Arguing for a controversial, expansive position (the "bailey") but retreating to a modest, defensible position (the "motte") when challenged — then returning to the bailey once pressure eases. The modest position is used to legitimize the radical one without actually defending it.
A commentator argues that "diversity in corporate leadership is the most important predictor of business performance" (the bailey — a strong, contestable claim). When pressed for evidence, they say "we just think boards shouldn't be full of identical people — surely that's not controversial?" (the motte — obviously defensible). Having defended the motte, they return to treating the bailey as established.
The motte is genuinely defensible, so the defense feels successful. The shift is subtle enough that audiences don't always notice the original claim has been abandoned. And if you attack the bailey, the speaker can accuse you of attacking the motte — making the challenger look extreme.
Watch for position shifts when challenged. If a sweeping claim is defended with a much more modest one, ask: "Which version are you actually arguing for?"