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]



445 So.2d 200 (1984)
STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Joseph S. GARY, Defendant-Appellant.
STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Joseph S. GARY, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. CR83-227, CR83-228.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
February 1, 1984.
L. Paul Gianfala, Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.
W. Gregory Arnette, Jr., Dist. Atty., W.J. Riley, III and Jacquelyne Heinen, Jennings, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GUIDRY, CUTRER and STOKER, JJ.
CUTRER, Judge.
Defendant, Joseph S. Gary, was charged by bill of information with two counts of *201 aggravated rape (our docket number CR83-227) and two counts of incest (our docket number CR83-228). The two cases arise out of incidents occurring between defendant and his two nieces, ages 10 and 7. The two cases were consolidated for trial. A jury of twelve tried the cases and found the defendant guilty of two counts of attempted aggravated rape and on two counts of attempted incest. The trial judge sentenced the defendant to serve fifteen years at hard labor on each count of attempted aggravated rape; two and one-half years at hard labor were imposed for each conviction of attempted incest, and all four sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.
Defendant appealed the convictions upon the basis of eleven assignments of error, three of which have been abandoned.[1] However, finding merit to two of defendant's assignments, we pretermit addressing the remaining ones and are compelled to reverse all convictions.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IN CR83-227 (Charges of Aggravated Rape)
The defendant was charged by bill of information with two counts of aggravated rape. Following his pleas of not guilty, the defendant was tried upon those charges and found guilty as to each on the lesser crimes of attempted aggravated rape.
Article 1, Section 15 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 provides in pertinent part as follows:
"Prosecution of a felony shall be initiated by indictment or information, but no person shall be held to answer for a capital crime or a crime punishable by life imprisonment except on indictment by a grand jury ...."[2] (Emphasis ours.)
The crimes of aggravated rape, with which defendant was charged by bill of information, carry mandatory penalties of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. Our Constitution mandates that the prosecution of individuals "held to answer" for crimes punishable by life imprisonment shall be initiated by a grand jury indictment. State v. Donahue, 355 So.2d 247 (La.1978); State v. Stevenson, 334 So.2d 195 (La.1976); State v. Lott, 434 So.2d 1274 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983).
It was, therefore, reversible error for the State to initiate its prosecution of the aggravated rape charges by bill of information, notwithstanding the fact that the jury returned verdicts of guilty to crimes which are not punishable by life imprisonment.[3] Accordingly, the two convictions and sentences for attempted aggravated rape must be reversed and dismissed.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IN CR83-228 (Charges of incest)
At trial, all of the charges against defendant were consolidated, and he was tried by a twelve person jury. This constituted an error fatal to the charges of incest.
Article I, Section 17 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 provides in pertinent part:
"A criminal case in which the punishment may be capital shall be tried before a jury of twelve persons, all of whom must concur to render a verdict. A case in which the punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor shall be tried before a jury of twelve persons, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict. A case in which the punishment may be confinement at *202 hard labor or confinement without hard labor for more than six months shall be tried before a jury of six persons...."[4] (Emphasis ours.)
The crime of incest between an uncle and his niece is punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment, with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or both. LSA-R.S. 14:78. Accordingly the Constitution mandates that the defendant be tried on the crimes of incest before a jury of six persons; any other jury size is improper and any verdict rendered by an improper jury is a nullity. State v. Marcantel, 388 So.2d 383 (La.1980); State v. Nedds, 364 So.2d 588 (La.1978); State v. Pollard, 438 So.2d 1208 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1983). As defendant was tried before a jury of twelve, rather than the constitutionally required number of six, his convictions for the crimes of attempted incest must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.
For these reasons, defendant's convictions and sentences in CR83-227 for the two separate crimes of attempted aggravated rape are reversed and dismissed.[5]
Further, defendant's two convictions and sentences in CR83-228 for the crimes of attempted incest are reversed, and this case is remanded to the district court for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
NOTES
[1]  Defendant also contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Such a motion was filed on November 14, 1983, but the record fails to reflect that any action was taken by the trial court. Therefore, this issue is not before us.
[2]  See LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 382.
[3]  Attempted aggravated rape is punishable by imprisonment at hard labor for not more than fifty years. LSA-R.S. 14:27(D)(1). We cannot, as suggested by the State, allow considerations of "precious judicial time and community and state funds" to override the constitutional protections afforded the accused.
[4]  See LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 782.
[5]  We recognize that, even though we dismiss the charges in this case, the State may further proceed according to the provisions of LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 576.