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]


Texas Longhorns at USC Trojans

USC leads this all-time series 4-1 (record includes 2006 Rose Bowl). Texas won the national championship after defeating the Trojans in the 2006 Rose Bowl, which was the last time the two teams met (the NCAA later vacated USC's participation in that contest).

Texas picked up its first shutout since September 27, 2014, versus Kansas (23-0) when it blanked San Jose State 56-0 last week. The Longhorns, who lost to Maryland 51-41 in their season opener, are one of four FBS teams to allow 50+ points in one game and then score 50+ in their next contest this season.

Chris Warren III ran for 166 yards and two touchdowns versus San Jose State last week. It was his fifth career 100-yard performance on the ground, with the Longhorns going 2-3 in those contests.

The Trojans' current 11-game win streak is their longest since they won 12 in a row, October 4, 2008-September 12, 2009, and the longest by any Pac-12 team since Washington's 12-game win streak from November 21, 2015, to November 5, 2016.

The Trojans are 12-0 all-time when Ronald Jones II runs for at least 75 yards in a game (7-0 when he has 100+ yards). Jones had 116 yards and two TDs on the ground in last week's win over Stanford.

LOS ANGELES -- One of the most famous plays in college football history -- Vince Young's fourth-down touchdown in the 2006 Rose Bowl Game -- took place when the Texas Longhorns played the USC Trojans.

When the two programs meet for the first time since that national championship encounter, quarterback mobility could again provide a key plot point.

Fourth-ranked USC (2-0) welcomes Texas (1-1) to Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum on Saturday night with both teams coming off impressive rushing performances in Week 2. The Trojans went for 307 yards in a win over conference rival Stanford, as running backs Ronald Jones II and Stephen Carr each eclipsed 100 yards on the ground.

Similarly, Texas got a boost in its 406-yard rushing performance against San Jose State with a stellar showing from running back Chris Warren III, who notched 166 yards and two touchdowns on just 16 carries.

But the added versatility both offenses feature with mobile quarterbacks could play an integral role in the Week 3 meeting.

None of the signal-callers who could line up behind center on Saturday are comparable to Young -- few in college football have been -- but either team has the ability to supplement the run game at the position.

USC quarterback Sam Darnold is noted for his NFL arm, but his mobility also has been a central facet of the buzz surrounding his play since taking over as starter last season.

Darnold -- who completed 21 of 26 passes for 316 yards and four touchdowns against Stanford -- mostly uses his nimble feet to elude the pass rush, but he's also shown a willingness to take off if defenses aren't paying attention. He scored his third career touchdown on the ground two weeks ago against Western Michigan.

"You saw in the first game, him actually pulling the ball," said USC coach Clay Helton. "We don't call his number a ton to run the ball, but down in the red zone, we did have an opportunity ... and he scored a touchdown on a zone-read pull.

"Then, this past game, we were able to get a red-zone quarterback draw call that produced yards. Then, we run the option with him for a touchdown. So it definitely helps the (overall) run game."

The threat Darnold adds to USC's power-run approach presents a dynamic that has been problematic for the Texas defense already once this season. Maryland successfully established Tyrrell Pigrome in Week 1, particularly against Texas' pass rush, as the Terrapins pulled off a 51-41 upset.

"They checked to a run and got us," Texas head coach Tom Herman said. "They came up with a bit of an answer, which was to run the quarterback."

Meanwhile, the Texas quarterback rotation features more rushing options than some teams have at running back. Herman, the first-year Longhorns head coach, has played three different quarterbacks through two games -- both by design and by necessity -- all of whom have made contributions in the run game.

Veteran Jerrod Heard moved to wide receiver in the offseason, but a shoulder injury to Week 1 starter Shane Buechele -- who scored a rushing touchdown against Maryland -- presented opportunities for Heard to step back behind center.

Heard largely operated the previous two seasons out of a variation of the Wildcat formation dubbed the "18-Wheeler," but Herman said Heard is more than just a ball-carrier at quarterback.

"We'll always carry a (quarterback) package for him," Herman said. "This is not a guy who's never played the position. ... If people just start cramming the box with bodies, he can at least be serviceable throwing the football."

Heard can supplement the Longhorns at quarterback, regardless if Buechele or Sam Ehlinger starts against USC. Buechele's shoulder wasn't considered 100 percent early this week. Whoever lines up Saturday, the Trojans anticipate a potential two-way threat.

Ehlinger produced 6.9 yards per carry on seven attempts in Week 2 against San Jose State.

"Shane and Sam are very similar quarterbacks," Helton said. "Both have the athleticism to move the chains, both can create."

On defense, Texas defensive back Holton Hill has been a playmaker, with three return touchdowns this season -- two on interceptions and one on a blocked field goal. USC's defense is led by linebacker Cameron Smith, who had eight tackles last week and is strong against the run.