We used a mixed methods design to evaluate a prompt-engineered behavioral activation chatbot implemented by our research team. The evaluation combined artificial user session generation with independent clinical expert assessment. Artificial users generated complete therapeutic session transcripts across diverse clinical presentations, and clinical experts rated these transcripts using a validated fidelity instrument and provided open-ended feedback.

We implemented a GPT-4o–powered behavioral activation chatbot that delivered a single-session protocol [22,23] for young people aged 14 to 29 years with depressive symptoms. The chatbot was built based on the rule-based chatbot Cady [24,25] and used a structured system prompt to guide interactions through the intervention protocol. The development process involved close collaboration with clinical experts who translated the rule-based script into a structured prompt format and crafted illustrative examples. The system prompt underwent iterative refinement, with development team members role-playing as users and clinical experts evaluating the chatbot’s performance. Initial testing revealed that increased conversational flexibility reduced protocol adherence and produced inconsistent responses, leading us to prioritize a linear progression through all 7 phases.

The final German-language system prompt comprised 6 hierarchical components, which are summarized in Table 1. The prompt was designed to guide a complete behavioral activation session while maintaining a conversational exchange. Format instructions used phase markers, such as [phase 1] and [phase 2], to track progress through the session and a [STOP] marker to signal completion. The task instructions guided the chatbot through a 7-phase behavioral activation protocol aimed at creating a personalized activity plan for the user. Phase-specific instructions defined the goal and completion criteria for each phase and included contrastive good and bad example dialogues to reduce common errors through in-context learning. Safety and boundary constraints included a 30-word message limit, referral to emergency services when suicidal ideation was disclosed, and polite redirection of off-topic requests from users. To reduce instruction drift during longer conversations, the format instructions were repeated at the beginning and the end of the prompt. The full prompt is provided in Multimedia Appendix 1.

The chatbot was implemented using GPT-4o via the OpenAI API, with the temperature set to 1 to balance response consistency and variety because, in our initial tests, lower values produced overly repetitive replies.

We developed artificial users based on patient vignettes, which are concise clinical case descriptions commonly used in psychotherapy research and training [26]. The vignettes were selected from psychotherapy training materials used at the outpatient clinic of the University of Greifswald. Each vignette described a young person aged 14 to 29 years with depression, including symptoms and psychosocial circumstances. We selected 4 base vignettes to cover different demographic backgrounds and symptom presentations.

To capture variation among potential users, we enriched the base vignettes with 7 characteristics identified through a literature review and consultations with clinical experts. These characteristics included depression severity, age, gender, willingness to disclose personal information, openness to chatbot suggestions, conversational dominance, and attitudes toward mental health chatbots. Each characteristic was implemented using specific text expressions added to the base vignettes. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics, variation levels, and rationale for the selection. The complete vignettes and variation expressions are provided in Multimedia Appendix 1.

To verify that the artificial users matched the intended depression severity levels, each artificial user completed the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in a separate prompt before interacting with the chatbot (Table 3). The prompt used only the artificial user description as the context. Artificial users with scores outside the intended range were excluded and resampled. We used the following severity ranges, adapted from the standard PHQ-9 categories, to fit our 3-level classification: mild, 5 to 9; moderate, 10 to 19; and severe, 20 to 27.

From the verified pool, we drew a stratified random sample of 48 artificial users, with a roughly balanced representation across the 7 characteristics. The sample size was determined by the number of available clinical experts (n=10) and their available evaluation time (1‐2 h per clinical expert), which allowed each clinical expert to assess 3 to 6 sessions.

Similar to the chatbot, artificial users were implemented by prompting GPT-4o, with the temperature set to 1. During pilot testing, this setting provided the best balance between adherence to the artificial user description and the variety of responses. The artificial user prompts and generated interactions were implemented in German. Sessions began with a standardized welcome message from the behavioral activation chatbot and were generated using a Python script. A session ended when the chatbot sent the STOP] marker, completed all 7 phase markers, or reached a 100-turn cap. We verified session completion by screening the transcripts for these predefined stopping criteria.

The Institutional Review Board of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology approved this study prior to data collection (reference number: A2024-095). Because the chatbot’s clinical fidelity had not yet been evaluated, artificial-user testing was approved as an intermediate step before studies with human users. All participants provided written informed consent before participation. Rating data were pseudonymized and stored separately from personally identifiable information to protect participant privacy and confidentiality. Participants received €30 in compensation for 1 to 2 hours of participation.

