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]


1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to a method and apparatus for making pies, and more particularly, to a method and apparatus of making a split pie wherein separate sections of the pie contain different and distinct pie filling materials.
2. Description of the Prior Art
The public's infatuation with desserts and dessert products has constantly grown over the years, and will, by all reports, continue to do so in the future. Furthermore, the modern trend is exemplified by the fast food market which is constantly looking for new and easy-to-prepare products. Individual tastes are constantly changing. Large families are a rarity today, and family-type units of one, two or three members are predominant. Tastes within such families varies also so that it is often not worth baking or buying a whole pie having one single type of filling because it may not meet the taste demands of all of the various members of the family and part, perhaps most, of the pie may go to waste or get thrown out. It is totally unreasonable to bake or buy one, two or three pies having different fillings in order to meet the taste demands of each person in the family unit since this will normally supply far more pie than the family can eat and even more will be wasted and thrown down the garbage disposal. Because of such demands, methods for making frozen pies which are fully cooked, partially cooked and/or not baked at all before freezing are well-known. These pies are all found in the frozen food sections of the grocery store, and the like, for home consumption, either after baking is completed or after some degree of heating. The prior art does not teach making a frozen pie which is pre-divided into two or more halves, slices or sections, let alone a pie having different and distinct filling materials within the separate sections or divisions of the single unitary pie.
Also because of current trends, there has been a great increase in demand for the sale of relatively small, snack-size oblong pies which are generally lacking in taste, stale before eaten, and relatively expensive per portion. None of such pies are sold as a single pie having two or more separate and distinct pie fillings, and most are eaten cold unless they have been taken home and microwaved, or otherwise heated, which is the exception to the rule.
Typical of the prior art of baking pre-frozen pies, and representative thereof is U.S. Pat. No. 4,265,919, which issued on May 5, 1981 to Arnold M. Munter and David W. Ahlgren for a Process For Producing A Food Product. This patent teaches a process for producing a frozen, pre-prepared food product such as a pot pie, fruit pie, or the like. In order to practice the process, a specialized container is provided which has a centrally depressed receptacle and an outwardly and downwardly extending rim. The food filling is first deposited in the container receptacle. The container receptacle and rim are then covered with a sheet of unbaked pie dough so that the pie dough is shaped to conform to the container rim. The now-filled and covered container, which comprises the food product, is then frozen so that when a sufficient amount of heat is applied to the product, the filling heats to a fluid state. Thus, when the food product is inverted and the container removed, the filling flows outwardly to fill the upstanding crust formed by the baked dough. Various other patents teach methods for making pre-filled pies which are either partially baked, entirely baked, or not baked at all prior to freezing and packaging for sale in a grocery store, or the like.
None of the methods for making pre-frozen pies teach or even remotely consider dividing a pie into halves or sections before baking or dividing a pie into a plurality of sections each of which can contain a different and distinct pie filling material so that we still have the situation where an entire pie must be consumed, regardless of the taste preferences of the buyer and members of the family unit.
The prior art also teaches a wide range of devices which are similar to or referred to as "dividers", but which are used only to facilitate the removal of a pie from the pan once it is baked or its removal in sections each having the same identical pie filling. Examples of such devices are shown in U.S. Pat. No. 2,954,729 which issued on Oct. 4, 1960 to C. G. Suica for a Pie Shell Forming Device; U.S. Pat. No. 2,123,359 which issued on July 12, 1938 to E. O. Hallmark for a "Pie Pan"; and U.S. Pat. No. 2,327,988 which issued on Aug. 31, 1943 to Ethel Nell Bassett for a "Pie Pan". The first of these patents provides a bracket which lies on the bottom of the pie pan and whose only function is to operate to position a device for forming a fluted rim on the pie. The Hallmark Patent teaches a removable divider which is triangular in shape and filled with perforations to provide a pre-divided pie or a pie divided into slices, but the divider cannot be removed during cooking; is not removed for the purposes of providing separate and distinct filling materials in the various sections; cannot be removed until the pie is 100% baked; is hollow and filled with holes for the purpose of passing heat from one piece to another; and is difficult and messy to clean and maintain. The device actually appears to render it even more difficult to remove a slice of pie from the pie pan or container in which it is baked, and to remove the divider first would destroy the aesthetic appearance of the pie as it ripped through the top shell by the rather wide triangular base portion.
Lastly, the Bassett Patent teaches a divider having two separable pieces which are shaped to facilitate the removal of the pie from the pie pan. It is actually an improved two-piece pie pan construction and requires modification to the pie pan itself, as well as the other assemblies associated therewith. Its object is to provide a pie pan in which dividers may be employed so as to enable the division or pre-slicing of the pie into any desired number of segments or regulated sizes before the pie is baked. Again, it cannot be removed until after the pie is removed from the pan after baking, it is difficult to clean and maintain, it nowhere teaches or even remotely suggests putting different pie fillings in different sections; and, in fact, requires horizontal flange members on the bottom of the divider where the plane of the flange member is parallel to the inserted pie bottom and which would absolutely prevent removal from the assembly.
None of the patents of the prior art, including those specified above, teach or even remotely suggest any type of divider or separator which is adapted to be removed from the pie before it is completely baked or after it is baked and before it is sliced, and to try to do so would destroy or greatly mess up the pie as a unit and destroy its aesthetic appearance. Furthermore, none of these apparatus are designed to make a sectional pie capable of having different and distinct pie filling materials in the separate sections, portions or divisions thereof. Lastly, all are for home baking and none are suggested for use in making pre-frozen pies for the commercial market. Lastly, most are extremely complex and mechanically complicated and utilize a plurality or multitude of mechanical pieces and assemblies or modifications to the conventional circular pie pan itself, and are more difficult to clean, more difficult to maintain, etc.
The present invention provides a method and apparatus not found anywhere in the known prior art, but which solves many of the problems thereof, while avoiding the many problems associated therewith.