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]


851 F.2d 1501
271 U.S.App.D.C. 274
Unpublished DispositionNOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.MICHIGAN CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY, Petitioner,v.FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.
No. 87-1006.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
April 19, 1988.

Before D.H. GINSBURG and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges, FRANK A. KAUFMAN,* Senior District Judge.
JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.


1
This case was considered on the record on petition for review from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and was briefed and argued by counsel for petitioner and respondent.  For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is


2
ORDERED and ADJUDGED by the court that the petition for review is hereby denied.


3
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing.  See D.C.Cir. Rule 15.

MEMORANDUM

4
Petitioner Michigan Consolidated Gas Co., ("MichCon"), a public utility organized under the laws of the state of Michigan, challenges an order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("the Commission") issuing to Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co., ("Panhandle") certificates to transport gas on behalf of 39 end users pursuant to Sec. 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 717f(c).  MichCon contends that the certificates constitute a "transportation program" that is unduly discriminatory against certain local distribution companies, including MichCon.  The Commission rejected MichCon's claim in an order dated May 1, 1986, J.A. at 125, and denied rehearing in an order dated November 10, 1986, J.A. at 250.  For the reasons stated below, MichCon's petition for review is denied.

I.

5
During November and December of 1985, Panhandle filed seven individual applications for authorization to transport gas under Sec. 7(c).  Each application indicated the names of the customers requesting transportation services, the volume of gas to be transported, and the date on which the transportation would cease (June 30, 1986).  MichCon moved to intervene in the proceedings in order to protest Panhandle's applications.  In its pleadings before the Commission, MichCon noted that Panhandle's applications did not request authorization to serve its local distribution company customers ("LDCs") and suggested that the proposed services were therefore "unduly discriminatory."    J.A. at 46.  MichCon opposed the issuance of any certificates to Panhandle unless they were subject to the non-discrimination conditions required for "blanket" certificates under the Commission's Order No. 436, 50 Fed.Reg. 42,408.  See J.A. at 78.


6
In its May 1, 1986 Order, the Commission granted MichCon's motion to intervene,1 but declined to impose any non-discrimination conditions on Panhandle's certificates.  The Order stated that "[w]hile the Commission will reject undue discrimination in individual section 7(c) arrangements as well as transactions under self-implementing authority, it has not applied the non-discriminatory access conditions to individual section 7(c) arrangements."    J.A. at 128-29.  In this case, the Commission noted that


7
Mich Con's and Hadson's allegations that the proposed transportation service is unduly discriminatory are not supported by specific facts.  We find significant ... that neither party has argued that they or any other customer or customer class have been denied transportation service under a section 7(c) certificate.  In fact, Panhandle has stated that it will seek authority pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA to transport gas for any shipper requesting transportation service.  (See Panhandle's March 13, 1986 letter to the Secretary of the Commission.)


8
J.A. at 129 (footnote omitted).2   In the absence of "any allegation of specific discrimination," the Commission issued Panhandle a limited-term certificate of public convenience and necessity to transport gas pursuant to Sec. 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act.


9
MichCon filed a request for rehearing on May 30, 1986.  In this pleading, it argued (1) that the Commission had erred by failing to hold a hearing to determine whether the terms and conditions under which Panhandle offers transportation are unduly discriminatory, and (2) that the Commission erred as a matter of law in failing to find that Panhandle's proposed transportation services were unduly discriminatory and in failing to attach nondiscriminatory access conditions to Panhandle's certificates.  With respect to the second argument, MichCon asserted that the Commission's reliance on the fact that no carrier had been denied transportation by Panhandle "misses the point."    J.A. at 147.  MichCon argued that "[m]eaningful access to transportation" for LDCs "must include the option of reducing or converting their contract entitlement, or at the very least minimum bill crediting."    J.A. at 147.  Without these options, according to MichCon, "such LDC's [sic] cannot obtain transportation from Panhandle on terms that are the same as those offered other shippers, including the 39 shippers involved in these proceedings."    J.A. at 147.  MichCon therefore renewed its claim that Panhandle's Sec. 7(c) certificates should be subject to the regulations applicable to blanket certificates under Order No. 436, including the provisions requiring contract demand reduction and conversion.


