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]


124 F.3d 212
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.James D. RHINEHART, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES, Richard M. Celano and Does1 Through 10, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 96-15896.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 9, 1997.Decided Aug. 13, 1997.

Appeal from the District Court for the Northern District of California, CV-95-154-DLJ;  D. Lowell Jensen, District Judge, Presiding.
Before:  SCHROEDER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and WALLACH, Judge.**


1
MEMORANDUM*


2
We review the grant of summary judgment to the defendant below de novo.  Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1261 (1996).


3
Rhinehart established the first three elements of a prima facie case of age discrimination, viz., that he was a member of a protected class, employees more than 40 years of age, that he performed his duties satisfactorily, and that he was discharged.  See, Rose v. Wells Fargo & Company, 902 F.2d 1417, 1421 (9th Cir.1990).  We are satisfied, however, that the district court did nor err in finding that he failed to establish the fourth element of the prima facie case, i.e., that he was replaced by a substantially younger employee, or that circumstantial, direct or statistical evidence gives rise to an inference of discrimination.  Id.,  Nesbit v. Pepsico, Inc., 994 F.2d 703, 704-05 (9th Cir.1993).


4
Rhinehart conceded that his employer, IBM, had valid business reasons to reduce its workforce.  The evidence shows that the company ranked its employees in Rhinehart's geographical area and job classification according to their relative employment evaluation scores received over a three year period.  IBM then selected employees from the bottom of the list until it had reached the requisite number to be laid off.  This method of selecting targets for a reduction in force is on its face age-neutral, and not in violation of federal or state discrimination law.


5
Rhinehart presented neither substantial evidence that IBM used a selection method different from the foregoing, nor other statistical or circumstantial evidence that allows an inference of age discrimination.  While it is true that each of the eight Account Customer Engineers ("ACE's") laid off was 40 or more years of age and in the protected class, six of the eight retained also were 40 or more years of age.  Whether this sample is statistically relevant or not, it does not establish discrimination.


6
The redistribution of Rhinehart's responsibilities also does not show discrimination.  The record indicates that his remaining account responsibilities were transferred to six retained employees.  Half of the six were forty or more years of age, and two of them were older than Rhinehart.


7
Rhinehart's arguments that his declining performance evaluations and the application of higher evaluation criteria to more experienced employees were discriminatory are similarly unavailing.  "[T]he use of subjective employment criteria is not unlawful per se.  Although subjective practices may provide 'ready mechanisms for discrimination', their relevance to proof of a discriminatory intent is weak.  Honorable employers frequently use subjective criteria also.  Indeed, in many situations they are indispensable to the process of selection in which employers must engage."  Sengupta v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 804 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.1986) (citations omitted).


8
Our review of the record revealed no reason to question the validity of Rhinehart's performance evaluations.  Though necessarily subjective, they had a sound basis in fact.  Moreover, we see nothing intrinsically improper in an employer expecting a higher level of performance of its more experienced employees.  Such standards are wise human resources policy, and not themselves proof of wrongful intent.


9
Finally, the release form IBM proffered to Rhinehart in return for a severance package does not show discriminatory intent.  The same standard release was given to all employees regardless of age or disability as part of the "IBM Employee Transition Plan".  The fact that Rhinehart received it in this context proves nothing.


10
Rhinehart's claim of disability discrimination also lacks the support of evidence in the record.  The circumstances of his termination, as analyzed herein, do not establish discrimination.  Nor does the testimony of his supervisor Dwiggins regarding his performance evaluation.  Dwiggins testified that he was aware of Rhinehart's respiratory malady.  He stated, however, "Was it something I changed his appraisal on?   No." ER 663.  Rhinehart did not present contraverting evidence.


11
The claim of discrimination under FEHA against Richard Celano as an individual also is unavailing.  Although, the California Supreme Court has not addressed the existence of a statutory claim against an individual supervisor for employment discrimination under FEHA, the California Court of Appeal held recently that such a cause of action does not exist.  Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics, 46 Cal.App. 4th 55, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 741 (Ct.App.), rev. denied (1996).  We find that opinion persuasive on this issue of California law.


12
As a final matter, Rhinehart's claim of wrongful discharge based on California public policy has no merit.  As set forth above, he has not presented facts from which one can conclude that he was indeed wrongfully discharged.  Therefore, we need not address the question of whether California's public policy tort law supports a cause of action for discrimination-based wrongful discharge.


13
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.



**
 The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation


*
 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3