Give the child a way to communicate that works for them, through words or other means. Listen, and let what they communicate change the plan. Describe what happened, when, under what demands and with what help.
Preserve original samples or records, distinguish observation from interpretation and include occasions when things go better. Brief dated notes can help retain details that would otherwise be lost; existing schoolwork, reports and accounts should also be used.
Bring the observations together with the questions they leave unanswered. Ask how the current explanation accounts for the history, which other possibilities need consideration and what deserves closer attention as the child develops.
A substantive professional response explains what was examined, what supports the conclusion, what remains unresolved and how proposed help addresses the difficulty. It may disagree with a hypothesis, but it must address the concern. Ask for written reasoning and next steps, with a responsible person and a review point.
Keep track of what happens next: whether the referral or agreed support took place, whether it helped and whether new information calls for earlier review. A recommendation on paper does not establish that the child's needs have been met.
Teachers, coaches and activity leaders need to examine and adapt their instructions, pace, tools and environment. Doctors and other specialists need to integrate the history, reconsider unanswered questions and contribute their own observations and reasoning. Schools and services need to coordinate their response. Parents must not be left to perform all of this work.
When another child has been harmed or is at risk, adults must listen, protect them and take concrete action. Understanding causes does not excuse harm, require anyone to endure it or oblige a child to maintain a friendship. Peers and their parents deserve a clear response without having to obtain another child’s diagnosis.