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]


Tony Abbott, Bill Shorten and Indigenous leaders dealt primarily with process rather than substance in their Monday meeting on constitutional recognition of the first Australians. This made it a whole lot easier than what lies ahead.

They did not attempt to bridge the wide gulf between advocates of a minimalist rewrite to give the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders their due place in the Constitution, and those who say the change must go to the broader issue of prohibiting discrimination.

Instead, the gathering, including some 40 Indigenous invitees, was about mapping a path, hearing points of view but not ruling anything in or out, and creating some glue between major players.

But that participants came out of it mostly speaking positively – although Noel Pearson criticised the meeting for being stage-managed – is good, especially because recently the divisions have loomed large and the momentum for the referendum has seemed to slow.

Veteran Indigenous leader Pat Dodson, who has seen more than most in Aboriginal affairs and often been deeply frustrated and disappointed – and may yet be again - described this as “a great occasion, a great event, a historic event and terribly meaningful, I think, in the context of what we’re trying to do around a very complicated matter”.

“We didn’t come to concluded views on models or propositions but I do think we made a fair amount of progress on the steps that are needed to go forward.”

As things stand, the referendum will be enormously hard to get through. The challenge at this stage will be to keep the debate moving, and not be deterred by the difficulties.

A national “conversation” is to be held, with three initiatives announced on Monday.

There will be a series of up to 40 community conferences across the country over the coming year, starting in September, to discuss the issues – and before them a parliamentary discussion.

The parliamentary committee that has already reported on constitutional recognition, chaired by the Liberals’ Ken Wyatt, with deputy chair Labor’s Nova Peris, both Indigenous, will produce a discussion paper on the issues, including various options that have been canvassed.

A Referendum Council, “broadly reflective of the Australian people”, will be set up to look at matters including how the question to be put to the people might be settled, timing, and constitutional issues.

Abbott and Shorten will receive regular reports from the council and together with their respective parties “consider its final recommendations in developing a proposal to put to the parliament and, if supported, the Australian people”, Abbott said in a statement with Shorten. Shorten said the function of the council, to include Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, would be “to keep matters on track”.

Abbott, who hopes that by the middle of next year “we might be able to crystallise a consensus about how our constitution could change” – in other words, have a question – has indicated he is open to a constitutional convention perhaps in the second half of 2016 or early 2017.

Shorten said that “in an ideal world” it would be desirable to have as much of the detail of a proposed referendum change locked away before the election – which would depend on the government going full term.

Abbott still hopes the vote could be in May 2017, the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, although he admits “that’s a tight deadline”. He says he certainly wants to see it done next term.

There is agreement the question should be put “when there is the best possible chance of success”. But with a referendum requiring an overall majority and a majority of states, judging that time will not be easy.

Abbott and Shorten had their key catchlines. Abbott talked about ending the “echoing silence” in the constitution about the Indigenous people; Shorten said that “if our constitution is our nation’s birth certificate then it needs to include all Australians”.

The nature of the day smoothed or masked the differences in the two leaders’ views. Abbott is passionate about getting a successful outcome. But he’s personally cautious about the scope of the question, and aware of the resistance within his conservative base to doing anything.

Abbott’s also mindful of the obstacles referendums face. Monday’s Fairfax/Ipsos poll showed 85% support for recognising Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in the constitution as the first inhabitants of Australia. But people were responding to a bland question, and before the “no” campaigners get to work. “While there is an abundance of goodwill in the general public, they’re at the beginning of this process. They’re not halfway through it,” Abbott said.

Shorten is in favour of something more substantive than Abbott. What had been recognised at the meeting was that “we don’t want to have the tyranny of low expectations”, that just symbolic change was unsatisfactory, he told his news conference, but added “what was also recognised is there needs to be compromise”.

The majority of Indigenous voices, including Wyatt’s parliamentary committee, are saying strongly that constitutional change needs to include an anti-discrimination provision.

But Frank Brennan, who brings to the subject deep legal knowledge and a long history of involvement in Indigenous questions, writes in his recently published book No Small Change: The road to recognition for indigenous Australia: “A constitutional ban on racial discrimination would require the High Court to second-guess every piece of legislation relating to Aborigines coming before the Commonwealth parliament”.

“Only a modest referendum proposal will have the prospect of being carried, of being workable and of being sufficiently certain in its future application.”

Whether Monday’s meeting will live up to the “historic” description will depend on where the process it has started finishes up. Can a consensus be found that is both reassuring and robust enough to win broad acceptance from the key players and then to fly in a referendum?

POSTSCRIPT

Next month, Abbott will spend a week in the Torres Strait Islands and Northern Peninsula Area. He will take a number of ministers and officials. This meets his pledge of spending a week annually in a remote indigenous community.