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]


THE involvement of the Rockefeller family gives added piquancy to one of the two most significant shareholders-versus-board battles of this year's proxy season. (Carl Icahn's proposal to replace the board of Yahoo! is the other.) Of the 78 adult direct descendants of John D. Rockefeller Jr, 72 have endorsed a resolution to split the jobs of chairman and chief executive at Exxon Mobil, which eventually emerged from the antitrust break-up of the family oil monopoly, Standard Oil. Exxon strongly opposes the resolution and has tried to stem growing enthusiasm for it ahead of its annual meeting on May 28th by writing for a second time to shareholders urging them to vote no.

Last year the resolution won 40% of the vote, up from 34% in 2006. The endorsement of the Rockefellers (who nowadays own only a tiny slice of Exxon, though it is the family's biggest shareholding) is raising hopes of breaking through the 50% ceiling, as does the support of three of the leading firms that advise institutional shareholders on how to vote their proxies. Particularly significant is the support of Proxy Governance Inc, a firm that has previously opposed resolutions to split the jobs of chairman and chief executive. It gave warning that if Exxon continued its “my way or the highway” approach, it risked a “shareholder revolt”.

Even if it attracts over 50%, the resolution is non-binding. Yet it would be a hugely important result, says Robert Monks, a veteran corporate-governance activist who has proposed the resolution in each of the past six years. (Oddly, in two of those years, the Securities and Exchange Commission backed Exxon's decision to throw out the resolution, though the regulator has since realised that such pandering to management is out of step with today's corporate-governance climate.)

Not only is Exxon America's largest public company, with a stockmarket value of over $500 billion, it is also the most consistently hostile to shareholders, says Mr Monks. As he describes in his entertaining new book, “Corpocracy”, its annual meeting is a vigorous exercise in doing the minimum required by the law. Yet this year's vote could be a “turning-point in American corporate governance,” he says, revelling in the prospect of America's most important board “facing a majority, or powerful minority of shareholders saying they want something—and not doing it.”

Exxon says that its board is better placed than shareholders to determine its leadership structure, and that it wants Rex Tillerson to continue as both chairman and chief executive. This is in keeping with general practice among big American public companies. Over 60% of the firms in the S&P 500 have a combined chairman and chief executive. Around 25% have a “lead director” who chairs the compensation and audit committees (but Exxon does not). Only 16% have an independent director as chairman. Contrast that with Britain, where over 95% of public companies now split the two jobs, a shift that is generally agreed to have improved corporate governance and performance.

The involvement of the Rockefellers highlights the nonsensical nature of the complaint often made by opponents of shareholder rights—namely that shareholder resolutions tend to be the politically motivated work of activists and trade unions. They are generous philanthropists, but the Rockefellers are no bleeding hearts. Their support for the resolution is driven by a desire to maximise the long-term value of their Exxon shares.

“Rex Tillerson is a good manager, the board is good, but too often when times are good, shareholders and management don't look hard enough at their vulnerabilities,” says Peter O'Neill, speaking for the family. The Rockefellers worry that Exxon does not spend enough time analysing risks to the business, such as climate change and the need to replace reserves as countries are becoming more nationalistic about their natural resources. “The best way to ensure that all the scenarios are properly tested, to enhance Rex Tillerson's ability to do his job, is to appoint an independent chairman.”