 Examples like  (16)  call into question the value of an incremental interpretation schema like  (15).  On top of that,  (15)  is rather presumptuous in its assumptions of how interpretation proceeds. Asserting a clause with propositional content \(p\) does not automatically make it common knowledge that \(p\). Rather, such an assertion should be regarded as a proposal to make \(p\) common knowledge. Whether or not \(p\) becomes common ground is dependent on the willingness of the other interlocutors to accept the proposition (for instance, by not objecting against the assertion). In other words,  (15)  seems ill-suited for capturing the pragmatics of (the dynamics of) information flow.