions, missed sessions, partner delivery, and new learning. Separate documented history from inference. Earlier gaps stay visible because a precise recurrence count cannot reconstruct an unknown learning history.

Map programmed and obtained reinforcement

For each response class, record what the plan scheduled and what Gio contacted, including delay, magnitude, quality, duration, partner, context, and source.

Count treatment exposure

Show opportunities, sessions, completed teaching, schedule thinning, missed sessions, interruptions, and time in each version. Calendar time alone cannot describe exposure.

Include relevant events outside treatment

Record naturally occurring access, attention, escape, feedback, task outcomes, and new learning that may alter the history. Keep basic needs and safety outside performance contingencies.

Label provenance and uncertainty

Distinguish direct records, Gio's report, partner report, reconstruction, contradiction, and missing information. Avoid treating the written plan as evidence of delivered history.

Use this sequence to audit history before a relapse claim

Map Gio's responses, consequences, exposure, contexts, outside events, and provenance; preserve gaps; ask Gio; and decide whether the history supports analysis or prospective follow-up.

Build Gio's reinforcement-and-exposure history audit

Create one versioned reinforcement-and-exposure history audit for the community mail-sorting routine. Include Gio's priority, response classes, phases, contexts, treatment versions, reinforcement, exposure, integrity, access, health, recurrence timing, safety action, direct experience, invalidity, missingness, withdrawal, candidate process, alternative explanations, design limits, decision, qualified owner, correction, and reassessment trigger. Store only decision-relevant information with role-limited access.

Validate Gio's recurrence evidence

Reproduce Gio's 40 planned, 32 programmed, 25 obtained, five prior-target consequence contacts, four other consequences, three unknown follow-ups, and eight missed opportunities. Verify response dependency, quality, delay, magnitude, duration, context, outside access, partners, prompts, exposure, schedule changes, direct report, and provenance status.

Connect Gio's evidence to a decision

Gio's audit assigns each history element one provenance state: documented, reconstructed from a named source, contradicted, or unknown. A relapse analysis can proceed with explicit uncertainty, pause for prospective measurement, or close. The team avoids filling missing history with the treatment plan's intended schedule. Prospective collection begins only when it can directly change the next support decision.

Work through Gio's example

Gio's four-week review contains 40 planned mail-sorting opportunities. Alternative-response reinforcement is programmed in 32 and obtained in 25. The prior target response contacts its earlier consequence in five opportunities, receives another consequence in four, and has unknown follow-up in three. Eight planned opportunities never occur. The audit can describe these paths but cannot claim a uniform treatment history. Preserve every planned and valid unit, response code, phase and context version, treatment component, reinforcement event, exposure, integrity result, access and health state, safety response, withdrawal, direct report, system failure, repair, correction, and unresolved item. This fictional example demonstrates one assessment control. It offers no diagnosis, person trait, universal relapse estimate, treatment effect, legal conclusion, coverage decision, payment promise, or outcome guarantee for Gio.

Address Gio's main interpretation risk

Counting 32 programmed events as 32 obtained events overstates exposure. Labeling every consequence as the same reinforcer hides quality, delay, and context. Dropping eight missed opportunities makes the schedule look denser and more stable than delivered. Review response and phase definitions, treatment history, reinforcement, exposure, context, integrity, access, health, partner behavior, direct experience, alternative explanations, authority, and design strength separately. A convincing graph cannot repair an unsafe, inaccessible, unwanted, or historically unsupported recurrence assessment.

Keep treatment scope and authority clear for Gio

For Gio's reinforcement-and-exposure history audit, the CASP public summary supplies high-level ABA behavioral-health-treatment scope for autistic people, with licensed detail outside this page. The current BACB Ethics Code addresses competence, client involvement, consent and assent when applicable, medical needs, risk, data, documentation, evaluation, discontinuation, and transition for covered people. The BACB outline supplies examination content. These sources create no individualized relapse protocol or practice authority for Gio.

Distinguish early increase from recurrence for Gio

The historical Lerman and Iwata analysis reviewed extinction data and found early increases under a defined burst criterion in a minority of reviewed data sets. An extinction burst describes a time-linked early increase after extinction begins, whereas Gio's later recurrence question requires its own phase history. The study offers no universal prevalence estimate for current care, no safety authorization, and no prediction for the community mail-sorting routine.

Use alternative-reinforcement and communication literature within scope for Gio

Athens and Vollmer evaluated differential reinforcement without extinction with seven children and varied dimensions such as immediacy, duration, and quality. The Tiger, Hanley, and Bruzek review discusses FCT assessment, response selection, partner response, schedule thinning, and related risks. These sources support careful history and delivery measurement for Gio; they supply no universal schedule, delay, consequence, or relapse outcome.

Use renewal evidence cautiously for Gio

The Podlesnik renewal review synthesizes basic and translational work on recurrence with context change while extinction or treatment contingencies remain. Much of that evidence comes from controlled laboratory arrangements. Understanding and Reacting to Relapse discusses practice-facing context and recurrence considerations. For Gio, define people, places, cues, treatment continuity, access, and integrity before applying renewal language.

Preserve broad relapse limits and communication access for Gio

Relapse and Its Mitigation distinguishes several recurrence histories and discusses mitigation concepts. It organizes hypotheses rather than proving which process occurred for Gio. ASHA's AAC portal says AAC users should always have access to communication tools or devices. Follow governing sources and preserve Gio's communication, health care, food, water, bathroom use, mobility, rest, relationships, safety, and emergency help throughout review.

Choose Gio's next bounded action

Gio identifies which partner responses were useful and asks that unexpected task-completion praise be tracked separately from access to the chosen break. Record the qualified owner, source evidence, effective date, current phase and treatment version, ordinary supports, access and health state, implementation check, accessible explanation, disagreement route, and reassessment trigger. Preserve the earlier record when responses, people, settings, systems, schedules, health, or priorities change. A repaired arrangement creates a dated phase rather than an error in Gio's prior performance.

Close Gio's relapse review

Review the reinforcement-and-exposure history audit with Gio, the qualified behavior analyst, relevant partners, access owners, and specialists named in the manifest. Confirm that observed recurrence remains separate from resurgence, renewal, an extinction burst, treatment drift, access failure, health change, and treatment effect; every denominator is reproducible; AAC and basic access remain protected; urgent needs received action; and conclusions stay bounded to the supported history. Keep this page draft and noindex until every required review is complete.

Related resources

Sources