Quantitative data were analyzed using R (version 4.3.1; R Foundation for Statistical Computing). All quantitative outcomes were based on 7-point Likert scales and are reported numerically on a 0 to 6 scale.

Q-BAS ratings were analyzed item-wise and session-wise. Component-wise analyses summarized the ratings for each of the 14 Q-BAS components across all 48 sessions. Session-wise analyses summarized the 14 component ratings within each session. We calculated descriptive statistics, compared component ratings with the predefined satisfactory delivery threshold of ≥3, and computed the session-level Q-BAS mean as the average of the 14 component scores. To describe variation in Q-BAS ratings, we fitted a linear mixed-effects model with crossed random intercepts for sessions and intervention components using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Variance components were extracted from the fitted model, and 95% profile-likelihood CIs were derived from the same model. Because the profile-likelihood CIs for random effects are estimated on the SD scale, the interval limits were squared to obtain CIs on the variance scale. In the primary analysis, each session was rated by a clinical expert. Therefore, session-level and rater-level variance could not be separated, and the session-level variance component was interpreted descriptively.

The therapeutic capability ratings were analyzed item-wise. Item-wise analyses summarized the ratings for each of the 7 therapeutic capabilities across all 48 sessions. We calculated descriptive statistics for each capability and analyzed the items separately because they capture distinct capabilities rather than a unified therapeutic capability construct.

For the interrater agreement sensitivity analysis, an additional licensed therapist rated a randomly selected subset of 18 of the 48 dialogues. These additional ratings were used only for agreement analyses and were not included in the primary results. We calculated the mean absolute difference and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC [2,1] for the Q-BAS mean, and the median absolute difference and quadratic weighted κ for the ordinal holistic session quality rating. As another sensitivity analysis, we compared ratings between licensed psychotherapists and psychotherapy trainees.

Exploratory hypothesis-generating analyses were conducted to examine whether artificial user characteristics were associated with Q-BAS ratings, therapeutic capability ratings, artificial user authenticity, and artificial-user difficulty. We used Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for 2-level artificial user characteristics and Kruskal-Wallis tests for 3-level artificial user characteristics. To account for multiple comparisons, P values were adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) false discovery rate procedure within 3 outcome domain families: Q-BAS outcomes, therapeutic capability ratings, and artificial user ratings. We report both raw and BH-adjusted P values.

Open-ended questionnaire responses and semistructured interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis [34]. The 7 intervention phases and 14 Q-BAS components served as deductive categories, and additional categories were developed inductively from the data. One researcher coded the material and developed the category system through iterative review. The resulting categories and ambiguous coding decisions were discussed with a second researcher and refined as needed. We report category and code frequencies to make the analysis transparent and to indicate the salience of themes in the data.

Figure 1 shows the Q-BAS ratings and the holistic single-item session quality across the 48 evaluated sessions.

The chatbot received a mean rating of 3.94 (SD 1.23) on the holistic single-item rating of overall session quality. The average Q-BAS rating across the 14 behavioral activation components was 4.03 (SD 1.18). Thirteen of the 14 components exceeded the satisfactory threshold of 3 on average. Mood assessment received the highest rating (mean 5.42, SD 1.09), followed by planning activities (mean 4.98, SD 1.41). The weakest components were explaining positive reinforcement (mean 2.92, SD 2.30), which was the only component below the satisfactory threshold, and encouraging users to observe activity-mood connections (mean 3.02, SD 2.04). At the component level, satisfactory threshold showed a similar pattern: mood assessment was ≥3 in 47 of 48 (98%) sessions, while explaining positive reinforcement was ≥3 in 27 of 48 (56%) sessions. Multimedia Appendix 1 provides the full satisfactory threshold rates across all sessions.

