Why did Charles Sanders Peirce argue that signs do not have completely fixed meanings?

Charles Sanders Peirce argued that signs do not possess fixed, definitive meanings because meaning must be continuously qualified.1

For Peirce, a sign functions by referring an interpreter to an "interpretant," which is itself another sign. This creates a process where signs are translated into clearer signs to resolve conceptual or linguistic confusion. Because this process is rooted in pragmatism—a method of understanding meaning through the practical consequences or "effects" of a concept—the meaning of a sign is inherently tied to future inquiry and experience.2

Peirce posited that scientific thought and the pursuit of truth are ongoing processes conducted by a community of investigators. Since the understanding of a sign depends on these evolving experimental results and the continuous refinement of beliefs, meaning remains dynamic rather than static.21