Why do I have a feeling you're playing a "Yes, but..." game with a predetermined conclusion that you want us to reach?

Because I'm playing a "Yes, but..." game with you.

And, by the way, if your workload is "getting adjusted" you're not dealing with updating probabilities about uncaring Nature, but you're in a game-theoretic situation which requires an entirely different line of analysis.

From the summary: "There are game-theoretic ways of extracting value from those who follow a strict policy of avoiding engaging in the Sunk Cost Fallacy which happen all the time in IT".

That's exactly what this post is about - the introduction was intended to illustrate what that situation -feels like-. Seeing the Planning Fallacy in that situation makes you -more- vulnerable to this kind of mugging; you keep doing what you were doing, and keep getting mugged, and each time assume you're the one at fault. I have seen people try to gaslight coworkers (no exaggeration - a phrase that gets bandied around in my company now comes from one of those attempts: "The requirements haven't changed, your understand of the requirements changed", after a database we were depositing data in had columns removed, added, and renamed, for the umpteenth time) to try to get them to keep coming for another round of mugging.

Would it clarify things if I changed the second part of the title to "Sunk Cost Mugging"?