Rationale:
For organizations that want to use AI to support supervision notes, keep in mind that Generative Text has access to whatever is entered in the Supervision Notes box. Pulling that box's raw content into the final note is not required — it can instead serve purely as a workspace for BCBAs during the session, with its contents used only to inform the Generative Text summary at the end. Depending on your organization's documentation requirements, you can structure your Supervision Notes box similarly to the example below. We recommend using similar language in the prompted sections of your Supervision Notes box wherever possible, since consistent wording there helps produce more consistent wording in the final AI-generated supervision note.
Example Generative Text Prompt
This is the instruction set the AI follows to turn a clinician's live supervision notes into the protocol summary portion of a 97155 note:
Output must be plain text only — never use asterisks or number/pound signs for emphasis, bullets, or headers anywhere in the generated note. Use plain text labels and line breaks instead.
SECTION 1 — Overall Protocol Status Statement Always begin this part of the note with this exact lead-in line: Today's observations reflect that the protocol components:
Immediately follow it with exactly one of these two statements. Never include both, and never leave it blank.
Statement A (use only if zero programs required an adjustment this session): were functioning effectively and therefore no adjustments were clinically indicated
Statement B (use if one or more programs required an adjustment this session): Required adjustments (see below)
How to choose: check how the supervision notes answered the question "Did today's observations reflect that the protocol components require adjustments?" If that answer is No, use Statement A. If that answer is Yes, use Statement B, and list every program name that required an adjustment directly beneath the statement, as a simple list of program names.
SECTION 2 — Protocol Components Requiring Adjustment Only include this section at all if Statement B was used in Section 1. If Statement A was used, skip this section entirely — do not include an empty version of it.
For each program listed in Section 1, add one block, in this order, using these exact field labels:
Program Name: [name of the program] Specific Components Requiring Adjustment: [the specific protocol component(s) that were adjusted, taken directly from what the clinician documented in the supervision notes for that program] Rationale of Action Taken: [narrative explaining why the adjustment was made]
Guidance for writing "Rationale of Action Taken": the emphasis belongs on what the QHP did and the clinical reasoning behind the decision — not on re-stating the component details already captured in the line above. Keep it concise and outcome-focused, in the voice of the examples below.
Example: "Manding: Five highly preferred targets were added due to mastery of current targets; positional prompts were removed as the need for prompts correlated only with less preferred items." Example: "Turn taking: Mastered SD1 with prompts. Begin SD2, which requires five turns without prompts."
If more detail about an adjustment exists elsewhere (raw data sheets, a program book, etc.), do not reproduce it here. Instead, reference it in the note's Other section with a line such as: "Additional details are available upon request."
Governing rule for Sections 1 and 2: never list a program name anywhere in this note unless there is something to report for it — a change, a notable observation, a new target, or supervision notes actually written about it that session. If the supervision notes are silent on a program, that program does not appear in the note at all.
SECTION 3 — Active Direction to Technician Answer this question using the supervision notes: was active, face-to-face direction given to a technician while they delivered ABA services this session? If yes: describe the specific strategy or strategies the QHP used to direct the technician, and the rationale for giving that direction, based on what is documented in the supervision notes. If no: state plainly that no active direction was given this session.
SECTION 4 — QHP Implementation of the Protocol with the Client Using the supervision notes, determine which of the following applies, and state it directly. More than one may apply. Determining if changes were needed to improve client progress Testing of a modified protocol N/A — the QHP did not implement the protocol directly with the client this session
If either of the first two applies, add a narrative describing what the QHP did, how the client responded, and the clinical implications of that. Testing a protocol can legitimately result in no change — a "no change" outcome is a complete and valid result to document, not something to omit. Match the level of detail to the organization's documentation preferences, and follow the organization's preference on whether raw data collected during this activity is included here or referenced as available separately.
Example: "The QHP ran three programs/protocols that had been identified as having met mastery criteria (i.e., manding, 2-step instructions, turn taking) and probed additional phases to determine next steps."
Formatting rule for the entire note: never use asterisks or number/pound signs anywhere in the output, for any reason. Plain text section labels only, exactly as written above.
Supervision Notes Box Example:
Adjustment needed today? Yes / No
If Yes - Component(s) adjusted:
Active direction given to technician? Yes / No
If Yes - Strategy: / Rationale:
QHP implemented protocol with client? Determining changes needed / Testing modified protocol / N/A
If not N/A - What QHP did: / Client response: / Implications:
Example Output: 
Today's observations reflect that the protocol components:
Required adjustments (see below)
Manding
Reduction - Behavior Frequency
Program Name: Manding
Specific Components Requiring Adjustment: Added 5 highly preferred targets due to mastery of the current set; removed positional prompts, as the need for prompts correlated only with less-preferred items.
Rationale of Action Taken: The QHP updated the manding target set to maintain instructional momentum following mastery and to ensure targets remained motivating. Positional prompts were removed to better match Bennett’s current performance and reduce unnecessary prompting when responding was independent with preferred items.
Program Name: Reduction - Behavior Frequency
Specific Components Requiring Adjustment: Operational Definition - updated operational definition to support more specific elopement data tracking
Rationale of Action Taken: The QHP refined the operational definition to improve clarity and consistency of elopement measurement across staff, supporting more accurate frequency tracking and decision-making based on reliable data.
Active direction to technician:
Active, face-to-face direction was provided. The QHP modeled correct prompt delivery for 2-step instructions in real time due to RBT over-prompting, with the goal of reducing prompt dependency. The QHP also redirected the RBT’s data collection procedures to correctly score partial-prompt trials because inconsistent scoring was impacting mastery calculations.
QHP implementation of the protocol with the client:
N/A — the QHP did not implement the protocol directly with the client this session
To learn more about the basic set up of live supervision, click HERE