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]


Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 14 August 2010

This week the drug company AstraZeneca paid out £125m to settle a class action. Over 17,500 patients claim the company withheld information showing that schizophrenia drug quetiapine (tradename Seroquel) might cause diabetes. Why do companies pay out money before cases get to court?

One interesting feature of litigation is that various documents enter the public domain. This is how we know about the tobacco industry’s evil plans to target children, or the fake academic journal that Elsevier created for Merck’s marketing department, and so on.

One of the most revealing single documents ever to come out of a drug company came from an earlier quetiapine case, now part of a large online archive: it is an email from John Tumas, Publications Manager at Astrazeneca. In it, he helpfully admits that they do everything I say drug companies do.

“Please allow me to join the fray”, John begins, in response to a colleague. “There has been a precedent set regarding ‘cherry picking’ of data.” Cherry picking is where you report only flattering data, and ignore or bury data you don’t like. The ears of lawyers will prick up at any use of the word “bury” in relation to drug company data, as it implies something deliberate, but luckily John uses this word himself. The precedents set on cherry picking, he explains, are “the recent Velligan presentations of cognitive function data from Trial 15 (one of the buried trials).”

Trial 15 is a legendary trial commissioned by AstraZeneca. Patients with schizophrenia who were in remission were randomly assigned to receive either AstraZenece’s quetiapine, or a cheap old-fashioned drug called haloperidol. After a year, the patients on Seroquel were doing worse: they had more relapses – a real world outcome that really matters – and worse ratings on various symptom scales. These negative findings were left unpublished: to use John’s word, they were “buried”.

But in among all these important negative findings, on a few measures of “cognitive functioning” – an attention task, a verbal memory test, and so on – Seroquel did better. This finding alone was published – by Velligan et al in 2002 – the fact that patients on Seroquel had worse outcomes for their schizophrenia was not. And Velligan’s paper was not a side show: it went on to become a highly influential piece of work, with over a hundred other academic research papers citing it. Many researchers can only dream of pubishing such a well cited piece of work.

Meanwhile study 15 also found that patients on Seroquel gained, on average, 5kg a year. This plainly put them at increased risk of diabetes, which is what Astrazeneca are now paying to settle on (and in any case, 5kg weight gain is a serious side effect in itself).

Drugs have side effect, and quetiapine is not unique: psychiatric drugs in particular can do more good than harm, overall, but many also have serious, common side effects. When that is the case, it’s especially important that doctors and patients know all the risks, so that sensible and informed trade-offs can be made.

This is just the first paragraph of one email over 100 in the last quetiapine case. It is endless: in exhibit 13 Richard Lawrence sends an internal memo to colleagues: “Lisa has done a great smoke and mirrors job” on trial 15, and so on.

It is also, remarkably, unremarkable. The pharmaceutical industry’s behaviour has collapsed into farce. Doctors and academics – who should feel optimism at working with them to develop new treatments – feel nausea instead, knowing there are only informal and ad hoc systems to deal with buried data, and these systems have clearly failed.

In 2005 the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors put their foot down, and said their journals would only publish trials that were fully registered before they started, which should make trials that went missing much easier to spot. Several years later, as we saw in this column, less than half of all the trials that ICMJE editors published were adequately registered, and more than a quarter weren’t registered at all.

After the New York attorney sued GlaxoSmithKline over their “illegal and deceptive” reporting of the risks of their antidepressant paroxetine (tradename Seroxat), GSK agreed to publish all trial data on a website: but this was only for that one company, and even there it clearly did little to fix the problem. We saw last month that GSK and the FDA sat on data showing that rosiglitazone (tradename Avandia) increased the risk of heart problems, several years after this agreement.

This week in the open access academic journal Trials, two researchers set out some ideas around international law to try and fix this gaping hole, and stop companies hiding data that doctors need to make safe decisions for their patients. They don’t go far enough. Any company withholding trial data harms patients. I can’t understand why any ethics committee would allow any company currently witholding data to confuct further experiments on people. I can’t see why the state doesn’t impose crippling fines. I hope it’s because politicians don’t understand the scale of the harms.