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]



433 P.2d 946 (1967)
Charley GUILINGER, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
Reuben GUILINGER, Administrator of the Estate of Martha Guilinger, Deceased, Defendant in Error.
No. 41339.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
October 3, 1967.
Drennan & Drennan, by J.C. Drennan, Medford, for plaintiff in error.
Ellis W. Eddy, Medford, James E. Grigsby, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
*947 PER CURIAM:
The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court. Martha Guilinger died November 11, 1961, leaving a bank deposit jointly in the name of herself and a son, Charley Guilinger. After her death the defendant, Charley Guilinger, expended certain funds for funeral expenses, ad valorem tax and safety deposit box rental and withdrew the balance of the bank deposit.
Thereafter, this suit was instituted by plaintiff as administrator of the estate of Martha Guilinger to recover the balance of bank deposit, contending that the bank deposit was not of such nature as to vest a right of survivorship in the defendant. From the evidence it would appear that the essential facts are as follows: At the time of her death, Martha Guilinger left surviving her four children, one of whom was the defendant herein. In 1952 Martha Guilinger changed her bank account to an account jointly in the name of herself and the defendant. On the face of the bank signature card the account was shown as "joint." In the signature space provided there were placed both the names of Martha Guilinger and Charley Guilinger, above which the card stated that the bank was authorized to recognize any other signatures subscribed thereon in payment of funds or transaction of any business for the account. On the reverse side of the card, among other provisions, was a printed contract setting up a joint account with right of survivorship. Below this provision the card contained a place for signatures of the parties desiring to establish a survivorship account. The bank signature card in question in this case was not signed by the parties thereto. From the evidence offered in court it was shown that Martha Guilinger was an elderly lady and had on previous occasions been sick while visiting relatives in the State of Kentucky. Before her death she stated to witnesses that she had fixed the account so that defendant could check on it if she should die in Kentucky and bring her back for burial as she knew that none of her children had enough money of their own to bring her back to Oklahoma for burial. She told other witnesses that she had quite a bit of money in the bank to take care of her expenses and that after such there would be about $1,000.00 for each child. The testimony also established that at the time of the appointment of plaintiff as administrator of the decedent's estate, the defendant testified that the money "belonged to mother."
*948 This court has previously held that a bank deposit may be so arranged and handled that co-depositors may be joint owners thereof during their mutual lives and upon the death of one joint owner the survivor will take the whole thereof. However, we have held that the mere fact that money is deposited by one so that it may be withdrawn by himself and others is not in itself sufficient to create such joint interest in the deposit as to comprehend the right of survivorship. Monday v. Federal National Bank, 195 Okl. 120, 155 P.2d 526; Hickman v. Barrett, 175 Okl. 262, 52 P.2d 40.
The controlling question is whether the person creating the account intentionally and intelligently created a condition embracing essential elements of joint ownership and survivorship. Dyer v. Vann, Okl., 359 P.2d 1061. 7 Am.Jur., Banks, Par. 425.
The evidence in this case clearly establishes that the intent of Martha Guilinger upon establishing the joint bank account was not to create a survivorship interest in the defendant but was to allow defendant to draw on the joint bank account in the event decedent became ill or died while away from home and it became necessary for the defendant to bring her body back to her home for burial; after which the intention of the decedent was that the remaining funds were to be divided among her children. Following the holdings of the authorities quoted herein, infra, Martha Guilinger, when creating the account in question, did not intentionally and intelligently create a condition embracing the essential elements of joint ownership and survivorship and the mere fact that the joint account was established so that it could be withdrawn by the decedent and the defendant was not in itself sufficient to create a joint interest as to comprehend the right of survivorship.
Defendant contends that the contract shown on the bank signature card was clear and explicit and that a survivorship agreement was in fact contracted by the parties. That portion of the contract, however, which created the survivorship element was not signed by the parties. In fact, by the signatures on the card, the only authority given to the bank was to recognize the signatures in payment of the funds or the transaction of any business for the account. In our opinion this merely authorized the withdrawing of funds by either signature but was not sufficient to create a survivorship.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
This Court acknowledges the services of MARTIN E. DYER, who with the aid and counsel of J.I. GOINS and T. FRED COLLINS, as Special Masters, prepared a preliminary advisory opinion. These attorneys had been recommended by the Oklahoma Bar Association and appointed by the Court. The Chief Justice then assigned the case to DAVISON, J., for review and study, after which and upon consideration by the Court, the foregoing opinion was adopted.
All the Justices concur.