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]


Epilepsy occurs in approximately 1% of the population worldwide, (Thurman et al., 2011) of which 70% are able to adequately control their symptoms with the available existing anti-epileptic drugs (AED). However, 30% of this patient group, (Eadie et al., 2012), are unable to obtain seizure freedom from the AED that are available and as such are termed as suffering from “treatment-resistant epilepsy” (TRE).
Treatment-resistant epilepsy was defined in 2009 by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) as “failure of adequate trials of two tolerated and appropriately chosen and used AED schedules (whether as monotherapies or in combination) to achieve sustained seizure freedom” (Kwan et al., 2009).
Individuals who develop epilepsy during the first few years of life are often difficult to treat and as such are often termed treatment-resistant. Children who undergo frequent seizures in childhood are often left with neurological damage which can cause cognitive, behavioral and motor delays.
Childhood epilepsy is a relatively common neurological disorder in children and young adults with a prevalence of approximately 700 per 100,000. This is twice the number of epileptic adults per population.
When a child or young adult presents with a seizure, investigations are normally undertaken in order to investigate the cause. Childhood epilepsy can be caused by many different syndromes and genetic mutations and as such diagnosis for these children may take some time.
One such childhood epilepsy is Dravet syndrome. Onset of Dravet syndrome almost always occurs during the first year of life with clonic and tonic-clonic seizures in previously healthy and developmentally normal infants (Dravet, 2011). Symptoms peak at about five months of age. Other seizures develop between one and four years of age such as prolonged focal dyscognitive seizures and brief absence seizures.
Seizures progress to be frequent and treatment-resistant, meaning that the seizures do not respond well to treatment. They also tend to be prolonged, lasting more than 5 minutes. Prolonged seizures may lead to status epilepticus, which is a seizure that lasts more than 30 minutes, or seizures that occur in clusters, one after another.
Prognosis is poor and approximately 14% of children die during a seizure, because of infection, or suddenly due to uncertain causes, often because of the relentless neurological decline. Patients develop intellectual disability and life-long ongoing seizures. Intellectual impairment varies from severe in 50% patients, to moderate and mild intellectual disability each accounting for 25% of cases.
There are currently no FDA approved treatments specifically indicated for Dravet syndrome. The standard of care usually involves a combination of the following anticonvulsants: clobazam, clonazepam, levetiracetam, topiramate and valproic acid.
Stiripentol is approved in Europe for the treatment of Dravet syndrome in conjunction with clobazam and valproic acid. In the US, stiripentol was granted an Orphan Designation for the treatment of Dravet syndrome in 2008; however, the drug is not FDA approved.
Potent sodium channel blockers used to treat epilepsy actually increase seizure frequency in patients with Dravet Syndrome. The most common are phenytoin, carbamazepine, lamotrigine and rufinamide.
Management may also include a ketogenic diet, and physical and vagus nerve stimulation. In addition to anti-convulsive drugs, many patients with Dravet syndrome are treated with anti-psychotic drugs, stimulants, and drugs to treat insomnia.
Common AED defined by their mechanisms of action are described in the following tables:
Examples of Narrow Spectrum AED
Narrow-spectrum AEDMechanismPhenytoinSodium channelPhenobarbitalGABA/Calcium channelCarbamazepineSodium channelOxcarbazepineSodium channelGabapentinCalcium channelPregabalinCalcium channelLacosamideSodium channelVigabatrinGABA
Examples of Broad Spectrum AED
Broad-spectrum AEDMechanismValproic acidGABA/Sodium channelLamotrigineSodium channelTopiramateGABA/Sodium channelZonisamideGABA/Calcium/Sodium channelLevetiracetamCalcium channelClonazepamGABARufinamideSodium channel
Examples of AED Used Specifically in Childhood Epilepsy
AEDMechanismClobazamGABAStiripentolGABA
Over the past forty years there have been a number of animal studies on the use of the non-psychoactive cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD) to treat seizures. For example, Consroe et al., (1982) determined that CBD was able to prevent seizures in mice after administration of pro-convulsant drugs or an electric current.
Studies in epileptic adults have also occurred in the past forty years with CBD. Cunha et al. reported that administration of CBD to eight adult patients with generalized epilepsy resulted in a marked reduction of seizures in 4 of the patients (Cunha et al., 1980).
A study in 1978 provided 200 mg/day of pure CBD to four adult patients, two of the four patients became seizure free, whereas in the remainder seizure frequency was unchanged (Mechoulam and Carlini, 1978).
In contrast to the studies described above, an open label study reported that 200 mg/day of pure CBD was ineffective in controlling seizures in twelve institutionalized adult patients (Ames and Cridland, 1986).
Based on the fact that chronologically the last study to look at the effectiveness of CBD in patients with epilepsy proved that CBD was unable to control seizures, there would be no expectation that CBD might be useful as an anti-convulsant agent.
In the past forty years of research there have been over thirty drugs approved for the treatment of epilepsy none of which are cannabinoids. Indeed, there appears to have been a prejudice against cannabinoids, possible due to the scheduled nature of these compounds and/or the fact that THC, which is a known psychoactive, has been ascribed as a pro-convulsant (Consroe et al., 1977).
A paper published recently suggested that cannabidiol-enriched cannabis may be efficacious in the treatment of epilepsy. Porter and Jacobson (2013) report on a parent survey conducted via a Facebook group which explored the use of cannabis which was enriched with CBD in children with treatment-resistant epilepsy. It was found that sixteen of the 19 parents surveyed reported an improvement in their child's epilepsy. The children surveyed for this paper were all taking cannabis that was purported to contain CBD in a high concentration although the amount of CBD present and the other constituents including THC were not known. Indeed, whilst CBD levels ranged from 0.5 to 28.6 mg/kg/day (in those extracts tested), THC levels as high as 0.8 mg/kg/day were reported.
Providing children with TRE with a cannabis extract that comprises THC, which has been described as a pro-convulsant (Consroe et al., 1977), in even small amounts, let alone at a potentially psychoactive dose of 0.8 mg/kg/day, is extremely dangerous and as such there is a real need to determine whether CBD is in fact efficacious.
To date there have been no controlled trials of CBD in children and young adults with TRE.