I believe my SBG system and Mission Tracker are flexible enough to work for any student and situation. Below is a tracker I used last October-November:
Also, it's not hard to modify the language or the terms of a checkbox item. For Mission 5, we removed a couple of the vocabulary words for a few students. For another student, we crossed out "and connections" to show basic understanding -- as long as they understood key differences between those leader roles. Note the frequent use of words like "some", which I chose deliberately to allow flexibility of assessment: I might accept 3 pros and cons from one student, but not from their neighbor. (They would only notice if they took the time to compare quizzes side-by-side, but I don't think that actually happens.)
Mission 6 was about specific class participation, and also had some "wiggle room" for accommodating and modifying expectations. One might "find a way to participate/engage" silently, such as by acting as the Fact Checker during class discussions. In certain cases, we tied that task to a student's IEP objective.
For two students with the most severe disabilities, we adjusted the Mission Tracker system more drastically. The inclusion facilitator assigned point values to each checkbox item (some of which also had modified language), and one student earned percentage grades for the three missions combined. I didn't love this idea, but was eventually convinced that this student had many significant academic needs and that having a consistent grading approach in all his classes was more important than applying SBG pedagogy.
For the other student, we adjusted the grading system differently so she didn't have to complete a "totally get it" task in order to earn an A grade. Instead, the completion of all "clear understanding" tasks was sufficient for the best possible grade, because developmentally and cognitively that was the highest level on the Bloom's pyramid that she could be reasonably expected to attain.
Click here to see my entire SBG System series!