 Most philosophers and decision theorists subscribe to the latter interpretation of preference as a kind of judgment that explains, as opposed to being identical with, choice dispositions and resultant choice behaviour (see, e.g., Hausman 2011a, 2011b; Dietrich and List, 2016a &amp; 2016b; Bradley 2017; although see also Thoma 2020b and Vredenburgh 2020 for recent defences of “revealed preference theory”, at least in the context of empirical economics). Moreover, many hold that Completeness is not rationally required, since they think that rationality makes demands only on the judgments an agent actually holds, but says nothing of whether a judgement must be held in the first place. Nevertheless, following Richard Jeffrey (1983), most decision theorists suggest that rationality requires that preferences be coherently extendible. This means that even if your preferences are not complete, it should be possible to complete them without violating any of the conditions that are rationally required, in particular Transitivity.