Child and Adolescent Therapist - LSW, LAPC

The user wants me to reformat a job posting into clean, well-structured semantic HTML. Let me analyze the content and apply the rules. First, I need to identify the sections: - About Blackbird Health (company description) - Position Summary - Employment Options (with three sub-options: W2 Full-Time, W2 Part-Time, 1099 Contractor) - Who You Are (requirements/qualifications) - Salary Range - Join us! (mission statement) - Fostering an inclusive environment (EEO/diversity statement) - Application instructions/contact info (should be removed per rules) Rules: - Use

for section headings (About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule) - Use

• for lists - Use

  for prose - Do NOT repeat job title as heading - Do NOT put Job ID/requisition numbers as headings - Preserve ALL substantive information - Remove boilerplate (cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning, duplicated lines, application instructions) - Include section ONLY when posting has real, specific content for it - Never emit heading followed by filler/placeholder text - Never create Pay/Schedule/Benefits sections unless posting actually states them - Prefer few substantive sections over many thin ones - Output ONLY HTML fragment, no /, no markdown code fences Now, let me map the content to appropriate sections: 1. "About Blackbird Health" - this is company description, could be "About the company" or similar. But the rules mention headings like "About the role". Since this is about the company, maybe "About the company" or just include as intro paragraph? The rules say use

  for section headings like "About the role". I think "About the company" is appropriate. 2. "Position Summary" - this is "About the role" 3. "Employment Options" - this contains compensation, hours, schedule, benefits for three employment types. This could be broken into "Pay", "Schedule", "Benefits" but they are intertwined per employment type. Better to keep as "Employment Options" with sub-lists? But rules say use

  for section headings like Pay, Schedule, Benefits. However, the posting presents them combined per employment type. I think we should create sections for Pay, Schedule, Benefits but note they vary by employment type. Or keep as "Employment Options" with details. The rules say "include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it". The posting has specific content for Pay, Schedule, Benefits for each employment type. But they are not separate sections in the original. I'll create sections: "Employment Options" with subsections? But we only have

  headings. Could do

  Employment Options

  then list each option with details. That seems appropriate. 4. "Who You Are" - this is Requirements/Qualifications. Could be "Requirements" or "Qualifications". Use "Requirements". 5. "Salary Range" - this is Pay. But we already have pay details in Employment Options. The salary range at the end is a summary. Might be redundant. But we should include it. Could be "Pay" section. 6. "Join us!" - mission statement, could be "Mission" or "About the role"? Might be part of company description. 7. "Fostering an inclusive environment" - EEO/diversity statement. This is boilerplate per rules: "Remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate". So we should remove this. 8. Application instructions/contact info - remove. Also, the "Salary Range: $35,000 USD - $85,000 USD" appears after "Who You Are". That's a summary range covering all options. Now, let's structure: -

  About the company

  with paragraphs from "About Blackbird Health" -

  About the role

  with paragraph from "Position Summary" -

  Employment Options

  with three sub-options. Since we can't use

  (only

  for section headings), we can use

  for each employment type? But rules say use

  for section headings like "About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule". It doesn't forbid multiple

  for subsections. But "Employment Options" is a section, and each option could be a subsection. However, the rules say "use

  for section headings". I think we can use

  for each employment type as they are distinct sections. But the example headings are generic. I'll use

  for each employment type: "W2 Full-Time (Provisionally Licensed FTE)", "W2 Part-Time (Proisionally Licensed PT)", "1099 Contractor". Then under each, list compensation, hours, schedule, benefits as

  • or

    . But the rules say "Use

    • for any list of duties/requirements/benefits, and

      for prose." So for each employment option, we can have a list of details. Alternatively, we could have separate sections for Pay, Schedule, Benefits but they are intertwined. I think keeping as Employment Options with three subsections is fine. -

