SMOC
Many mistakes are made by crew pre briefing an expected taxi route and then hearing what they briefed (confirmation bias) but hopefully caught by a watchful ATC or another crew member.
If that's the case, then this confirmation bias exists for any other type of brief you give (departure, approach, missed approach), since clearances can be changed at any time. The reason we talk about confirmation bias is so we are aware and on guard for it, not as a reason to not plan ahead or talk about it.
I'm not a huge fan of the pre briefed taxi, as some just rattle it off and don't think about the route itself. If taxiing is going to be a threat at least discuss something about where those threats are and what you expect to do to mitigate them.
If those people are just rattling it off and not thinking about it, chances are they're doing it with every other brief as well. Discussing threats and traps as part of the brief was covered in post #222, it's the primary reason for doing it in the first place.
It's required by many companies' SOPs. If it's not by yours and you're not a big fan of it despite what's been said, well, take it or leave it. Nobody here is your mother who's going to tell you how to best maintain vigilance and SA with both crew in the loop when cockpit duties/chores/communication during taxi can split the crew attention. Like I said in the first place, I'm interested if the investigation finds whether or not there was a briefing given re taxi route to the runway before and/or after clearance was received, what kind of distractions (if any) were going on, and why the breakdown of SA occurred and why wasn't it recognized before impact?