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]


Aviatika-MAI-890

The Aviatika-MAI-890 is a pod-and-boom, pusher configuration biplane ultralight designed and built by the Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI) in Russia in the 1980s. As well as being a sport and training aircraft, significant numbers have been used for agricultural spraying.  It remained in production in 2015.

Design and development

The MAI-890 design originated and was developed by the Experimental Aircraft design section, known as OSKBES, of the School of Aeronautics at the MAI.  From about 1990 the MAI design bureau became part of the Aviatika joint-stock company to facilitate aircraft production, so that for much of the 1990s the 890 was an Aviatika product.  In 1998 MAI acquired the production rights from Aviatika and marketed it as the Aviatika-MAI-890. The starting point was the open cockpit, short span Junior which appeared in 1987 and developed into the full-span, enclosed seat prototype MAI-89 in 1989.   The production prototype, designated MAI-890, followed the next year and production began in 1991.  Since then two seat and agricultural versions have been produced.

The MAI-890 has a structure of mixed aluminium, titanium and steel alloys and is fabric covered.  It is an unequal span biplane with a straight lower wing of constant chord and some dihedral, which carries full span ailerons.  The upper wing has greater span, some sweep but no dihedral, with constant chord over much of its span but with taper on the outer panels.  It is a single bay biplane with one, slender interplane strut on each side assisted by flying wires; at its centre, the upper wing is fixed to the underwing engine mounting.  Enclosed single or side-by-side seating is positioned ahead of the lower wing leading edge.  A slender boom from the bottom of the fuselage pod carries the empennage; all tail surfaces are straight edged and strongly tapered and have generous control areas, with ground-adjustable trim tabs on the elevators.

All current MAI-890 are powered by Rotax engines mounted in pusher configuration, the type depending on the aircraft variant and option.  It has a short-legged, fixed tricycle undercarriage with cantilever main legs attached the boom behind the cabin.

Operational history
More than 300 aircraft were reported sold by 2006, about 60 of them agricultural variants, about 30 exported to South Africa.  26 MAI-89s and -890s appeared in the civil aircraft registers of European countries outside Russia in mid-2010.

Variants
Data from Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2011/12 
Junior Open cockpit single seater with short span (5.68 m; 18 ft 7.5 in); maximum take-off weight (MTOW) 282 kg (617 lb). First flew July 1987.
MAI-89 longer span (8.11 m; 26 ft 7.5 in); MTOW 340 kg (750 lb).  Flown 1989.
MAI-890 Production version, flown 1990 and produced from 1991 with interruption in mid-1990s but with a 2002 statement that production continued. Single seater.
MAI-890U Two side-by-side seats. First flown August 1991 with 48 kW (64 hp) Rotax 582 UL engine; standard engine, first flown 16 September 1992, is the Rotax 912 UL.  MTOW 540 kg (1,190 lb).  Floatplane version tested 2000.
Aviatika-MAI-890SKh Farmer Single seat, MAI-890 based, Rotax 912 ULS or Rotax 582 powered crop-spraying version, with a spraybar aft of the lower wing s fed from a tank below the engine.
Aviatika-MAI-890USKh Two seat, MAI-890U based crop-spraying version.
Aviatika-MAI-890S South African designation of prototype converted to Rotax 912 ULS; in Russian terms a MAI-890.
980U Mai South African name for MAI-890U.
980CSH Mai South African name for agricultural version.

Specifications (890USKh crop-sprayer, Rotax 912 ULS engine)

References

Category:Biplanes
Category:1990s agricultural aircraft
Category:1980s Soviet civil utility aircraft
Category:Single-engined pusher aircraft
Category:Aircraft first flown in 1987