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]


As we've noted in this space, McDonald was fired in 2012 after allegedly making "inappropriate comments" to Branch-Wise when he, too, was working for Mayor Hancock. That same year, he filed a lawsuit over his dismissal and won a $200,000 payout in 2016 — more than twice the $75,000 handed to Branch-Wise in 2013, reportedly owing to her experiences with McDonald.

At the outset of his video apology for his texts to Branch-Wise (including one in which he asked her if she'd ever taken a pole-dancing class), Hancock directly referenced McDonald. "Six years ago, Denver police detective Leslie Branch-Wise was a member of my security team," he stated. "In May of 2012, she called me. She let me know she had requested a transfer out of the unit because a member of my staff had sexually harassed her. I listened, and what I heard greatly disturbed me. I apologized that this had happened. We reviewed the matter and took immediate action. The employee was fired within days."

Afterward, William Sulton, McDonald's Milwaukee-based attorney, suggested in correspondence with Hancock's attorney, Thomas Rice, that these remarks violated confidentiality language in the 2016 settlement. He expanded on these assertions to Westword via email, writing, "In 2012, Mayor Hancock caused false statements about Mr. McDonald to be published. Mr. McDonald’s then-attorney tried to mitigate the damages caused by publicly disputing the false statements. That did not alleviate the damages. So Mr. McDonald sued and the taxpayers paid Mr. McDonald $200,000."

Former Hancock friend Wayne McDonald won a $200,000 settlement from the City of Denver in 2016.

File photo

Sulton added that "settlements, despite common clauses to the contrary, are acknowledgments of wrongdoing and the amount of a settlement is a measure of the wrongdoing. $200,000 is an extraordinary sum for a municipality to pay for an employment matter. A review of Denver’s employment settlements from 2004 shows that the settlement in Mr. McDonald’s case is one of the largest employment settlements in Denver’s history."

The sums paid to McDonald and Branch-Wise concern Espinoza, too. In his letter, he wonders if the information provided to Denver City Council prior to its vote to approve the outlays "omitted the extent of the harassment Branch-Wise was subject to" — specifically Mayor Hancock's own actions. Among the questions he asks: "Was the settlement agreement with Mr. McDonald designed to keep him from publicly revealing your own harassing behavior toward Ms. Branch-Wise?"

We've reached out to Hancock spokeswoman Amber Miller for comment about Espinoza's missive. If and when she gets back to us, we'll update this post.

In the meantime, the mayor continues to maintain an extremely low public profile, as he has ever since Branch-Wise first told her story to Denver7's Tony Kovaleski. This tactic suggests his hope that the scandal will blow over, as was the case back in 2011 following attempts to link him to the Denver Players/Denver Sugar prostitution ring. But Espinoza's direct challenge and demand for an independent investigation makes getting out of the latest situation unscathed that much more difficult.

I am very concerned that I and the members of Denver City Council were advised to vote for a 2016 settlement agreement related to the sexual harassment of Denver Police Det. Leslie Branch-Wise and the termination of Wayne McDonald which omitted the extent of the harassment Branch-Wise was subject to, and the apparent obfuscation and incomplete information conveyed at that time. At the behest of our attorney, David Broadwell, who was interim City Attorney because of the controversial actions of Scott Martinez, on your behalf, we voted to approve a settlement agreement, that I now believe — based on the recent revelations of your own harassing behavior in this matter — was ill-advised. As a representative and fiduciary of my constituents and the taxpayers of Denver I am very troubled that this matter was handled as it was by the City Attorney and you.

In light of your admission, I believe it is important that you address concerns about the circumstances surrounding the settlement:

• Did you and/or City Attorney knowingly obscure your own harassing behavior related to relations with Ms. Branch-Wise at the time of the termination of Mr. McDonald and subsequent settlement agreement;

• Was the settlement agreement with Mr. McDonald designed to keep him from publicly revealing your own harassing behavior toward Ms. Branch-Wise;

• Was the settlement agreement designed to limit the exposure of harassing behavior by you to other city employees or others?

Sexual harassment in the workplace — or anywhere else — is unacceptable and it is clear to me that your behavior related to Ms. Branch-Wise was indeed sexual harassment coming from the most powerful individual in the City. The citizens of Denver deserve no less than answers to these questions and a full and complete accounting of your behavior and the true context of the settlement agreements in relation to your actions.

While a briefing in Executive Session to members of City Council, by the current City Attorney...does nothing — because it will be in secret, and the City Attorney is taking unusual steps to ensure opacity — to provide the citizens with a full and accurate accounting of what occurred related to the sexual harassment of Det. Branch-Wise; the circumstances and reasons for her $75k settlement; and the termination of Mr. McDonald. Frankly I am less than confident that what will be presented will vary in any appreciable way from the less than forthcoming briefing we received when we were asked to approve the settlement.

Moreover, more questions have arisen since the revelation of the content of your text messages including whether other individuals may have been involved in or the target of harassing behavior.

If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.

SHOW ME HOW

Newsletters

SUCCESS!

You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!

Your constituents, the citizens of Denver, deserve to be confident that what you have averred, related to issues of sexual harassment, is indeed true, if there is nothing to these concerns state that clearly and unequivocally, otherwise a full public accounting is in order, rather than place members of Council, whom are without official recourse, in the firing line for your behavior.

To remove the cloud forming over your administration, it is in the best interests of the citizens of Denver that you direct the current City Attorney to commission an independent investigation by an outside party, selected by Council, to delve into this matter and provide a full accounting. This should be done with all due speed to ensure that voters have clarity the conduct of the person occupying the most powerful office in Denver, before they are asked to consider whom should occupy that seat.

Sincerely,

<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> City Councilman, District 1

Michael Roberts has written for Westword since October 1990, serving stints as music editor and media columnist. He currently covers everything from breaking news and politics to sports and stories that defy categorization.

We use cookies to collect and analyze information on site performance and usage, and to enhance and customize content and advertisements. By clicking 'X' or continuing to use the site, you agree to allow cookies to be placed. To find out more, visit our cookies policy and our privacy policy.