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]


Ethylenediamine-disuccinate (EDDS, also referred to as ethylenediamine disuccinic acid) is a hexadentate chelating agent. EDDS has two stereo centers and, accordingly, presents three different stereoisomers, namely [R,R]-EDDS, [S,S]-EDDS and [R,S]-(meso)-EDDS. It has proved that exclusively the [S,S]-EDDS stereoisomer is subject to complete biological degradation (Schowanek et al., Chemosphere (1997), 34(11):2375-91).
Also, EDDS is a structural isomer of ethylenediamine-tetraacetate (EDTA), a widely-used and likewise hexadentate chelating agent. Both compounds are very similar in their chemical characteristics, in particular in view of their capability of chelating metal ions. Thus, EDDS and EDTA exhibit comparable chelating constants for quite a variety of metal ions.
For many decades, EDTA has been employed for removal of metal ions in most different fields on account of its pronounced chelating capability. At present, it is the most used chelating agent. Particularly stable complexes are formed with copper(II), nickel(II), iron(III) and cobalt(II) ions, but also with heavy metal ions and calcium and magnesium ions.
Therefore, EDTA is in particular added to detergents as a water softener, but is also used to stabilize bleaching liquors in the field of paper and textile industry, and is applied as a fertilizer in the form of iron, copper and zinc complexes thereof. Likewise, EDTA is employed in the medical field to treat heavy metal intoxication.
A drawback is that EDTA is not biodegradable and, thus, may be detected in ubiquitous waters. EDTA is considered to be eco-unfriendly, in particular due to the fact that it can dissolve heavy metals from sediments and make them bioavailable in this way.
With this background it is desirable to replace EDTA by equivalent, however, biologically degradable compounds in terms of sustainable material policy.
EDDS in the form of the biodegradable stereoisomer [S,S]-EDDS represents a generally utile alternative material owing to chelating constants comparable to EDTA.
The chemical synthesis of [S,S]-EDDS starting from L-aspartic acid and 1,2-dibromomethane in the presence of trivalent cobalt is well-known (Neal and Rose, Inorganic Chemistry (1968), 7(11):2405-12). A drawback thereby is the toxic side product hydrogen bromide which needs extensive removal. Moreover, the synthesis is done using fossil educts.
Furthermore, a non-enantioselective chemical method is well-known, wherein maleic acid or maleic anhydride and ethylene diamine are reacted, producing a racemic mixture of [R,R]-EDDS and [S,S]-EDDS together with 50% meso-EDDS. However, due to the low yield of [S,S]-EDDS and the basically very laborious racemate separation, the method is generally inappropriate for industrial application.
A biocatalytic method of producing [S,S]-EDDS is disclosed in EP 0 731 171 A2. Using the procedure described therein, [S,S]-EDDS can be obtained starting from fumaric acid and ethylene diamine under the action of microorganisms exhibiting lysis activity in an optical purity of up to 97%. Another biocatalytic method of producing [S,S]-EDDS is disclosed in EP 1 043 400 A1, wherein [S,S]-EDDS can be obtained starting from maleic acid and ethylene diamine in the presence of microorganisms exhibiting maleate isomerase activity and metal ions in an optical purity of up to 98%. However, both the biocatalytic methods rely on the use of synthetic precursors that cannot be provided by the microorganisms themselves.
Furthermore well-known is the biosynthesis of [S,S]-EDDS using the bacteria species Amycolatopsis japonicum (Zwicker et al., Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology (1997); 19(4):280-285). However, a drawback thereby is that the biosynthesis is zinc-dependent, and a zinc concentration as low as 2 μM in the culture medium is capable of causing an almost complete disruption of the [S,S]-EDDS synthesis (Cebulla I., Thesis (1995), University of Tubingen).
A method using zinc-free reaction conditions to produce [S,S]-EDDS by Amycolatopsis japonicum and using an optimized culture medium is described in WO 96/36725 A1.
In particular the fact that application of the synthesis procedures in a large scale has proved to be complicated and uneconomical due to the zinc dependency and low yields related thereto, is an issue with the generic biosynthesis methods for [S,S]-EDDS. Indeed, generating a zinc-free environment in culture media and fermenters entails considerable expenses and is almost impossible.
With this background, it could therefore be helpful to provide proteins or peptides, nucleic acids, gene clusters, vectors, host cells, bacterial cells, and a method and a kit for the biosynthesis of [S,S]-EDDS.