  Natural revision seems so natural: it changes beliefs as little as possible
to incorporate new information. Yet, some counterexamples show it wrong. It is
so conservative that it never fully believes. It only believes in the current
conditions. This is right in some cases and wrong in others. Which is which?
The answer requires extending natural revision from simple formulae expressing
universal truths (something holds) to conditionals expressing conditional truth
(something holds in certain conditions). The extension is based on the basic
principles natural revision follows, identified as minimal change, indifference
and naivety: change beliefs as little as possible; equate the likeliness of
scenarios by default; believe all until contradicted. The extension says that
natural revision restricts changes to the current conditions. A comparison with
an unrestricting revision shows what exactly the current conditions are. It is
not what currently considered true if it contradicts the new information. It
includes something more and more unlikely until the new information is at least
possible.