10
Although the Commission rejected this petition for rehearing, it stated that if "MichCon, or any other shipper requests transportation service and Panhandle insists upon terms and conditions that are inconsistent with its [tariff], or if a shipper believes that Panhandle's tariff is unduly discriminatory, the shipper may file a complaint against Panhandle."    J.A. at 255.  In this regard, the Commission noted that, in connection with related proceedings concerning Panhandle's pending application to extend the certificates, MichCon had alleged that Panhandle had refused to reduce its contract demand or to credit its minimum bill.  The Commission reported that this specific allegation of discrimination had been set for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge in connection with consolidated proceedings on Panhandle's Sec. 7(c) applications.  See J.A. at 255.

II.

11
On appeal, MichCon urges this court to decide whether, in light of Maryland People's Counsel v. FERC, 761 F.2d 780 (D.C.Cir.1985), and the Commission's Order No. 436, 50 Fed.Reg. 42,408 (1985), a pipeline that is not currently abiding by the non-discrimination conditions of blanket transportation programs may nonetheless transport gas under individual Sec. 7(c) certificates.3   We find that this important question is not properly before us at this time.  In previous proceedings, the Commission has determined that while the conditions specified in Order No. 436 will not automatically be applied to Sec. 7(c) arrangements, such transactions will be scrutinized on an individual basis for undue discrimination.  See Texas Gas Transmission Corp., 34 FERC 61,203, 61341 (1986).  Such scrutiny will often require an evidentiary hearing to determine the terms and conditions on which a carrier is offering transportation to its various customers.  In this case, however, the Commission determined that no hearing was necessary since MichCon failed to make any "allegation of specific discrimination."    J.A. at 129.  While this determination was challenged in MichCon's request for rehearing, see J.A. at 142-46, that challenge has not been renewed on appeal.  See Reply Brief of Petitioner Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.  ("MichCon Reply") at 3 n. 5.


12
The only question presented to the court, therefore, is whether the existing record supports MichCon's claim that the Commission abused its discretion by failing to find that Panhandle's applications were unduly discriminatory.  We find that it does not.  The record contains virtually no evidence regarding the terms and conditions under which Panhandle was providing transportation to its various customers, including MichCon.  Indeed, the only evidence on the question of discrimination that was before the Commission when it granted the certificates was a March 13, 1986 letter from Panhandle notifying the Commission that "[u]pon execution of appropriate contractual agreements, Panhandle will seek authority pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to transport gas for any shipper requesting transportation service."    See J.A. at 121.  While this letter might be read, as MichCon suggests, to reserve to Panhandle the right to contract with certain shippers only on a discriminatory basis, nothing in the record suggests that any such discrimination had actually occurred.


13
Faced with no evidence, and indeed no concrete allegation, of discrimination, the Commission did not abuse its discretion in granting Panhandle's applications.  In so concluding, we note, as did the Commission, that MichCon was afforded a full evidentiary hearing in connection with related proceedings once it raised specific allegations of discrimination against Panhandle.  See J.A. at 255.  See Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co., 38 FERC 63,009 (1987), aff'd in part, 39 FERC 61,274 (1987) and 40 FERC 61,220 (1987), reh'g denied, 42 FERC 61,076 (1988), pet. for review filed sub nom, Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. v. FERC, No. 88-1062 (D.C.Cir. January 28, 1988), and currently pending in this court.

Accordingly, the petition for review is

14
DENIED.



*
 Of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 294(d)


1
 The Commission found that MichCon had demonstrated an interest that was directly affected by the outcome of the proceeding and that was not represented by any other party.  See J.A. at 128


2
 The Commission also noted that "the proposed transactions will end on June 30, 1986 (approximately two months from the date of the issuance of this order)," that "no participating local distribution company objects to the proposed transactions," and that MichCon was currently receiving transportation from Panhandle pursuant to a pre-existing agreement.  J.A. at 129 & n. 7


3
 MichCon's own position on this question is not entirely clear.  At one point in its briefs, it declares that "no certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing transportation services can lawfully be issued pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act absent the application of such measures as are applicable to comparable, generic authorization."    Brief of Petitioner, Michigan Consolidated Gas Co., at 38.  Elsewhere, MichCon advances the narrower claim that non-discrimination conditions must be imposed only "when a pipeline proposes to implement what is indisputably a transportation program, and that program is facially discriminatory."    MichCon Reply at 14 (footnote omitted)