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]


Cells move. They do it to help embryos develop, fashioning organs and tissues. White blood cells chase bacteria and viruses, preventing us from getting sick. Cancer cells spread via the blood.

Cell movement is an essential process that underlies health and disease. Yet despite many years of intensive study, a good understanding of the mechanics of this important phenomenon has remained out of biologists' grasp.

In an effort to "glue" together large groups of scientists to tackle such pressing problems confronting biomedical scientists today, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences has provided an $8 million "glue grant" (for the first year of funding) to a consortium of basic scientists who will work to unlock the mysteries of cell movement. NIGMS anticipates spending a projected total of $38 million on the project over the course of five years.

"For some research, the intellectual and material resources available to individual laboratories, or even to small groupings of labs, are simply not enough to adequately attack the problem. Glue grants provide an opportunity to marshal the resources needed," said Dr. Marvin Cassman, director of NIGMS.

The "Cell Migration Consortium" project brings together a large group of scientists from leading academic medical centers across the country. Leading the project are two scientists from the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Dr. Alan F. "Rick" Horwitz and Dr. J. Thomas Parsons.

"Understanding the mechanism of how cell migration occurs is critical to our understanding of diseases like cancer, arthritis and osteoporosis, as well as wound repair, embryonic development and tissue engineering," said Horwitz, professor of cell biology at U.Va. and the project's principal investigator. "For example, most people who have cancer don't die from primary tumors but from tumor spread  that's a migration problem. And a significant number of congenital brain defects are migration problems."

One of the Consortium's goals is to generate new understanding about the basic mechanisms involved in cell migration. A key part of the plan is to generate new and sophisticated imaging strategies to visualize the fundamental signaling pathways that regulate cell migration  technologies that are sorely needed by the scientific community currently investigating cell movement. Another objective of the Consortium is to catalyze the translation of new discoveries in cell migration to the development of novel therapeutic drugs and treatments.

The Consortium will be truly multifaceted  consisting of biologists, chemists, biophysicists, optical physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists, geneticists and engineers. The arrangement should foster a multi-pronged attack on the study of cell migration that will interface with the larger community of cell migration researchers.

"The days of the lone investigator are rapidly waning in disciplines like cell biology," said Horwitz. "We have to cooperate rather than compete if we are to answer some of the most complex and challenging scientific questions."

Using state-of-the-art Internet and interactive video technologies, Consortium researchers will share and discuss data as it is collected, Parsons explained. A Consortium Web site (www.cellmigration.org) will make possible the timely sharing of findings, ideas, and information. The Web site will be publicly accessible to scientists everywhere.

NIGMS originally conceived of the large-scale glue grants following consultations with leaders in the scientific community who emphasized the importance of confronting intractable biological problems with the expertise and input of large, multifaceted groups of scientists.

The first glue grant was awarded last year to Dr. Alfred G. Gilman, a pharmacologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, who won the Nobel Prize in 1994 for work on signaling molecules called G proteins.

Joining forces with U.Va. scientists are consortium members from several institutions, including the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the Burnham Institute; The Scripps Research Institute; Northwestern University; Harvard University; The Johns Hopkins University; Florida State University; the University of California, Davis; the University of Connecticut Health Center; and the University of Illinois.

Please mention support for this work from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), a component of the National Institutes of Health that supports basic biomedical research. Please fax clips to (301) 402-0224.

Contacts:
For comment on the glue grant program, call Alison Davis in the NIGMS Office of Communications and Public Liaison at (908) 735-7207 to arrange an interview with NIGMS director Dr. Marvin Cassman.

For comment on the Cell Migration Consortium, call Marguerite Beck in the U.Va. Health System Media Relations office at (434) 924-5679 to arrange an interview with consortium leader Dr. Alan F. "Rick" Horwitz.