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]


Chickens

Egg-laying hens

An estimated 95% of all eggs in the United States are produced in conventional cage systems, sometimes called battery cages. [They] typically provide each laying hen an average of 67 square inches of floor space. In some egg operations, hens have less space.

Source: Table Egg Production and Hen Welfare: Agreement and Legislative Proposals - 2014

Statistics for many other countries can be found in: Statistics: Laying Hens - Compassion in World Farming - 2013. There's too much data to paste here. The percentages range all the way from 0 to 100.

From the same report:

Between 87% and 100% of laying hens producing eggs for all except one of the supermarkets surveyed are beak-trimmed. Only Waitrose reported a much lower proportion (36%) of hens being beak-trimmed. Overall, probably at least 90% of laying hens in the UK are beak-trimmed

Induced molting usually involves removal of feed for periods of 5 to 14 days followed by a low nutrient ration for the remaining days in a 28 day molt program. [...] Molting programs involve an estimated 75-80% of the commercial flocks in the US.

Source: Proceedings of the 50th Western Poultry Disease Conference - 2001

Broiler (meat) chickens

Studies consistently show that approximately 26-30% of broiler chickens suffer from gait defects severe enough to impair walking ability, and additional research strongly suggests that birds at this level of lameness are in pain.

Source: An HSUS Report: The Welfare of Animals in the Meat, Egg, and Dairy Industries. 5 references are cited for this sentence. From one of those references:

We assessed the walking ability of 51,000 birds, representing 4.8 million birds within 176 flocks. [...] over 27.6% of birds in our study showed poor locomotion and 3.3% were almost unable to walk. [This is] despite culling policies designed to remove severely lame birds from flocks.

Therefore it's safe to regard these numbers as typical.

In 2011, 15,951 commercial operations raised broilers for meat in the 17 sample States

A table then shows that these farms produced 8,060,557,235 broilers in 2011, an average of over 500,000 chickens per operation.

Source: Technology, Organization, and Financial Performance in U.S. Broiler Production (USDA) - 2014

Cows

From the Executive Summary of the 2007 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit about cows (whether raised for beef or dairy) being brought to slaughter:

83% of all plants used electric prods for moving cattle to the restrainer. 65% used electric cattle prods on more than 25% of their cattle. [...] 39% of plants audited showed the aggressive use of [other] driving aids when moving cattle to the restrainer.

49% of dairy cows showed some level of lameness in holding pens (see graph on page 7).

Steers weighing 500 pounds and over totaled 16.4 million head, up slightly from one year ago. Bulls weighing 500 pounds and over totaled 2.23 million head

Since steers are castrated and bulls are not, 88% of male cows are castrated.

Source: USDA cattle inventory - 2017

Furthermore, pain relief isn't used 70 - 80% of the time:

Respondents reported not providing analgesic drugs to approximately 70% of calves castrated at < 6 months of age.

Source: Analgesic drug administration and attitudes about analgesia in cattle among bovine practitioners in the United States - 2011

One in five practitioners report using an analgesic or local anesthetic at the time of castration.

Source: A survey of castration methods and associated livestock management practices performed by bovine veterinarians in the United States - 2009

Dairy cows

approximately 88% of Norwegian dairy cattle, 75% of all Swedish dairy herds and more than one third of German dairy cows are kept in tie-stall housing systems, often without pasturing. According to the 2007 USDA report 62% of US dairy farms had tie-stall barns. In Romania, the tied system is used in approximately 75% of the middle sized and large farms and in 90% of the small farms

Source: Dairy cows welfare quality in tie-stall housing system with or without access to exercise

(this means that the cow is "held by a neck chain, strap, or stanchion such that she can lie down but cannot turn around")

From Heifer Calf Health and Management Practices on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007:

Overall, 94.0 percent of operations routinely dehorned heifer calves while they were on the operation during the previous 12 months. A lower percentage of large operations (64.3 percent) dehorned heifer calves than small or medium operations (97.3 and 92.6 percent, respectively). [...] For operations that routinely dehorned heifer calves during the previous 12 months, more than two-thirds (69.1 percent) used a hot iron [...] For operations that used a hot iron to dehorn calves, 13.8 percent used analgesics/anesthetics when dehorning calves.

Tail docking is currently prohibited in California and must not be performed as a routine management procedure in the European Union. [...] About half of operations [in the U.S.] (51.4 percent) had no cows with the tail docked. [...] On about one of seven operations (14.6 percent), all cows had the tail docked. [...] Overall, about 4 of 10 cows (38.8 percent) had the tail docked. [...] The majority of operations with tail-docked cows (90.3 percent) did not routinely use analgesics or anesthetics for tail docking, compared with 1.1 percent that routinely used analgesics or anesthetics. Operations that routinely used analgesics or anesthetics represented 0.9 percent of cows with the tail docked.

About one-half of operations (50.3 percent) routinely removed extra teats from heifer calves [...] One of 10 operations (10.6 percent) routinely used analgesia or anesthesia during extra teat removal

94.9% of operations observed at least one case of clinical mastitis, a painful, inflammatory infection of the udder caused by milking. 16.5% of cows had mastitis in 2006, as identified by producers.

Source: Dairy 2007, Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the United States

Surveys on mastitis in Nordic countries in 1997 found:

18.3 cases per 100 completed or terminated lactations in Sweden to 25.8 per 100 cow-years in Norway

Source: Cumulative Risk of Bovine Mastitis Treatments in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden

Pigs

By far the most common system in use is the farrowing crate, with an estimated 85% of all sows in the U.S. being housed in this type of system at farrowing.

Source: Swine Welfare Fact Sheet (USDA) - 2011

(a farrowing crate is a metal enclosure only slightly bigger than the sow that she spends 4-5 weeks in around the time of giving birth)

One in every four sows (26 per cent) is bred outdoors in the UK, but just one in twenty pigs (5 per cent) spend the growing period outdoors and one in a hundred are finished on free range.

56 per cent of UK sows farrow in some form of farrowing crate

Source: Structure of the UK Pig Industry

only 17.3 percent of sows spend a portion of gestation in open pens. Plain surveyed pork operations with 1,000 or more sows. He received responses from 70 operations, which combined own about 3.6 million of the nation’s 5.7 million sows.

Source: Survey Shows Few Sows In Open Housing - National Hog Farmer - 2012

This means that the other 82.7% of sows from these operations spend almost their entire pregnancies (114 days) in small gestation crates.

77% of pigs are castrated without pain relief in 26 European countries:

approximately 20% are left entire, less than 3% are castrated with anaesthesia and the rest are castrated without anaesthesia

Source: Practice on castration of piglets in Europe - 2009

In the USA virtually all males are physically castrated at a young age (predominantly) with no anesthesia or analgesia (pain relief).

Source: Pig Castration - Texas Tech University

Pigs in barren, crowded environments cannot perform natural behaviours and get frustrated, which commonly leads to biting tails on other pigs. Farmers often deal with this by docking (cutting) piglets' tails. EU law requires that pigs are given environment enrichment such as straw for stimulation and are housed well (e.g. not too densely) to avoid tail biting. Tail docking must be a last resort. An investigation found that 44 out of 45 pig farms in 6 countries in the EU failed to meet these legal requirements, by not providing effective environment enrichment and routinely tail docking piglets.

Source: Widespread Breaches of Pig Welfare Laws in the EU Summary Report - 2013

For the 2014 production year, 93 percent of the annual pig crop was produced on operations with at least 5,000 head

Source: 2015 Overview of the United States Hog Industry - USDA