In the variance decomposition analysis, 37% of the variance in Q-BAS scores was estimated at the session level (variance =1.27, 95% CI 0.82-2.02), 12% at the intervention-component level (variance 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.98), and 51% as the residual variance. In the repeated-rating subset (n=18), the mean absolute difference in session-level Q-BAS means was 0.68 (SD 0.59). The ICC (2,1) for absolute agreement was 0.55 (95% CI 0.15-0.80). For holistic session quality, the median absolute difference was 1 point (IQR 1), and the quadratic weighted κ was 0.63 (95% CI –0.07 to 0.85). Licensed psychotherapists rated Q-BAS means descriptively higher than trainees (mean 4.28, SD 0.82 vs mean 3.55, SD 1.21; Wilcoxon P=.23). Holistic ratings showed a similar descriptive pattern (mean 4.00, SD 0.87 vs mean 3.44, SD 1.33; P=.37). The full sensitivity analyses are reported in Multimedia Appendix 1.

The clinical experts’ qualitative comments helped to contextualize the fidelity ratings. They highlighted the chatbot’s structured session flow (n=7) and ability to validate users’ feelings (n=3) as strengths but also described some sessions as superficial or less detailed than typical therapy sessions (n=7). Across phases, they suggested deeper follow-up questions during mood assessment, more personalized psychoeducation, more guidance for resistant users, and stronger checks on whether activities, barriers, solution strategies, and rewards were suitable and feasible. Concrete examples included accepting an evening nap as an activity without checking whether it was appropriate, proposing one-sided reward options, and ending sessions without sufficient guidance on activity-mood monitoring.

Inspection of the session-level heatmap in Multimedia Appendix 1 identified 2 sessions with consistently low Q-BAS ratings across components. Content analysis suggested that both sessions were shaped by user steering patterns that disrupted the protocol delivery. In 1 session, the user adopted an information-seeking stance and asked broad self-help questions regarding motivation, stress management, and social skills. In another session, the user engaged in skeptical probing by repeatedly asking, “What if that doesn’t help?” In both cases, the chatbot responded reactively, rather than redirecting the conversation toward the behavioral activation protocol. As a result, these sessions shifted toward unstructured question-and-answer exchanges, and the chatbot struggled to complete the behavioral activation session.

Figure 2 provides an overview of how the clinical experts rated the therapeutic capabilities of the chatbot.

The ratings were above the scale midpoint for all therapeutic capabilities. Message safety received the highest mean rating (mean 5.90, SD 0.37), followed by message clarity (mean 5.56, SD 0.77) and objective, nonjudgmental communication (mean 5.17, SD 1.04). Of the 48 evaluated sessions, 44 (92%) received the maximum safety rating of 6, and the remaining sessions were rated 5 (n=3, 6%) or 4 (n=1, 2%). No session received a safety rating below 4. Artificial users with high depression severity contained suicidality. However, no session included an explicit disclosure of suicidal ideation, suicidal intent, or self-harm thoughts; therefore, the crisis protocol was not triggered. The details are reported in Multimedia Appendix 1.

The ratings were still high but lower for responding appropriately to user concerns (mean 4.94, SD 1.08), validating feelings and showing empathy (mean 4.81, SD 1.00), natural conversation flow (mean 4.25, SD 1.42), and building therapeutic rapport (mean 4.12, SD 1.45). The largest SDs were observed for therapeutic rapport and natural conversation flow, indicating greater variability.

Qualitative comments were aligned with these ratings. Clinical experts highlighted the chatbot’s safety, clear communication, and objective and nonjudgmental tone as strengths, and they did not raise safety concerns. They also identified areas for refinement: validation was sometimes too brief or generic, responses to user concerns were sometimes incomplete, enthusiastic expressions could feel exaggerated, some questions were suggestive, and transitions between psychoeducation and planning were sometimes abrupt. Several comments linked relational quality to concrete interaction behaviors, including stronger validation, clearer acknowledgment of users’ doubts or low motivation, and more individualized follow-ups.

Figure 3 summarizes the ratings for artificial user authenticity and difficulty.

Clinical experts rated artificial user authenticity as slightly below the scale midpoint (mean 2.75, SD 1.41; median 2.50, IQR 2-4) and artificial-user difficulty as low (mean 1.23, SD 1.46; median 1.00, IQR 0-2).

Qualitative comments clarified the main limitations of artificial users. Experts primarily criticized their high compliance with the chatbot’s suggestions, especially when identifying positive activities. One expert noted that real patients often need more support at this point, saying, “Usually it is first ‘I don’t know any activities’ or ‘I don’t remember any.’” In contrast, experts described the clinical background stories as plausible, including vignettes of worsening mental health after COVID-19.

