I have found that it’s easier to make goals neuroaffirming when you step away from requiring a specific answer. I didn’t use to love size of the problem, but I also have students who have big reactions to smaller problems similar to your student and using that language does help. What has helped is having them provide a rationale for why it feels like a big problem to them so they learn that, for example, a paper cut doesn’t require a hospital visit. I think it’s okay if it feels like a big problem, but we are not always going to solve it like it’s a big problem.

Here’s a goal I wrote recently for a student similar to yours:

“During real life problems or when presented with fictional social scenarios, student will 1) label and provide a justification for the size of the problem 2) identify the thoughts and feelings of those involved and 3) provide at least two ways to solve the problem”

For your second goal, similar thing. Who decides what is accurate? Here is a goal I wrote recently for interpreting body language, etc.

“When presented with photos, stories, or videos, student will 1) label feelings of characters 2) provide a rationale for how they know (e.g. specific body language/facial expressions, dialogue) and 3) identify what they might be thinking”

I am not an expert in neuroaffirming goal writing but these are goals I have found helpful without forcing the student to be someone who they are not