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]


What takes electricity, turns most of the energy into heat, and releases a small amount of light? That’s the incandescent lightbulb, a proven if rather inefficient technology from the 1800s but still found in millions of America’s light sockets today. The old-fashioned incandescent bulb lights a room, but it wastes more than 90 percent of the electricity it uses as heat, which increases our electric bills.

The good news is that we now have energy-saving alternatives for just about every type of bulb we use in our homes and businesses: LEDs, in particular, use a fraction of the electricity to make the same amount of light.

ADVERTISEMENT

But the Trump administration’s Energy Department wants to go backward and embrace a clearly obsolete bulb – proposing recently to roll back efficiency standards that would put more varieties of high-efficiency bulbs on store shelves next year. If it succeeds, we’ll all be stuck with extra energy costs, and our climate will suffer as we needlessly waste more energy for years to come.

We started this debate in 2007, when Congress overwhelmingly passed – and President George W. Bush signed – comprehensive energy legislation that helped usher in many of the more efficient lightbulb options we have today.

The law set energy efficiency standards for the traditional pear-shaped bulbs, meaning new bulbs sold had to produce a minimum amount of light for each unit of electricity they consumed. Those standards helped drive the rapid growth of the LED market, and prices dropped quickly. The public has benefited from buying less electricity and polluting less.

But pear-shaped bulbs make up only about half of the bulbs in U.S. households; what about the globe-shaped bulbs common over bathroom vanities, the cone-shaped bulbs in recessed lights, or the flame-shaped candelabra models? There are no efficiency standards for most of these bulbs, and the old energy-wasting types are still dominant on many store shelves and in homes and businesses.

Congress, in the bipartisan law passed 12 years ago, ordered the Energy Department to evaluate which other shapes of bulbs were being used for general lighting purposes – based in part on sales data – and include them in future efficiency standards. The department did just that in 2017, concluding that several types, including the globe, cone, and candelabra shapes, should be subject to efficiency standards as well.

That update was set to go into effect this coming January – meaning stores would be filled with more efficient bulbs of many shapes. But the Trump administration is now proposing to repeal that update, which would keep us firmly in the era of the energy-wasting bulbs.

The consequences are big. The Trump administration’s rollback, if successful, would needlessly saddle Americans with an enormous amount of energy waste for years to come. The extra electricity required would be equal to the amount produced by 25 coal power plants – or enough to power all the homes in New Jersey and Pennsylvania combined. And the average household would miss out on about $100 in guaranteed electricity savings every year.

The rollback wouldn’t just be bad economically; it would be a nightmare for our climate – requiring more polluting fossil fuel power plants to work to provide the extra electricity just to waste it on old-fashioned bulbs.

This is a time when we should be unleashing innovation, not arbitrarily putting up impediments to it. This Trump proposal is about as anti-innovation as you get.

The solution is easy: the administration should withdraw the rollback plan so households and businesses will keep the energy savings they were due to enjoy. We urge Congress and all who like saving energy and money while protecting the environment to weigh in against this plan by the public comment deadline on Friday. Now’s your chance.

Andrew deLaski is executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. Jason Hartke is President of the Alliance to Save Energy. Noah Horowitz is director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Center for Energy Efficiency Standards. Steve Nadel is executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.