The word change would never change as a concept, but in the real world, the world of concrete objects, it is always subjected to the change. The staticity of your chosen "change" as a concept includes almost every other concept. The concept of tree, or stone or... are not subjected to any "change" either, even though any specific tree, or… is nothing but changing, growing or diminishing concrete entity.
Concepts are not subjected to change because they are induced from concrete objects, as their universal tendencies. Human by words(concepts) withdraws the most general and unchanging parts of any object in order to classify them. Like "treeness" is what all the individual trees share. That is why we put all these 'un-look alike' objects, different in size, shape… in the same category and name them the same.
Plato talks about the “Form” as unchanging part of the universe, the “essence” the ethereal part that are ways above the material world. But in real, except few cases, all the thing he refer to them as forms are nothing but “concepts” .
Until (almost 2000 years) later Kant put the concept of “Form” in some perspective and call them “synthetic apriori proposition”, calming that that we born with such unchanging knowledge, like the knowledge of matt and physic, according to him.
This is the key to solve the 28 prompt question:: "Motion is definite and motionlessness is relative."
This is the dialectical definite answer.
Or in metaphysic, God is the ultimate answer,
to the 28th
You lost me . . . Lol.
Seriously, I did get it.
In answer to the prompt question: time, I suppose. I know that time actually changes every moment, but, since it ALWAYS changes, is it still change? Change is defined by something that doesn't always happen, but did. Time always passes, so is it still defined as change? If that makes sense :)
Anyway, interesting piece, with plenty of good talking points to raise.