 It is no surprise that understanding communication as emergent meanings, as negotiating intentions and commitments (see e.g., Geurts 2019; Elder 2021) is taking the concept of default to the new territory of dynamic, co-constructed meanings. Elder and Haugh, for example, aim at modelling the joint construction of the meaning that is settled on by the interlocutors as the main content – as they say, akin to the ‘primary meaning’ of Default Semantics (Jaszczolt 2005) or to Ariel’s (2002) ‘privileged interactional interpretation’ – free from any formal constraints that the logical form of the uttered sentence might impose, but instead, and in addition, flowing freely, as conversation progresses, with dynamic, changing intentions. Such co-constructed meaning is steered by default interpretations that are assigned privately by each side but also sometimes rejected in favour of what progressively emerges as a default inference – an interactively constructed meaning that is sensitive to what is fit to be taken for granted, and as such sensitive to what other parties would, and do, take for granted. In short, dynamic, interactional pragmatics comes with dynamic, interactional defaults.