Artificial users with negative attitudes toward mental health chatbots were rated as more authentic than those with positive attitudes (mean 3.16, SD 1.52 vs mean 2.30, SD 1.15; Wilcoxon W=387.50, P=.04). Q-BAS ratings, message safety, and message clarity also varied by artificial user openness to chatbot suggestions and their willingness to disclose information. None of these associations remained significant after the BH correction. The complete results are provided in Multimedia Appendix 1.

Our findings suggest that the GPT-4o–powered chatbot delivered a structured behavioral activation session effectively in this evaluation setting. Across 48 artificial user sessions, the chatbot completed all 7 intervention phases and received a mean Q-BAS rating of 4.03 (SD 1.18) on a 0 to 6 scale. Thirteen of the 14 behavioral activation components exceeded the Q-BAS satisfactory threshold. The strongest ratings were for components with explicit procedural goals, particularly mood assessment and activity planning. Overall, the chatbot was able to guide artificial users through the session structure and deliver the behavioral activation protocol as intended.

Weaker performance was observed when the protocol required clinical judgment and active course correction. Explaining positive reinforcement was the only component below the threshold, and helping users observe activity-mood connections was only slightly above it. Experts also noted that the chatbot often accepted proposed activities, rewards, or plans without checking their suitability, feasibility, or tailoring to the user. The 2 lowest-rated sessions showed related problems. In 1 session, the artificial user treated the chatbot as an information source; in the other, the artificial user repeatedly questioned whether the intervention would help. The chatbot responded to these turns but struggled to bring the conversation back to the behavioral activation task and complete the session as intended. These findings point to a clear refinement target: the chatbot must do more than follow the sequence. It needs to judge user input, ask useful follow-up questions, and recover when users redirect or challenge the therapeutic task.

The therapeutic capability ratings support this interpretation. Experts rated message safety, clarity, and objective and nonjudgmental communication highly, and they did not identify overtly unsafe messages in the evaluated sessions. The ratings were lower and more variable for therapeutic rapport, natural conversation flow, validation, and responsiveness to user concerns. The chatbot therefore performed best when the task was structured and less effectively when the session required clinical reasoning, relational sensitivity, or active redirection.

The evaluation approach shaped what could be learned from the data. Artificial user sessions allowed clinical experts to inspect complete chatbot-led behavioral activation sessions under controlled conditions. Therefore, the ratings identified how well the chatbot delivered the intended session in this evaluation setting and where its delivery broke down. They did not show how human users would experience the chatbot or how it would perform with more complex clinical presentations.

Prior work has examined LLM-supported cognitive restructuring [35], behavior change support [36], and broader applications of LLMs in mental health care [12,37]. Reviews suggest that LLM-based systems can generate fluent, supportive, and clinically relevant language. However, they also noted that evaluation methods remain heterogeneous, often nonstandardized, and rarely tied to established clinical quality criteria [13,38]. Our study extends this work by evaluating a complete LLM-supported therapeutic session using an intervention-specific fidelity scale comparable to those used to assess psychotherapists. This approach shows which parts of behavioral activation were delivered with fidelity and which parts remained vulnerable.

These findings align with prior work showing both the promise and limits of LLM-supported therapeutic tasks [13,35,36,39]. Studies on LLM-supported cognitive restructuring and behavior-change support suggest that these systems can follow structured intervention steps, generate supportive responses, and guide users through therapeutic exercises [35,36]. Simultaneously, reviews and clinical evaluation frameworks caution that fluent therapeutic language does not necessarily imply sound clinical judgment, reliable adaptation, or adequate handling of complex user input [13,33,38-40]. Recent comparative work on explainable AI for mental health detection from social media points to a similar caution: LLM-based outputs can appear coherent and informative, but their explanations and reasoning should not be treated as self-validating evidence of clinically reliable interpretation [41]. Our findings support this distinction in the context of behavioral activation. The chatbot moved through the protocol well but struggled when user input required interpretation, follow-up, or redirection.

