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]


                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                             AT NASHVILLE
                                  January 23, 2014 Session

             TERRY MORRISON, ET AL. v. RICHARD HUBBELL

                 Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County
                    No. 090133I    Claudia Bonnyman, Chancellor




             No. M2013-00822-COA-R3-CV- Filed February 11, 2014



Landlords filed suit against a tenant for breach of the rental contract. The trial court held the
tenant breached the contract and awarded the landlords damages for the breach. Tenant
appeals asserting that the landlords failed to mitigate their damages, that his counsel was
ineffective, and that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.
Tenant’s arguments are without merit. We affirm the trial court.

   Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

A NDY D. B ENNETT, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which P ATRICIA J. C OTTRELL,
M.S., P.J., and R ICHARD H. D INKINS, J., joined.

Richard Hubbell, Hendersonville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Joe M. Haynes, Goodlettsville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Terry Morrison and Laurie
Guethlein.

                                            OPINION

                             F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL H ISTORY

        On June 27, 2008, Kim and Richard Hubbell (“Tenants”) entered into a three-year
lease agreement with Terry Morrison and Laurie Guethlein (“Landlords”) whereby Landlords
leased Tenants a one-story building in Hermitage, Tennessee. Tenants agreed to pay
Landlords monthly installments of $4,500 the first year, $4,800 the second year, and $5,100
the third year, plus personal property taxes, real estate taxes, and insurance.
       Tenants used the premises to operate Morehouse Dance Academy and paid rent in
accordance with the contract until August 2008. In September 2008, Tenants disconnected
the power and vacated the premises. Landlords filed suit against Tenants on January 22, 2009
alleging that Tenants breached the Building Lease contract.

       Tenants filed for bankruptcy on January 28, 2009. The trial court entered an order on
February 19, 2010 stating that the case was closed during the pendency of the bankruptcy
stay and thereafter, unless a party reopened the case. On May 26, 2011, Landlords filed a
motion to “lift the automatic stay and set aside” the February 19, 2010 order as to Mr.
Hubbell. As grounds for the motion, Landlords cited a May 10, 2011 order entered in the
bankruptcy court that permanently revoked the discharge granted to Mr. Hubbell. The trial
court granted Landlords’ motion by order entered June 28, 2011.

      On July 27, 2011, Tenants filed an answer which included the following affirmative
defense:

              [Landlords] represented that [Tenants] would have a substantial number
       of students for their dance studio, carrying over from [Landlords’] operation.
       In addition to execution of the lease agreement, [Tenants] paid approximately
       $28,000 to [Landlords] for the personalty used in the dance studio.
       Unbeknownst to [Tenants], [Landlords] intended to and did, in fact, open a
       new dance studio a short distance from the leased premises and retained most
       of the students who would have been students of the [Tenants]. The
       misrepresentation concerning and/or failure to disclose the intended
       competition damaged the [Tenants] as a result of their detrimental reliance
       thereon.

       The trial court entered a case management order on July 17, 2012 stating:
       The case was re-opened June 28, 2012[1 ] as to defendant, Richard Hubbell.
       The Court extends the disposition date until September 4, 2012. The case must
       be resolved or set for trial by the above date otherwise it will be dismissed for
       failure to proceed, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil
       Procedure.

On August 20, 2012, Landlords filed a motion to set the case for a hearing which was granted
by order entered September 28, 2012.




       1
           Mr. Hubbell points out that this date should be June 28, 2011.

                                                 2
      The trial court held a hearing 2 on February 12, 2013 and determined that Tenants
breached the contract. The court entered an order on February 14, 2013 finding damages in
the amount of $70,626.58 resulting from the breach. The court calculated damages as
follows:

       Rents due:
       Year One                                       $59,915.00
       Year Two                                       $63,515.00
       Year Three                                     $67,115.00
       Total Rent due under 2008 lease:               $190,545.00

       Credits:
       Lease deposit by the Defendant:                $1,000.00
       Two Rent payments by the Defendants:           $9,985.00
       Rent payments by the new tenant:               $98,208.52
       Payment through the Bankruptcy Court:          $10,724.00
       Total Credits:                                 $119,918.42

       Rent due less credits:                          $70,626.58

The court also awarded attorneys fees and costs.

       Mr. Hubbell appeals.

                                      S TANDARD OF R EVIEW

       In a civil case tried without a jury, we review the trial court’s findings of fact de novo
with a presumption of correctness unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.
Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). We review questions of law de novo with no presumption of
correctness. Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 625, 628 (Tenn. 1999).

                                        ISSUES P RESENTED

        Mr. Hubbell raises three issues for our review. First, he contends the trial court erred
in awarding damages to Landlords because Landlords failed to “adequately mitigate their
losses.” Second, Mr. Hubbell argues his counsel was ineffective. Finally, Mr. Hubbell
asserts that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. We will


       2
           The record does not contain a transcript of the hearing.

                                                  3
address each contention in turn.

                                              A NALYSIS

        As an initial matter, we note that we may only “consider those facts established by the
evidence in the trial court and set forth in the record.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13(c). Our ability
to address Mr. Hubbell’s arguments on appeal is hindered by the fact that the record does not
contain a transcript of the hearing, nor does it include a statement of the evidence prepared
in accordance with Tenn. R. App. P. 24(c). “It is well settled that, in the absence of a
transcript or statement of the evidence, there is a conclusive presumption that there was
sufficient evidence before the trial court to support its judgment, and this Court must
therefore affirm the judgment.” Outdoor Mgmt., LLC v. Thomas, 249 S.W.3d 368, 377
(Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (citing McKinney v. Educator and Exec. Insurers, Inc., 569 S.W.2d
829, 832 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977)). Mr. Hubbell, as the appellant in this case, has the burden
to provide this Court with a fair, accurate, and complete account of what transpired in the
trial court. See Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b). He has failed to carry this burden. 3 Without a
complete record or sufficient statement of the evidence from which to determine whether the
trial court acted appropriately, we are compelled to presume that the trial court’s decision in
favor of Landlords was supported by the evidence submitted at the hearing. Therefore, Mr.
Hubbell’s issue regarding mitigation of damages must be determined in Landlord’s favor.

        Mr. Hubbell’s claim that his counsel was ineffective is similarly unavailing. There
is no absolute right to counsel in a civil trial. Memphis Bd. of Realtors v. Cohen, 786 S.W.2d
951, 953 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). Mr. Hubbell has no constitutional right to effective
assistance of counsel in this case, thus his claim must fail. See Welch v. Bd. of Prof’l
Responsibility, 193 S.W.3d 457, 465 (Tenn. 2006) (holding that a claim for ineffective
assistance of counsel is not a proper ground for granting relief in a civil case).

        Finally, Mr. Hubbell asserts that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the case for
failure to prosecute pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(1). The record reflects that Landlords
filed a motion to set the case for a hearing in accordance with the trial court’s July 17, 2012
case management order. Moreover, we find nothing in the record to suggest that Mr. Hubbell
made a motion to dismiss the case. As such, Mr. Hubbell’s argument is without merit.




       3
          We note that “courts must not excuse pro se litigants from complying with the same substantive
and procedural rules that represented parties are expected to observe.” Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d
901, 903 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

                                                   4
                                     C ONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court awarding
Landlords damages from the breach of contract. Costs of appeal are assessed against the
appellant.




                                                        _________________________
                                                        ANDY D. BENNETT, JUDGE




                                           5