I would argue that synchronizing data between multiple representations is an anti-pattern, and the exact anti-pattern that redux, with its emphasis on a single source of truth, was designed to solve. Synchronizing state is almost always going to lead to hard to diagnose bugs in edge cases. There's even a blog post on why it's a bad idea on the official react blog [0]
My solution to this problem is to use computed values generated by a library with memoization like reselect. I structure my data as close as possible to the API data models and use selectors to transform the models into the data structures that disparate UI components require. If you need to change your UI component, you don't need to refactor your store, and if you need to change your store structure, you don't need to refactor your UI components.
[0]: https://reactjs.org/blog/2018/06/07/you-probably-dont-need-d...
> Futher, Redux doesn't solve synchronization issues in situations where you can't represent the data the same way.
It's kind of the whole Redux philosophy that you won't do that. It's in the FAQ. There's no "can't". You're never forced to keep duplicate data in your store.
Restrictions are the price of solving hard problems (even if you don't want to admit they're hard) in a deterministic fashion.
Futher, Redux doesn't solve synchronization issues in situations where you can't represent the data the same way. In the most complicated situations, it actually exacerbates the issue because it separates the data from the components that use it, making static analysis tools unable to see how your data changes might break the components. This also goes to show you didn't even understand the part of what I said that you selectively quoted, since I already said this.
> I'm not even hesitating before I choose the first option.
Perhaps if you hesitated a bit more, you could use that time to read all of the options and understand them.