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]


Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used because of their anti-inflammatory and analgesic activity. It is commonly recognized that NSAIDs exert their effect by blocking the activity of cyclooxygenase (COX), also known as prostaglandin G/H synthase (PGHS), the enzyme that converts arachidonic acid into prostanoids. Inhibition of the biosynthesis of prostanoids, the mediators of pain, fever, and inflammation, has long been a therapeutic target of anti-inflammatory drug discovery. The therapeutic use of conventional NSAIDs is limited by drug-associated side effects, such as severe gastric ulceration, bleeding and renal toxicity.
Two forms of COX have been identified, a constitutive isoform (COX-1), and an inducible isoform (COX-2), of which expression is upregulated at sites of inflammation (see Vane, J R; Mitchell, J A; Appleton, I; Tomlinson, A et al., Proc. Nat'l. Acad. Sci. USA, 1994, 91, 2046). COX-1 is believed to play a physiological role in gastrointestinal and renal protection, while COX-2 appears to play a predominant pathological role in inflammatory conditions. The NSAIDs currently on the market inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2 isoforms with little variation in selectivity, explaining the beneficial (inhibition of COX-2) and harmful (inhibition of COX-1) effects. The selective inhibition of COX-2 has been a goal of drug developers. It is thought that this will reduce or eliminate the GI irritation caused by COX-1 inhibition.
The differential tissue distribution of COX-1 and COX-2 provides a basis for the development of drugs that are selective COX-2 inhibitors, such that the specificity for the inhibition of COX-2 far exceeds inhibition of COX-1 (see Meade, Smith, and DeWift, J. Biol. Chem. (1993) 268:6610-6614)). Detailed structure-activity relationship studies have been reported for two general structural classes of selective COX-2 inhibitors, including certain acidic sulfonamides and diarylheterocyclics. The in vivo activities of these selective COX-2 inhibitors support the hypothesis that selective COX-2 inhibition is anti-inflammatory and non-ulcerogenic (see Gans, Galbraith, Roman, Haber, Kerr, Schmidt, Smith, Hewes, and Ackerman, “Anti-Inflammatory and Safety Profile of DuP 697, a Novel Orally Effective Prostaglandin Synthesis Inhibitor”, J. Pharmcol Exp. Ther. (1990) Vol. 254, pp. 180-187; Penning, Talley, Bertenshaw, Carter, Collins, Docter, Graneto, Lee, Malecha, Miyashiro, Rogers, Rogier, Yu, Anderson, Burton, Cogburn, Gregory, Koboldt, Perkins, Seibert, Veenhuizen, Zhang, and Isakson, “Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of the 1,5-Diarylpyrazole Class of Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors: Identification of 4-[5-(4-Methylphenyl)-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl]benzenesulfonamide (SC-58635, Celecoxib)”, J. Med. Chem. (1997) Vol. 40, pp. 1347-1365; Khanna, Weier, Yu, Xu, Koszyk, Collins, Koboldt, Veenhuizen, Perkins, Casler, Masferrer, Zhang, Gregory, Seibert, and Isakson, “1,2-Diarylimidazoles as Potent Cyclooxygenase-2 Selective, and Orally Active Antiinflammatory Agents”, J. Med. Chem. (1997) Vol. 40, pp. 1634-1647; Khanna, Weier, Yu, Collins, Miyashiro, Koboldt, Veenhuizen, Curie, Siebert, and Isakson, “1,2-Diarylpyrroles as Potent and Selective Inhibitors of Cyclooxygenase-2”, J. Med. Chem. (1997) Vol. 40, pp. 1619-1633; Tsuji, Nakamura, Konishi, Tojo, Ochi, Senoh, and Matsuo, “Synthesis and Pharmacological Properties of 1,5-Diarylyrazoles and Related Derivatives”, Chem. Pharm. Bull. (1997) Vol. 45, pp. 987-995; Riendeau, Percival, Boyce, Brideau, Charleson, Cromlish, Ethier, Evans, Falgueyret, Ford-Hutchinson, Gordon, Greig, Gresser, Guay, Kargman, Leger, Mancini, O'Neill, Quellet, Rodger, Therien, Wang, Webb, Wong, Xu, Young, Zamboni, Prasit, and Chan, “Biochemical and Pharmacological Profile of a Tetrasubstituted Furanone as a Highly Selective COX-2 Inhibitor”, Br. J. Pharmacol. (1997) Vol. 