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]


                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-1661



FORREST SLAUGHTER,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social
Security,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-58-1)


Submitted:   September 15, 2004        Decided:     February 23, 2005


Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David S. Bary, WOLFE, WILLIAMS & RUTHERFORD, Norton, Virginia, for
Appellant.   Donna L. Calvert, Regional Chief Counsel, Eric P.
Kressman, Supervisory Attorney, Teri C. Smith, Assistant Regional
Counsel,    SOCIAL    SECURITY    ADMINISTRATION,    Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Fred B.
Westfall, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

              Forrest Slaughter appeals the district court’s order

rejecting the recommendation of a magistrate judge and granting

summary judgment for the Government after concluding substantial

evidence supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of

Social Security benefits.             We affirm.

              Judicial review of a final decision regarding disability

benefits under the Social Security Act is limited to determining

whether      the     findings   of     the    Commissioner     are   supported    by

substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied.

Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990).                   Supported

by    substantial       evidence      means    such   relevant    evidence   as    a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Id.    This evidence may be more than a scintilla but less than a

preponderance. See Shively v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 987, 989 (4th Cir.

1984).       It is not within the province of the reviewing court to

assess the weight of the evidence or to substitute its judgment for

that    of    the     Commissioner      if    his   decision    is   supported    by

substantial evidence.           Id.     It is the duty of the ALJ, not the

courts, to make findings of fact and to resolve conflicts in the

evidence.      Id.

              A claimant bears the burden of proving a disability

entitling him to benefits.             42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5) (2000); Hall v.

Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 264 (4th Cir. 1981).               Disability is defined


                                         - 2 -
as: “[the] inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity

by   reason    of   any   medically    determinable       physical        or     mental

impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has

lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not

less than 12 months . . . .”          42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A) (2000).

              The   applicable   regulations      establish          a    five     step

sequential     evaluation    process    to    determine     if   a       claimant    is

disabled.     20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2004).        If an individual is found

not disabled at any step, the inquiry ends.                 Under this process,

the ALJ must determine:          (1) whether the claimant is currently

engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether he has

a severe impairment; (3) if so, whether the impairment meets or

equals medical criteria warranting a finding of disability without

considering     vocational    factors;    and    (4)   if    not,        whether    the

impairment prevents him from performing his past relevant work.

Id.; Hall, 658 F.2d at 264.       The claimant establishes a prima facie

case of disability by satisfying either step (3) or (4).                            The

burden then shifts to the Commissioner for the fifth and final

inquiry:       whether the claimant is able to perform other work

considering his remaining physical and mental capacities and his

vocational capabilities to adjust to a new job.               Hall, 658 F.2d at

264-65.     The ALJ found Slaughter met the first two steps of this

inquiry, but failed to meet either step three or four.




                                      - 3 -
           We    conclude   substantial    evidence   supports     the   ALJ’s

finding   that   Slaughter   failed   to   demonstrate   he   is    mentally

retarded under 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00(A)

(2004).   We further conclude the ALJ did not err when it found

Slaughter’s impairments do not prevent him from performing his past

work as a floor cleaner or foam cutter.       Accordingly, we affirm the

decision of the district court.        We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.


                                                                    AFFIRMED




                                  - 4 -