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]


1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates in general to solid deposition modeling, and in particular to an apparatus for post processing three-dimensional objects produced by such a modeling technique to remove a non-curable phase change support material from a three-dimensional object formed from a curable phase change build material.
2. Description of the Prior Art
During the past two decades several new technologies have been developed for the rapid creation of models, prototypes, and parts for limited run manufacturing. These new technologies are generally called Solid Freeform Fabrication techniques, and are herein referred to as “SFF”. SFF techniques include stereolithography, selective deposition modeling, laminated object manufacturing, selective phase area deposition, multi-phase jet solidification, ballistic particle manufacturing, fused deposition modeling, particle deposition, laser sintering, and the like. Complex parts are produced using SFF techniques from a modeling material in an additive fashion, as opposed to conventional fabrication techniques that are generally subtractive in nature. For example, in most conventional fabrication techniques material is removed by machining operations or shaped in a die or mold to near net shape and then trimmed. In contrast, additive fabrication techniques incrementally add portions of a build material to targeted locations, layer by layer, in order to build a complex part. SFF technologies typically utilize a computer graphic representation of a part and a supply of a building material to fabricate the part in successive layers. SFF technologies have many advantages over conventional manufacturing methods. For instance, SFF technologies dramatically shorten the time to develop prototype parts and can produce limited numbers of parts in rapid manufacturing processes. They also eliminate the need for complex tooling and machining associated with conventional subtractive manufacturing methods, including the need to create molds for custom applications. In addition, customized objects can be directly produced from computer graphic data in SFF techniques.
Structures are formed in a layer by layer manner by solidifying or curing successive layers of a build material in most SFF techniques. For example, in stereolithography a tightly focused beam of energy, typically in the ultraviolet radiation band, is scanned across a layer of a liquid photopolymer resin to selectively cure the resin to form a structure. In Selective Deposition Modeling, herein referred to as “SDM” a phase change build material is jetted or dropped in discrete droplets, or extruded through a nozzle, to solidify on contact with a build platform or previous layer of solidified material in order to build up a three-dimensional object in a layerwise fashion. Solid object imaging, solid object modeling, deposition modeling, multi-jet modeling, three-dimensional printing and thermal stereolithography have at various time been used synonymously for SDM. Often, a thermoplastic material having a low-melting point is used as the solid modeling material, which is delivered through a jetting system such as an extruder or print head.
There has developed recently an interest in utilizing curable phase change materials in SDM. One of the first suggestions of using a radiation curable build material in SDM is found in U.S. Pat. No. 5,136,515 to Helinski, in which it is proposed to selectively dispense a UV curable build material in a SDM system. Some of the first UV curable material formulations proposed for use in SDM systems are found in Appendix A of International Patent Publication No. WO 97/11837, where three reactive material compositions are provided. More recent teachings of using curable materials in three-dimensional printing are found in U.S. Pat. No. 6,259,962 to Gothait and in International Publication Number WO 01/26023.
However, one of the most fundamental problems associated with SDM processes is the adverse effect resulting from gravitational forces that act on a part during the build process. All SDM processes must deal with gravitational forces. For example, most downward facing surfaces built by SDM processes need special supports in order to stabilize the part during the build process.
One method of supporting the three-dimensional object to counter the gravity problem is to utilize dissimilar materials in the build process. For example, two different solidifying materials can be selectively deposited in a layer-by-layer process, one material for building the part, and the other material for building the support structure. There are some generally recognized methods for removing support material from a SDM object. Three of the methods were initially proposed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,136,515 to Helinski. They include removing the support material by physical force, removing the support material by application of heat and removing the support material by chemical means. However, all methods have their drawbacks.
Where the support material is removed by physical force from a different build material, the materials can be carefully selected in order to establish a weak bond joint at their juncture such that the application of an applied force separates the support structure from the part along the joint. Where a single material is used, the point of contact between the supports and the build object can be weakened so the supports are more easily removed. However, the application of applied force to crack or crumble away the support material from the object has limitations, such as marring or damaging the three-dimensional object during support removal or breaking off entirely of delicate features. Additionally it is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to remove the support material for certain geometric configurations, such as in deep cavities or pockets.
A second separation approach is to select a support material having a lower melting point than the material of the formed object. After forming the object and support structure, the temperature of the composite is raised in order to melt out the support structure. This type of approach is described in, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,141,680 to Almquist et al.
A third approach uses a support material that is soluble in a solvent, but in which the different build material is not so that the support structure is dissolved away after the completed part and its support structure are submersed in the solvent. However, it is problematic with this approach that the solvent eventually becomes saturated with removed support material and must be disposed of, and then replaced with fresh solvent. Additionally, unpleasant and potentially unhealthful odors are produced by the evaporation of the solvent. Thus, implementing this approach may not be user friendly or cost effective.
None of the prior approaches provided a simple and low cost apparatus to effect reliable removal of support structure. Where the build material is an acrylate/wax based curable phase change material, there is a need to develop an apparatus capable of removing a phase change support material dispensed to support a three-dimensional object formed from a curable phase change build material without adversely affecting the three-dimensional object. These and other problems are solved by the design of the present invention.