You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


With hints of a constitutional crisis coloring floor speeches, the Maine Senate spent hours Monday debating whether to give Senate President Mike Thibodeau broad legal discretion to challenge the implementation of ranked-choice voting in the June 12 primary election.

The Senate voted 21-13 shortly after 7:30 p.m. Monday in favor of an amended version of the order that somewhat curtailed what some Democrats had argued was far too much power for one person to wield. An amendment that set a 21-day time limit on the order and restricted it to issues involving only ranked-choice voting won majority support and the votes of three Democrats.





[Maine judge faces tight deadline to rule on latest ranked-choice voting glitch]

According to testimony in the Senate, among other things the order clears the way for Thibodeau to file as an intervener in a pending Kennebec County Superior Court case that could decide the short-term fate of ranked-choice voting. A ruling in that case could come as early as Tuesday.

The lengthy resolution — clearly written from an anti-ranked choice point of view — gives the Senate president the authority to hire attorneys and “raise all appropriate claims and defenses and to seek all appropriate manner of relief.”

The document lists arguments against ranked-choice voting, ranging from questions about its constitutionality to the fact that additional money needed to implement the system over the long term has not been appropriated. It also calls into question Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap’s authority to ask law enforcement officers to collect ballots from municipalities all over Maine and transport them to Augusta.

Consideration of the resolution comes as a Superior Court judge mulls a lawsuit seeking to force the state to use ranked-choice voting in June. The lawsuit was filed by ranked-choice voting supporters in an effort to force the state to implement the system in time for the primaries.

Senate Minority Leader Troy Jackson, D-Allagash, attempted an amendment that would have required a two-thirds Senate vote for Thibodeau to take action, but the amendment failed.

Sen. Shenna Bellows, D-Manchester, wasn’t swayed by the amendment, and voted against the bill because she said it would be “unprecedented” for the Senate to take legal action against a constitutional officer.

“That’s not usually something that happens in America,” said Bellows. “It’s something we more often see in a banana republic.”

Sen. Andre Cushing, R-Newport, said there aren’t other options, given the time crunch and political divisions in the Legislature.

“We are faced with a dilemma for which we don’t have an agreement in this body, much less in the executive branch,” said Cushing.

The ranked-choice voting system, enacted by referendum in 2016, has become increasingly embroiled in controversy and since Thursday, questions have been swirling about whether it will hold up to a legal challenge by any candidate who loses the election.

[Dunlap: Fix ranked-choice voting soon or Maine ca n ’t use it]

On Thursday, Dunlap told lawmakers and reporters that a legislative committee analyst had discovered conflicts in existing law. One section of law says primary elections are won by plurality, while another section of law that was amended by the 2016 referendum refers to winners by majority.

The issue landed in Kennebec County Superior Court on Friday, with lawyers for both Dunlap’s office and supporters of ranked-choice voting agreeing that the intent of the legislation is to use ranked-choice voting. That could clear the way for Justice Michaela Murphy, who is still considering the arguments, to rule that legislative intent is clear and that the older language about a plurality be changed.

But Murphy said such a move by the courts would be rare and that “you are asking me to do something courts don’t like to do.” Murphy said she is making her decision in this case a priority but didn’t indicate when her ruling might be ready.

An attorney representing the secretary of state’s office said the decision is necessary in the next week or two to allow staff to design and print ballots for absentee voters overseas.

This isn’t the first time the issue has been to court. In 2017, the Senate asked the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to weigh in on the constitutionality of ranked-choice voting. The court responded with an advisory opinion — and not a full-fledged ruling — that the referendum was partially unconstitutional because of language referencing winners by plurality in the Maine Constitution.

The other option for clearing up the matter would be legislative action, but with most Republicans firmly against the use of ranked-choice voting, the prospects for success on that front are slim.

As the judicial branch sorts through more immediate problems, the long-term fate of ranked-choice voting could hinge on another referendum in June that seeks to nullify a bill passed last year by the Legislature that delays its implementation until the Maine Constitution is amended.

For a roundup of Maine political news, click here for the Daily Brief. Click here to get Maine’s only newsletter on state politics via email on weekday mornings.

Follow the Bangor Daily News on Facebook for the latest Maine news.