While NLP typically treats documents as independent and unordered samples, in longitudinal studies, this assumption rarely holds: documents are nested within authors and ordered in time, forming person-indexed, time-ordered $\textit{behavioral sequences}$. Here, we demonstrate the need for and propose a longitudinal modeling and evaluation paradigm that consequently updates four parts of the NLP pipeline: (1) evaluation splits aligned to generalization over people ($\textit{cross-sectional}$) and/or time ($\textit{prospective}$); (2) accuracy metrics separating between-person differences from within-person dynamics; (3) sequence inputs to incorporate history by default; and (4) model internals that support different $\textit{coarseness}$ of latent state over histories (pooled summaries, explicit dynamics, or interaction-based models). We demonstrate the issues ensued by traditional pipeline and our proposed improvements on a dataset of 17k daily diary transcripts paired with PTSD symptom severity from 238 participants, finding that traditional document-level evaluation can yield substantially different and sometimes reversed conclusions compared to our ecologically valid modeling and evaluation. We tie our results to a broader discussion motivating a shift from word-sequence evaluation toward $\textit{behavior-sequence}$ paradigms for NLP.