The therapeutic capability ratings sharpen this distinction. Prior studies have examined whether users can form bonds with chatbots [42] and whether chatbots can reproduce important empathic functions [43]. In our study, experts rated message safety, clarity, and objective, nonjudgmental communication highly but rated therapeutic rapport, natural conversational flow, validation, and responsiveness lower and with greater variability. Therefore, clear and supportive language should not be equated with therapeutic responsiveness. A chatbot can sound safe and helpful while still missing opportunities for emotional attunement, follow-ups, or therapeutic redirection. Our findings support a more differentiated view of LLM-based therapeutic capabilities, in which procedural delivery, safe communication, relational responsiveness, and clinical judgment are evaluated separately.

This study also contributes an intervention-specific fidelity evaluation approach for LLM-based mental health chatbots. Existing chatbot evaluations often focus on single-turn prompts, general response-appropriateness metrics, usability, or symptom outcomes, with limited evidence on whether the systems deliver the intended intervention components across a full session [13,44,45]. Our study extends this work by combining artificial user sessions, clinical expert assessment, and the Q-BAS to examine intervention fidelity in complete chatbot-led behavioral activation sessions. It also connects to emerging work on artificial users and LLM-simulated patients, which have used LLM-generated personas, simulated patients, and role-play interactions for controlled evaluation, counselor training, and expert-designed patient simulation [17-21]. Our approach identified the average intervention fidelity, component-level weaknesses, session-level failure modes, and prompt-level refinement targets. Simulated sessions with artificial-user ratings show that plausible-looking simulated sessions do not, by themselves, establish that artificial users are realistic or sufficiently challenging replacements for human users. Experts rated the artificial users slightly below the scale midpoint for authenticity and low in difficulty, suggesting that this setup was useful for exploratory evaluation and chatbot refinement but not sufficient to represent difficult, emotionally complex, or clinically realistic human interactions.

Taken together, these findings position the chatbot as a bounded support tool rather than a replacement for therapists. This framing aligns with human-centered AI agent research, which emphasizes that health care deployment depends not only on technical performance but also on usability, trust, interpretability, ethical alignment, and fit with clinical workflows [46]. Future development should focus on supervised use, with clear oversight and escalation pathways. The next step is to strengthen the weak components identified here, test the revised chatbot in more challenging artificial-user and safety-critical scenarios, and evaluate it in supervised studies with human users.

The expert assessment generated specific refinement targets for the chatbot. Table 4 summarizes the 4 prompt-level patterns derived from the quantitative fidelity ratings and clinical experts’ qualitative feedback. These patterns identify where the current chatbot can be improved and what future iterations should be tested.

These design implications can guide the iterative development of chatbots. After prompt revisions, model updates, or fixes to previously observed failures, developers can repeat the same artificial user sessions or run targeted variants of them. Expert ratings can then indicate whether the revised chatbot preserves the intended behavioral activation components, improves previously weak behaviors, or introduces new problems.

This study evaluated a prompt-engineered GPT-4o behavioral activation chatbot in simulated sessions as the first evaluation step before further refinement and human testing. Therefore, the findings are limited to chatbot performance under these conditions and should not be generalized to human-user performance. Because the study did not include a reference condition, the Q-BAS scores could not show how the chatbot compared with clinical experts delivering the same protocol. The Q-BAS threshold was adopted from the Q-BAS and its previous use in human-delivered behavioral activation and has not been validated for chatbot-delivered behavioral activation. The artificial users also likely behaved more cooperatively than many real users would, a known concern when LLMs are used as proxies for human participants [47]. This cooperation may have inflated fidelity estimates, especially for relational and adaptive components, which would likely be more difficult with resistant, distressed, or less structured human users. Future evaluations should compare artificial user sessions with clinical expert delivery, simulations using more resistant artificial users, and supervised human user testing.

The safety findings were limited to the scenarios that occurred during testing. Experts rated the chatbot messages as highly safe, and no evaluated session contained an overtly unsafe chatbot response. However, the crisis protocol was not activated because the high-risk artificial user did not explicitly disclose suicidal ideation, intent, or self-harm thoughts during the generated session, even though the underlying personas were specified as having suicidality (Multimedia Appendix 1). Therefore, artificial-user testing can identify some failure modes but cannot establish safety under real distress, resistance, or crisis disclosure. Future evaluations should systematically test crisis responses rather than relying on whether risks surface. This means constructing predefined high-risk scripts that require the chatbot to implement safety behavior—for example, artificial users that escalate from ambiguous hopelessness to explicit suicidal ideation and scenarios covering self-harm intent, abuse or coercion, psychosis-related or mania-related disclosures, identity-related distress, and boundary-crossing therapeutic requests. Each script can then be scored against a prespecified expected response, such as whether the crisis referral protocol triggers at the intended threshold and at what point in the conversation. Combining such scripted edge-case tests with red-team evaluation and, subsequently, supervised studies with human users would allow crisis-response capability to be assessed directly and more robustly [40,48].

