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]



22 Ariz. App. 74 (1974)
523 P.2d 801
STATE COMPENSATION FUND, Petitioner Carrier, City of Tucson, Petitioner Employer,
v.
Pearl M. STANKE, Widow of Roy E. Stanke, Deceased, Respondent Employee, The Industrial Commission of Arizona, Respondent.
No. 1 CA-IC 936.
Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department B.
June 25, 1974.
*75 Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel, State Compensation Fund, Phoenix, by Dee-Dee Samet, Tucson, for petitioner carrier and petitioner employer.
Rees, Mercaldo & Smith, P.C., by Ronald D. Mercaldo, Tucson, for respondent employee.
William C. Wahl, Jr., Former Chief Counsel, Phoenix, for respondent The Industrial Commission of Arizona.
OPINION
HAIRE, Presiding Judge.
On this review by certiorari of an award entered by the respondent Commission, a question is presented as to the maximum amount which may be awarded to a surviving widow as a death benefit for the burial expenses of her deceased husband.
At the time the husband suffered his industrial injury in 1958, A.R.S. § 23-1046, subsections A(1) and D, read as follows:
"A. In case of an injury causing death, the compensation therefor shall be known as a death benefit, and shall be payable in the amount, for the period, and to and for the benefit of the persons following:
"1. Burial expenses, not to exceed three hundred dollars, in addition to the compensation.
* * * * * *
"D. In event of death of a dependent before expiration of the time named in the award, the funeral expenses of such person, not to exceed three hundred dollars, shall be paid." (Emphasis added).
Subsequently, in 1971 and prior to the decedent's death, the statute was amended to increase these maximums to $800.
At the time of the decedent's injury, and at the time of his death, A.R.S. § 23-1064 B provided that:
"B. Questions of dependency and the extent thereof shall be determined as of the date of the injury to the employee and the dependent's right to any death benefit shall become fixed as of such time irrespective of any subsequent change in conditions, and the death benefits shall be directly recoverable by and payable to the dependent entitled thereto."
Looking at subsection B of § 23-1064, it is immediately apparent that the subsection deals with two distinct issues, first the determination of the status of dependency, and second, the fixing of rights accruing from that status. In the language of subsection B, the status "... of dependency and the extent thereof [is] determined as of the date of the injury to the employee...." This initial portion of subsection B removes much of the confusion in the law existing in states without such a statutory provision, and its conclusive effect as to the time for the determination of the status of dependency has been considered and ruled upon in several Arizona decisions. See Magma Copper Co. v. Naglich, 60 Ariz. 43, 131 P.2d 357 (1942); Ranger Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission, 15 Ariz. App. 45, 485 P.2d 869 (1971); Coover v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz. App. 409, 484 P.2d 21 (1971); Tipton v. Industrial Commission, 2 Ariz. App. 339, 409 P.2d 55 (1965).
The second portion of subsection B, 23-1064, does not deal with the time for the determination of the status of dependency, but rather proceeds one step further  the *76 status of dependency having been determined, the statute next provides that the dependent's rights to death benefits are also fixed as of such time. From the foregoing it would appear that the contingent right to a death benefit for burial expenses in an amount not to exceed $300 came into existence at the time of the decedent's injury, and in the language of A.R.S. § 23-1064B, the right became "fixed as of such time...."
Based upon the provisions of A.R.S. § 23-1064B, it is our opinion that the death benefit right here involved, the right to burial expenses not to exceed $300, became fixed as of the date of the decedent's injury. Bearing in mind the provisions of A.R.S. § 1-244,[1] we do not find any indication in the language of the 1971 amendment which would indicate a legislative intention to make the increase to $800 retroactive as to rights which had already become fixed. The result we reach is in accord with the interpretation which had been adopted by the respondent Commission for many years prior to the entry of the present award, which reached a contrary result.
In arriving at his decision allowing burial expenses to a maximum of $800, the hearing officer relied upon cases from other jurisdictions which have allowed death benefits in accordance with the statutes in effect at the time of death as opposed to those in effect at the time of injury. In Magma Copper Co. v. Naglich, supra, a decision dealing with the availability of death benefits under the Arizona statutes, the Arizona Supreme Court expressly recognized that decisions from other jurisdictions concerning death benefits are of little value as precedent because of differences in the terms of the statutes involved and the concepts flowing therefrom. Suffice it to say that we have examined the cases relied upon by the hearing officer, and find substantial variances in the statutory provisions of the jurisdictions involved, at least insofar as those provisions are revealed and relied upon in the decisions cited.
Having decided that the death benefits here involved were fixed by the statute in effect at the time of the decedent's injury and that there was no legislative intent to give the 1971 amendment retroactive effect, it is not necessary for the Court to consider the petitioning carrier's contention that to give retroactive effect to the 1971 amendment would constitute an impairment of the obligation of the workmen's compensation policy here involved, thereby violating the provisions of the constitution of Arizona, Article 2, § 25, and the United States constitution, Article 1, § 10.
The award is set aside.
JACOBSON, C.J., and EUBANK, J., concur.
NOTES
[1]  A.R.S. § 1-244 provides as follows: "No statute is retroactive unless expressly declared therein."