An influential Nature paper posits that papers and patents are becoming less disruptive, as indicated by a decline in the yearly average CD5. We reassess this claim exploring key assumptions and potential biases inherent in the CD5 index, including dichotomy, truncation, aggregate, and averaging biases. These biases may skew the overall assessment of disruptive technology trends. Our analysis suggests that the observed decline in the average CD5 value could be influenced by an increase in consolidating, trivial, and dualistic patents, which may inadvertently affect the average. We put forward an alternative characterization that corrects for these biases, providing a more accurate assessment of disruptive technology trends. Our findings suggest that the observed decline may result from the biases in characterizing technology in the current metrics, with important implications for research policy and technology strategy.
