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]



474 A.2d 827 (1984)
Bernard TOTZ, Petitioner,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION, et al., Respondents.
No. 83-125.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Argued December 19, 1983.
Decided April 9, 1984.
Bernard Totz, pro se.
Richard B. Nettler, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., with whom Judith W. Rogers, Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., at the time the brief was filed, and Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondent District of Columbia Rental Housing Comm.
Richard Halberstein, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for respondents Tenants of 529 G Street, S.E.
Before KERN, FERREN and TERRY, Associate Judges.
*828 TERRY, Associate Judge:
Nearly four years ago, we held that D.C. Code § 45-1655(a) (1978 Supp.), part of the Rental Accommodations Act of 1975 (repealed 1978),[1] required the District of Columbia Rental Accommodations Commission, predecessor to the Rental Housing Commission, to impose treble damages against petitioner for the entire amount by which the rents he charged his tenants exceeded the applicable rent ceilings. Totz v. District of Columbia Rental Accommodations Commission, 412 A.2d 44, 46 (D.C. 1980). In light of our holdings that treble damages were mandated for the entire period in question,[2]id. at 46 n. 1, and that petitioner could not set off against those refunds judgments he had obtained against some of the tenants before the Commission's order, id. at 47, we remanded his case to the Commission for a recalculation of the refunds owed to the tenants.
After the Rent Administrator recalculated the refunds, petitioner appealed again to the Commission, as did his tenants. However, he failed to appear at the hearing on the appeal; accordingly, on August 25, 1982, the Commission dismissed his appeal, apparently for lack of prosecution.[3] Nearly a month later, on September 24, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the dismissal. The Commission denied the motion on January 19, 1983, and on February 2 petitioner filed in this court a petition for review of that denial. Because we lack jurisdiction to review either the denial of the motion for reconsideration or the dismissal of petitioner's appeal, we must dismiss his petition.
We have consistently held that we do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from denials of motions for reconsideration of final orders in civil and criminal cases. E.g., In re Alexander, 428 A.2d 812 (D.C. 1981) (criminal), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1149, 102 S.Ct. 1014, 71 L.Ed.2d 303 (1982); United States v. Jones, 423 A.2d 193, 195 (D.C.1980) (criminal); 901 Corp. v. A. Sandler Co., 254 A.2d 411 (D.C.1969) (civil); see Coleman v. Lee Washington Hauling Co., 388 A.2d 44, 45 (D.C.1978). We now hold that our power is similarly limited as to appeals from such denials by administrative agencies. Of course, if we have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the final order itself, we will treat the purported appeal from the denial of reconsideration as having been taken from that underlying order. See, e.g., Reichman v. Franklin Simon Corp., 392 A.2d 9, 11 n. 3 (D.C. 1978); Coleman v. Lee Washington Hauling Co., supra, 388 A.2d at 45; Diatz v. Washington Technical School, 73 A.2d 227, 228 (D.C.1950), aff'd sub nom. Sobel v. Diatz, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 189 F.2d 26 (1951). The question for us to decide here, then, is whether we have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Commission's dismissal of petitioner's administrative appeal. We conclude that we do not.
Our rules provide that a party may obtain review of an agency decision "by filing with the Clerk of this Court a petition for review within fifteen days from the date of having been given formal notice of the order or decision sought to be reviewed. . . ." *829 D.C.App.R. 15(b).[4] Petitioner did not do this. Section 203(e)(1)(C) of the Commission's rules states that service of notice may be effected "[b]y mail, on deposit with the United States Postal Service properly stamped and addressed. . . ." Thus the period in which petitioner could petition this court for review began to run when he was given notice of the Commission's order of August 25, 1982, dismissing his appeal. Johnson v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 473 A.2d 398 (D.C.1984). That period had long since expired by February 1983, when he filed his petition for review.[5]
The time limit for filing a petition for review of agency actions is mandatory and jurisdictional. Conner v. District of Columbia Bureau of Motor Vehicle Services, 442 A.2d 957, 958 (D.C.1982); see Valentine v. Real Estate Commission, 163 A.2d 554, 555-556 (D.C.1960) (construing the predecessor of the present Rule 15(b)). Once the time prescribed by the rule has passed, we are without power to hear the case. We therefore have no choice but to dismiss the instant petition for review.
Petition dismissed.
NOTES
[1]  The Rental Accommodations Act of 1975, D.C.Law 1-33, 22 D.C.Reg. 2490, D.C.Code §§ 45-1631 through 45-1674 (1978 Supp.), was repealed and superseded by the Rental Housing Act of 1977, D.C.Law 2-54, 24 D.C.Reg. 5334 (1978), D.C.Code §§ 45-1681 through 45-1699.27 (1980 Supp.). The 1977 Act expired in 1981 and was succeeded by the Rental Housing Act of 1980, D.C.Law 3-131, 28 D.C.Reg. 326 (1981), as amended, D.C.Code §§ 45-1501 through 45-1597 (1981 & 1983 Supp.).
[2]  Unlike the 1975 Act, both the Rental Housing Act of 1977 and the Rental Housing Act of 1980, supra note 1, make the imposition of treble damages discretionary. See Rental Housing Act of 1977, § 901(a), 24 D.C.Reg. at 5410; Rental Housing Act of 1980, § 901(a), D.C.Code § 45-1591(a) (1981).
[3]  On September 7, 1982, the Commission affirmed the Rent Administrator's recalculation, rejecting the tenants' contention that refunds should be ordered also for overcharges imposed after September 4, 1977, the date of the Rent Administrator's initial decision.
[4]  Another rule, D.C.App.R. 26(c), gives three additional days if the order or decision is served on the party by mail. The time begins to run from the date of mailing, not the date of decision. See Poyner v. Police & Firemen's Retirement & Relief Board, 456 A.2d 1249, 1251 (D.C. 1983).
[5]  D.C.App.R. 15(c) states that the time for filing a petition for review is tolled by the filing of a motion "pursuant to the rules of the agency" for reconsideration of the agency's decision. The rules of the Rental Housing Commission do not provide for motions for reconsideration. But even if they did, the time for appeal would not have been tolled because petitioner's motion for reconsideration was filed after the time for filing a petition for review in this court had expired. The motion for reconsideration, regardless of its other deficiencies, came too late to save petitioner's right of appellate review in this court. See In re Alexander, supra, 428 A.2d at 814-815 & n. 2; United States v. Jones, supra, 423 A.2d at 196 n. 4.