      Requirements

      with list from "Who You Are" -

      Pay

      with the salary range? But pay details are already in Employment Options. The salary range at the end is a summary. Could include as a note. But the rules say never create Pay section unless posting actually states them. The posting states pay in Employment Options and also a salary range. So we can have a Pay section that summarizes the range, but that might be redundant. I'll include a Pay section with the salary range and note that compensation varies by employment type (refer to Employment Options). But the rules say preserve ALL substantive information. The salary range is substantive. I'll include it. - The "Join us!" mission statement could be part of About the company or a separate "Mission" section. I'll include as a paragraph under About the company or separate

      Mission

      . But the rules don't list "Mission" as a standard heading. I'll include as a paragraph in About the company. - Remove EEO statement. Now, let's write HTML. First, About the company: combine "About Blackbird Health" and "Join us!" mission statement. Second, About the role: Position Summary. Third, Employment Options: three subsections. Fourth, Requirements: Who You Are. Fifth, Pay: Salary Range. But note: The Employment Options already contain pay, schedule, benefits. The Pay section at the end is a summary range. I'll include both. Let's draft. I'll use

      for each major section. For employment options, I'll use

      for each type. Check rules: "use

      for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)". So they expect those specific headings. But we can use other headings if needed. However, "Employment Options" is not in the list. But it's a section heading. I think it's okay. Better to map to standard headings: The employment options contain Pay, Schedule, Benefits. Could create separate sections for Pay, Schedule, Benefits but they differ per employment type. That would be messy. I'll keep Employment Options as a section with subsections. But the rules say "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." So maybe combine. Let's see: The posting has three distinct employment types with different compensation, hours, benefits. That's substantive. I'll create a section "Employment Options" with three subsections using

      for each employment type? That would be many

      . But the rules say use

      for section headings. It doesn't say only one

      per page. It's fine. Alternatively, use

      Employment Options

      then use
      with each employment type as a list item containing details. But details are multiple lines. Could use nested lists. But semantic HTML: maybe use but we can't use ? The output is HTML fragment, we can use any tags. But the instruction says use

      for section headings,

      • for lists,

        for prose. It doesn't forbid other tags. But to be safe, stick to

        ,

        ,
        • ,

          . I'll do:

          Employment Options

          Three employment types are available:

          • W2 Full-Time (Provisionally Licensed FTE) | LSW, LAPC
            • Compensation: $60,000 base salary (100% Onsite)
            • Hours & Schedule: Workload: 36 hours of scheduled clinical availability supporting 28 completed direct care hours/week. Shift Schedules: 4-day workweek options including 12:00 PM – 8:00 PM or 1:00 PM – 9:00 PM (4 days/week). Core Hours: Minimum of 20 Core hours/week during peak evening periods (after 3:00 PM weekdays).
            • Benefits & Supervision: Full clinical supervision included, medical, dental, vision, 401(k) with match, PTO + 11 paid holidays.
          • W2 Part-Time (Provisionally Licensed PT) | LSW, LAPC
            • Compensation: LSW Pay: $40,000 base + $65 / session incentive for completed sessions beyond the 17-hour baseline. LAPC Pay: $35,000 base + $65 / session incentive for completed sessions beyond base.
            • Hours & Onsite Expectations: 100% Onsite (Flex): 20 contracted hours per week (17 completed direct care hours). Core Schedule: All 20 hours anchored in peak core windows (after 3:00 PM weekdays and/or weekends).
            • Benefits: Medical, dental, vision, 401(k) with match, PTO + 11 paid holidays, and clinical supervision.
          • 1099 Contractor | LSW, LAPC
            • Compensation (Flat-Rate PA): $70 flat rate per completed clinical session.
            • Hours & Flexibility: Minimum Commitment: 10 open patient-care hours/week to achieve a baseline minimum of 8 completed clinical hours/week. Core Requirement: All available hours anchored during peak core windows (after 3:00 PM weekdays and/or weekends).
          But that's nested lists. Might be okay. Alternatively, separate

          for each employment type. I think that's clearer. Let's do:

          W2 Full-Time (Provisionally Licensed FTE)

          LSW, LAPC

          • Compensation: $60,000 base salary (100% Onsite)
          • Hours & Schedule: Workload: 36 hours of scheduled clinical availability supporting 28 completed direct care hours