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]


                                [J-3-2017] [MO: Todd, J.]
                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                                  EASTERN DISTRICT


NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS OF THE                    :   No. 6 EAP 2016
MID-ATLANTIC, INC.,                             :
                                                :   Appeal from the Judgment of
                        Appellee                :   Commonwealth Court entered on
                                                :   December 30, 2015 at No. 98 F.R.
                                                :   2012.
                 v.                             :
                                                :   ARGUED: April 5, 2017
                                                :
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,                   :
                                                :
                        Appellant               :


                                    CONCURRING OPINION


JUSTICE BAER                                              DECIDED: October 18, 2017
         I join the learned majority’s holding that the “net loss carryover” provision of the

Pennsylvania Revenue Code for tax year 2007 (“NLC”) 1 violates the Uniformity Clause

of the Pennsylvania Constitution2 and that severance of the $3 million flat deduction

remedies that violation. I write separately only to express my view on the nature of the

constitutional challenge presented herein.

         Throughout these proceedings, Nextel has steadfastly maintained that it is

presenting an as-applied constitutional challenge to the NLC.           In this regard, the

majority observes that “Nextel has not previously argued, and does not presently allege,

that the NLC is facially unconstitutional.” Maj. Op. at 29 n.20. Taking Nextel at its word,


1
    Act of March 4, 1971, P.L. 6, as amended, 72 P.S. § 7401(3)4.(c)(1)(A)(II).
2
    Pa. Const. art. VIII, § 1.
the majority tailors its holding to align with Nextel’s characterization of its claim,

concluding that the NLC is unconstitutional as applied to Nextel. Id. at 29 (holding that

“[w]e, therefore, affirm the Commonwealth Court’s decision that the NLC is

unconstitutional as applied to Nextel”). In so doing, the majority further observes that

the distinction between an as-applied challenge and a facial challenge is arguably

meaningless in this case given the future effect of our decision. Id. at 29 n.20.

       However, the question of whether a particular constitutional challenge is “facial”

or “as applied” should not be dictated by the label a litigant attaches to it. See Tooey v.

AK Steel Corp., 81 A.3d 851, 877-78 (Pa. 2013) (Saylor, J., dissenting) (observing, in

general reliance upon Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310

(2010), that a “court may declare a statute facially unconstitutional when adjudicating an

as-applied challenge”); Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 331 (explaining that “the distinction

between facial and as-applied challenges is not so well defined that it has some

automatic effect or that it must always control the pleadings and disposition in every

case involving a constitutional challenge”). Thus, a court should not be constrained in

its holding simply by virtue of the manner in which a litigant has characterized its claim.

       Here, the thrust of Nextel’s uniformity challenge is that the NLC allows those

corporations with $3 million or less in taxable income and carryover losses equaling or

exceeding their taxable income to reduce their 2007 tax liability to zero, while requiring

those corporations with over $3 million in taxable income to pay some income tax. As

such, the NLC as written creates two classes of similarly situated taxpayers and treats

them disparately solely on the basis of the value of the property involved (i.e., taxable

income), thereby violating the Uniformity Clause.

       Consistent with the majority’s astute analysis, I agree with Nextel’s position.

Nonetheless, while Nextel presents its claim as an as-applied challenge to the NLC, its




                               [J-3-2017] [MO: Todd, J.] - 2
challenge necessarily implicates the facial validity of the NLC. Consequently, where the

majority appears to attach no real significance to Nextel’s characterization of its claim as

an as-applied challenge to the NLC, the majority’s holding could be interpreted as

limited in accordance with Nextel’s designation. I write separately to clarify that, in my

view, our holding declares the NLC unconstitutional on its face.

       Justices Donohue and Wecht join this concurring opinion.




                               [J-3-2017] [MO: Todd, J.] - 3