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]


905 F.2d 312
CREEK NATION INDIAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Plaintiffs,v.UNITED STATES of America, Explosive Transports, Inc., EmpireInsurance Company, Dolly Madjenovich, and LeslieOkerstrom, Defendants,EXPLOSIVE TRANSPORTS, INC. and Empire Insurance Company,Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.UNITED STATES of America, Third Party Defendant-Appellee,andFord Motor Company, Third Party Defendant.
Nos. 88-1525, 88-1527, 88-1534, 88-1537 to 88-1539, 88-1541to 88-1544, 88-1546 to 88-1552, 88-1554 to88-1556, 88-1559, 88-1561 to 88-1563,and 88-1565 to 88-1568.
United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.
Feb. 22, 1990.

Michael J. Masterson and Ray H. Wilburn, of Wilburn, Masterson & Holden, Tulsa, Okl., for third party plaintiffs-appellants.
John R. Bolton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Roger Hilfiger, United States Atty., Robert S. Greenspan and Michael E. Robinson, Attys., Appellate Staff, Civil Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for third party defendants-appellees.
Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and KANE,* District Judge.
TACHA, Circuit Judge.


1
Explosive Transports, Inc.  (ETI), appeals the order of the district court granting summary judgment against its Federal Tort Claims Act action against the United States.  677 F.Supp. 1120.    ETI contends the district court erred in determining that the government's conduct falls within the discretionary function exception to the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(a).1   We affirm.


2
This case arose out of the explosion of three 2000 pound bombs.  A truck operated by ETI was transporting ten 2000 pound bombs under contract with the government when it was rear-ended by a car.  The car's fuel tank ruptured on impact, causing both the car and the truck to catch fire.  The heat from the fire caused three of the ten bombs to explode, resulting in extensive property damage.


3
ETI suggests that the government was negligent in designing the bombs, which it contends is a non-discretionary function not shielded by section 2680(a).  We disagree.  In Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 108 S.Ct. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988), the Supreme Court held:


4
We think that the selection of the appropriate design for military equipment to be used by our Armed Forces is assuredly a discretionary function within the meaning of [section 2680(a) ].  It often involves not merely engineering analysis but judgment as to the balancing of many technical, military, and even social considerations, including specifically the trade-off between greater safety and greater combat effectiveness.


5
Id. at 510-13, 108 S.Ct. at 2517-18.    The government's choice of design for the 2000 pound bombs clearly falls within the "selection of the appropriate design for military equipment" aspect of the discretionary function exception.


6
ETI also contends that the district court's order erred by foreclosing discovery before ETI could ascertain the violation of a nondiscretionary duty.  ETI's contention is not well taken.  Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 108 S.Ct. 1954, 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988), stands for the proposition that the government must follow regulatorily approved procedures where they exist, and that the government cannot raise the discretionary function exception where it has failed to follow such procedures.  Id. at 541-45, 108 S.Ct. at 1962-63.    ETI has not cited us any nondiscretionary duties imposed upon the government in this case.  We have reviewed the regulations and have not found any imposing a nondiscretionary duty applicable to the case at bar.  Moreover, the only suggestion as to such a duty made by ETI, possible negligence in the inspection of ETI's trucks, is precisely the kind of discretionary government action section 2680(a) is meant to protect.  See id. 108 S.Ct. at 1963-64 ("the discretionary function exception bars any claims that challenge the Bureau's formulation of policy as to the appropriate way in which to regulate the release of vaccine lots.  In addition, if the policies and programs formulated by the Bureau allow room for implementing officials to make independent policy judgments, the discretionary function exception protects the acts taken by those officials in the exercise of this discretion.");    United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797, 819-20, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 2767-68, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984) ("The FAA's implementation of a mechanism for compliance review is plainly discretionary activity of the 'nature and quality' protected by Sec. 2680(a).  When an agency determines the extent to which it will supervise the safety procedures of private individuals, it is exercising discretionary authority of the most basic kind....  It follows that the acts of FAA employees in executing the 'spot-check' program in accordance with agency directives are protected by the discretionary exception as well.")  (emphasis added).  The government's administration of the truck compliance testing procedure in this case is indistinguishable from the situation in Varig Airlines.


7
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.



*
 The Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation


1
 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal.  See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a);  10th Cir.R. 34.1.9.  The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument