Despite efforts to better understand the constraints that operate on single-step parallel (aka ``package'', ``multiple'') revision, very little work has been carried out on how to extend the model to the iterated case. A recent paper by Delgrande & Jin outlines a range of relevant rationality postulates. While many of these are plausible, they lack an underlying unifying explanation. We draw on recent work on iterated parallel contraction to offer a general method for extending serial iterated belief revision operators to handle parallel change. This method, based on a family of order aggregators known as TeamQueue aggregators, provides a principled way to recover the independently plausible properties that can be found in the literature, without yielding the more dubious ones.

The standard ``serial'' (aka ``singleton'') model of belief contraction models the manner in which an agent's corpus of beliefs responds to the removal of a single item of information. One salient extension of this model introduces the idea of ``parallel'' (aka ``package'' or ``multiple'') change, in which an entire set of items of information are simultaneously removed. Existing research on the latter has largely focussed on single-step parallel contraction: understanding the behaviour of beliefs after a single parallel contraction. It has also focussed on generalisations to the parallel case of serial contraction operations whose characteristic properties are extremely weak. Here we consider how to extend serial contraction operations that obey stronger properties. Potentially more importantly, we also consider the iterated case: the behaviour of beliefs after a sequence of parallel contractions. We propose a general method for extending serial iterated belief change operators to handle parallel change based on an n-ary generalisation of Booth & Chandler's TeamQueue binary order aggregators.

The belief revision literature has largely focussed on the issue of how to revise one’s beliefs in the light of information regarding matters of fact. Here we turn to an important but comparatively neglected issue: How to model agents capable of acquiring information regarding which rules of inference (‘Ramsey Test conditionals’) they ought to use in reasoning about these facts. Our approach to this second question of so-called ‘conditional revision’ is distinctive insofar as it abstracts from the controversial details of how the address the first. We introduce a ‘plug and play’ method for uniquely extending any iterated belief revision operator to the conditional case. The flexibility of our approach is achieved by having the result of a conditional revision by a Ramsey Test conditional (‘arrow’) determined by that of a plain revision by its corresponding material conditional (‘hook’). It is shown to satisfy a number of new constraints that are of independent interest.