Preferring the existing state and treating change as the option that must justify itself, even when the current position is arbitrary or has never been tested. The default is not neutral: it is a decision, taken without argument.
In intelligence analysis
- The current collection posture, the standing assessment and the existing product format are carried forward without review, while any proposed change faces the burden of proof.
- Judgements assessed as "no change" escape scrutiny precisely because no change is being claimed — but "no change" is itself a judgement and needs the same evidence as any other.
- It stabilises stale pictures: an assessment not revisited is indistinguishable from an assessment re-confirmed, and the reader cannot tell which they have been given.
- It is the mirror of Recency Bias: one refuses to move without new evidence, the other moves on the newest item alone. Both fail to distinguish signal from noise.
Countermeasure
- Require periodic, explicit re-validation of standing judgements and of the collection supporting them, with a date on the review.
- Present the default as an option among others: what would we do if we were starting from nothing today?
Related
- Cognitive Bias — the taxonomy this bias sits within
- Recency Bias — the opposite failure in the other direction
- Loss Aversion — change is framed as a loss of the current position
- The Intelligence Cycle — review is where standing judgements get re-tested