Several limitations are associated with the model, implementation, and generated interactions. GPT-4o generated both the chatbot and artificial-user responses, which may have produced linguistically and behaviorally compatible interactions and reduced observable misunderstandings, ambiguity, resistance, or off-protocol behavior. Each transcript also represents a stochastic interaction drawn from the configured chatbot and artificial user prompts. We did not estimate run-to-run variance by regenerating sessions from the same personas. Future evaluations should therefore test different model simulations, with repeated generations from the same artificial users.

The rating design also limits the precision with which we can separate chatbot performance from rater differences. Each full session was rated by a clinical expert, and a subset of 18 dialogues was rated a second time to provide preliminary information on rating consistency. In this subset, the absolute agreement for the Q-BAS mean was moderate (ICC [2,1]=0.55, 95% CI 0.15-0.80). Several factors likely contributed to this result. The subset was small, which widened the CI. ICC (2,1) is a stringent absolute-agreement index that incorporates systematic differences in rating severity between raters into the reliability estimate [49,50]. Licensed psychotherapists rated sessions descriptively higher than trainees, suggesting that differences in rater background may also have contributed to lower agreement. Many Q-BAS components also require subjective clinical judgment regarding whether a delivered behavior is adequate, which leaves room for legitimate disagreement. This moderate agreement means that component-level Q-BAS estimates should be interpreted as approximate and that the variance attributed to transcript-level differences may partly reflect rater severity or interpretation. More structural findings, completion of all 7 phases, and stronger ratings for clearly procedural components depend less on fine rater calibration and are correspondingly more robust. A larger multirater design is needed to estimate interrater reliability more precisely and strengthen component-level conclusions.

Finally, the findings are bounded by the study’s LLM, language, intervention, and sample size. The evaluation used a single model (GPT-4o), German-language interactions, and a structured intervention (behavioral activation); therefore, transferring the framework to other settings should not be assumed to be straightforward. A different model or prompting strategy would require its prompts to be re-engineered and retested because the fidelity patterns and failure modes we observed were tied to this implementation. A different language would require translation and cultural adaptation of both the intervention and the artificial users, together with rechecking that safety behaviors, such as crisis referral, still trigger correctly. A different psychotherapeutic approach may not map onto a component-based fidelity scale, such as the Q-BAS, and could require a different evaluation instrument and interaction design. Behavioral activation was well-suited here precisely because its structured, protocol-driven format made complete sessions measurable with a standardized scale. The sample of 48 sessions was determined by practical constraints rather than a formal power analysis [51]. Therefore, exploratory subgroup analyses in this small sample should be interpreted descriptively. Overall, the sample supported the clinical fidelity assessment and helped identify refinement targets. However, future studies should be appropriately designed to test subgroup differences and examine how well the framework transfers across models, languages, and interventions.

We evaluated a GPT-4o–powered behavioral activation chatbot across 48 artificial user sessions rated by clinical experts. The chatbot completed all intervention phases and received stronger ratings for structured procedural components than for those requiring clinical judgment, therapeutic rapport, and adaptive redirection. The findings identify concrete refinement targets before human testing, especially more systematic verification of activity plans, rewards, and user-related concerns.

Artificial user simulations, combined with expert fidelity ratings, can identify protocol-level weaknesses before human testing. In this study, this value was clearest for structured behavioral activation components, interaction breakdowns in skeptical or information-seeking sessions, and safety scenarios that required more targeted testing. The next step is a staged evaluation that tests whether the observed fidelity patterns remain stable across different simulation models, human role-play, supervised studies with human users, and targeted safety scenarios.

For developers of similar systems, the findings point to 4 practical prompt-level refinement patterns: granular task breakdown, template-based content, embedded clinical decision rules, and explicit redirection mechanisms. These patterns should be treated as refinement hypotheses for future testing, rather than validated design principles. Complete prompts for both the behavioral activation chatbot and artificial users are provided in Multimedia Appendix 1 to support replication and further evaluation.