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]


Q:

Why decltype works here but not auto?

I have the code as below:
template <typename T, typename sepT = char>
void print2d(const T &data, sepT sep = ',') {
    for(auto i = std::begin(data); i < std::end(data); ++i) {
        decltype(*i) tmp = *i;
        for(auto j = std::begin(tmp); j < std::end(tmp); ++j) {
            std::cout << *j << sep;
        }
        std::cout << std::endl;
    }
}

int main(){
    std::vector<std::vector<int> > v = {{11}, {2,3}, {33,44,55}};
    print2d(v);

    int arr[2][2] = {{1,2},{3,4}};
    print2d(arr);

    return 0;
}

If I change the decltype to auto, it won't compile and complain (partial error):
2d_iterator.cpp: In instantiation of ‘void print2d(const T&, sepT) [with T = int [2][2]; sepT = char]’:
2d_iterator.cpp:21:21:   required from here
2d_iterator.cpp:9:36: error: no matching function for call to ‘begin(const int*&)’
2d_iterator.cpp:9:36: note: candidates are:
In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.2/../../../../include/c++/4.7.2/string:53:0,
                 from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.2/../../../../include/c++/4.7.2/bits/locale_classes.h:42,
                 from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.2/../../../../include/c++/4.7.2/bits/ios_base.h:43,
                 from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.2/../../../../include/c++/4.7.2/ios:43,
                 from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.2/../../../../include/c++/4.7.2/ostream:40,
                 from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.2/../../../../include/c++/4.7.2/iterator:64,

Why is this happening?

A:

The answer summed-up in one comment:

decltype yields int(&)[2], whilst plain auto forces a pointer conversion (same rules as template argument deduction). Just use auto&. - Xeo

@Xeo's comment-answer basically says that because auto involves the same rules as template argument type deduction, auto deduces a pointer (int*) type out of the source's array type (of i, specifically int(&)[2]).
There is something great in your code: it actually demonstrates how template type deduction behaves when the parameter is a reference and how the reference affects how the type is being deduced.
template <typename T, typename sepT = char>
void print2d(const T &data, sepT sep = ',') {
    ...
}

...

int arr[2][2] = {{1,2},{3,4}};
print2d(arr);

You can see that data is of type const T&, a reference to a const T. Now, it is being passed with arr, whose type is int[2][2], which is an array of two arrays of two ints (whoo!). Now come template argument type deduction. On this situation, it rules that with data being a reference, T should be deduced with the original type of the argument, which is int[2][2]. Then, it applies any qualifications to the parameter type to the parameter, and with data's qualified type being const T&, the const and & qualifiers are applied and so data's type is const int (&) [2][2].
template <typename T, typename sepT = char>
void print2d(const T &data, sepT sep = ',') {
    static_assert(std::is_same<T, int[2][2]>::value, "Fail");
    static_assert(std::is_same<decltype(data), const int(&)[2][2]>::value, "Fail");
}

...

int arr[2][2] = {{1,2},{3,4}};
print2d(arr);

LIVE CODE
However, if data would have been a non-reference, template argument type deduction rules that if the argument's type is an array type (e.g. int[2][2]), the array type shall "decay" to its corresponding pointer type, thus making int[2][2] into int(*)[2] (plus const if parameter is const) (fix courtesy of @Xeo).

Great! I just explained the part that is entirely not what caused the error. (And I just explained a great deal of template magic)...
... Nevermind about that. Now to the error. But before we go, keep this on your mind:
auto == template argument type deduction
         + std::initializer_list deduction for brace init-lists   // <-- This std::initializer_list thingy is not relevant to your problem,
                                                                  //    and is only included to prevent any outbreak of pedantry.

Now, your code:
for(auto i = std::begin(data); i < std::end(data); ++i) {
    decltype(*i) tmp = *i;
    for(auto j = std::begin(tmp); j < std::end(tmp); ++j) {
        std::cout << *j << sep;
    }
    std::cout << std::endl;
}

Some prerequisites before the battle:

decltype(data) == const int (&) [2][2]
decltype(i) == const int (*) [2] (see std::begin), which is a pointer to an int[2].

Now when you do decltype(*i) tmp = *i;, decltype(*i) would return const int(&)[2] , a reference to an int[2] (remember the word dereference). Thus, it is also tmp's type. You preserved the original type by using decltype(*i).
However, when you do
auto tmp = *i;

Guess what decltype(tmp) is: int*! Why? Because all of the blabbery-blablablah above, and some template magic.
So, why the error with int*? Because std::begin expects an array type, not its lesser decayed-to pointer. Thus, auto j = std::begin(tmp) would cause an error when tmp is int*.
How to solve (also tl;dr)?

Keep as-is. Use decltype.
Guess what. Make your autoed variable a reference!
auto& tmp = *i;

LIVE CODE
or
const auto& tmp = *i;

if you don't intend to modify the contents of tmp. (Greatness by Jon Purdy)

Moral of the story: A great comment saves a man a thousand words.

UPDATE: added const to the types given by decltype(i) and decltype(*i), as std::begin(data) would return a const pointer due to data also being const (fix by litb, thanks)