121, pp. 105-117; Roy, Leblanc, Ball, Brideau, Chan, Chauret, Cromlish, Ethier, Gauthier, Gordon, Greig, Guay, Kargman, Lau, O'Neill, Silva, Therien, Van Staden, Wong, Xu, and Prasit, “A New Series of Selective COX-2 Inhibitors: 5,6-Diarylthiazolo[3,2-b][1,2,4]-triazoles”, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. (1997) Vol. 7, pp. 57-62; Therien, Brideau, Chan, Cromlish, Gauthier, Gordon, Greig, Kargman, Lau, Leblanc, Li, O'Neill, Riendeau, Roy, Wang, Xu, and Prasit, “Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of 5,6-Diarylimidazo[2.1-b]thiazoles as Selective COX-2 Inhibitors”, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. (1997) Vol. 7, pp. 47-52; Li, Norton, Reinhard, Anderson, Gregory, Isakson, Koboldt, Masferrer, Perkins, Seibert, Zhang, Zweifel, and Reitz, “Novel Terphenyls as Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors and Orally Active Anti-Inflammatory Agents”, J. Med. Chem. (1996) Vol. 39, pp. 1846-1856; Li, Anderson, Burton, Cogburn, Collins, Garland, Gregory, Huang, Isakson, Koboldt, Logusch, Norton, Perkins, Reinhard, Seibert, Veenhuizen, Zhang, and Reitz, “1,2-Diarylcyclopentenes as Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors and Orally Active Anti-Inflammatory Agents”, J. Med. Chem. (1995) Vol. 38, pp. 4570-4578; Reitz, Li, Norton, Reinhard, Huang, Penick, Collins, and Garland, “Novel 1,2-Diarylcyclopentenes are Selective Potent and Orally Active Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors”, Med. Chem Res. (1995) Vol. 5, pp. 351-363; Futaki, Yoshikawa, Hamasaka, Arai, Higuchi, lizuka, and Otomo, “NS-398, A Novel Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drug with Potent Analgesic and Antipyretic Effects, which Causes Minimal Stomach Lesions”, Gen. Phamacol. (1993) Vol. 24, pp. 105-110; Wiesenberg-Boetcher, Schweizer, Green, Muller, Maerki, and Pfeilschifter, “The Pharmacological Profile of CGP 28238, A Novel Highly Potent Anti-Inflammatory Compound”, Drugs Exptl Clin Res. (1989) Vol. XV, pp. 501-509; Futaki, Takahashi, Yokoyama, Arai, Higuchi, and Otomo, “NS-398, A New Anti-Inflammatory Agent, Selectively Inhibits Prostaglandin G/H Synthase/Cyclooxygenase (COX-2) Activity in vitro”, Prostaglandins (1994) Vol. 47, pp. 55-59; Klein, Nusing, Pfeilschifter, and Ullrich, “Selective Inhibition of Cyclooxygenase-2”, Biochem. Pharmacol. (1994) Vol. 48, pp. 1605-1610; Li, Black, Chan, Ford-Hutchinson, Gauthier, Gordon, Guay, Kargman, Lau, Mancini, Quimet, Roy, Vickers, Wong, Young, Zamboni, and Prasit, “Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors. Synthesis and Pharmacological Activities of 5-Methanesulfonamido-1-indanone Derivatives”, J. Med. Chem. (1995) Vol. 38, pp. 4897-8905; Prasit, Black, Chan, Ford-Hutchinson, Gauthier, Gordon, Guay, Kargman, Lau, Li, Mancini, Quimet, Roy, Tagari, Vickers, Wong, Young, and Zamboni, “L-745,337: A Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitor”, Med. Chem. Res. (1995) Vol. 5, pp. 364-374; Tanaka, Shimotori, Makino, Aikawa, Inaba, Yoshida, and Takano, “Pharmacological Studies of the New Antiinflammatory Agent 3-Formylamino-7-methylsulfonylamino-6-phenoxy-4H-1-benzopyran-4-one. 1st Communication: Antiinflammatory, Analgesic and Other Related Properties”, Arzniem.-Forsch./Drug Res. (1992) Vol. 42, pp. 935-944; Nakamura, Tsuji, Konishi, Okumura, and Matsuo, “Studies on Anti-Inflammatory Agents. I. Synthesis and Pharmacological Properties of 2′-(phenylthio)methanesulfonamides and Related Derivatives”, Chem. Pharm. Bull. (1993) Vol. 41, pp. 894-906; Chan, Boyce, Brideau, Ford-Hutchinson, Gordon, Guay, Hill, Li, Mancini, Penneton, Prasit, Rasori, Riendeau, Roy, Tagari, Vickers, Wong, and Rodger, “Pharmacology of a Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitor, L-745,337: A Novel Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Agent with an Ulcerogenic Sparing Effect in Rat and Nonhuman Primate Stomach”, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. (1995) Vol. 274, pp. 1531-1537.
There are only a few reports of attempts to convert NSAIDs that are non-selective COX inhibitors into selective COX-2 inhibitors. (See, Black, Bayly, Belley, Chan, Charleson, Denis, Gauthier, Gordon, Guay, Kargman, Lau, Leblanc, Mancini, Quellet, Percival, Roy, Skorey, Tagari, Vickers, Wong, Xu, and Prasit, “From Indomethacin to a Selective COX-2 Inhibitor: Development of Indolalkanoic Acids as Potent and Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors”, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. (1996) Vol. 6, pp. 725-730; Luong, Miller, Barnett, Chow, Ramesha, and Browner, “Flexibility of the NSAID Binding Site in the Structure of Human Cyclooxygenase-2”, Nature Structural Biol. (1996) Vol. 3, pp. 927-933; and Kalgutkar, Crews, Rowlinson, Garner, Seibert, and Marnett, “Aspirin-Like Molecules that Covalently Inactivate Cyclooxygenase-2”, Science (1998) Vol. 280, pp. 1268-1270).
Efforts in drug development have focused on the biochemical conversion of various NSAIDs. Ashton et al., in U.S. Pat. No. 5,681,964, discloses conversion of indomethacin (an NSAID) into certain ester derivatives with concomitant reduction of GI irritation. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,607,966 and 5,811,438 disclose conversion of indomethacin into certain ester derivatives and amide derivatives (which are useful as antioxidants and inhibitors of 5-lipoxygenase), but do not address COX-2 selective inhibition. U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,285,908, 3,336,194 describe secondary and tertiary amide derivatives of indomethacin, but fail to address COX inhibition. In addition, COX-2 selective inhibitors 1-aroyl-3-indolyl alkanoic acids and N-benzyl-3-indoleacetic acids are described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,436,265 and 5,510,368.
Various compounds have been used as starting points in the design of selective COX-2 inhibitors, including NSAIDs, (1) that are selective COX-1 inhibitors or (2) that have essentially the same inhibitory activity for both COX-1 and COX-2. The conformational analysis of the human COX-2 crystal structure suggests that creating a wide range of analogs of COOH-containing NSAIDs, each with a different functional group replacing the OH of the COOH, could improve water-solubility, bioavailability, or pharmacokinetics. Kolasa et al. and Flynn et al. attempted to replace the carboxylic acid group in NSAIDs with a hydroxamic acid moiety or a hydroxyurea moiety and achieved dual inhibition of COX and 5-lipoxygenase. However, none of the analogs displayed any significant selective COX-2 inhibition, with the hydroxamates undergoing facile hydrolysis (see Kolasa, Brooks, Rodriques, Summers, Dellaria, Hulkower, Bouska, Bell, and Carter, “Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs as Scaffolds for the Design of 5-Lipoxygenase Inhibitors”, J. Med. Chem. (1997) Vol. 40, pp. 819-824; and Flynn, Capiris, Cetenko, Connor, Dyer, Kostlan, Niese, Schrier, and Sircar, “Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drug Hydroxamic Acids. Dual Inhibitors of Both Cyclooxygenase and 5-Lipoxygenase”, J. Med. Chem. (1990) Vol. 33, pp. 2070-2072.)
The generation of selective COX-2 analogues of indomethacin and meclofenamic acid via amidation or esterification has been described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,399,647. More recently the metabolism of one such indomethacin amide analogue was published and was reported to be rapidly metabolized by human liver microsomes (Remmel R P et al., Drug Metab Dispos 32:113-122, 2004). Thus, new compositions are needed that are selective COX-2 inhibitors and that have improved therapeutic properties, including pharmacokinetics. Simple methods for preparing and using such compositions are also needed.