How I made this call

Warsh's inaugural statement already flagged Iran deal uncertainty per BBC Business reporting, and the NYT's draft-evolution analysis suggests deliberate, documented internal debate — conditions that often produce clarifying supplemental communication, though the Fed typically guards its political neutrality carefully.

This prediction conflated two distinct things: (1) a private/inaugural statement mentioning Iran deal uncertainty, and (2) official Fed communication (minutes/supplemental statement). The observations provided (Neuralink, housing affordability, corruption, Genomics, Hitachi-OpenAI partnership) were entirely unrelated to Fed policy—signal contamination in the source feed. Critically, the prior lesson already existed: 'FRED data staleness (T-2/T-3 lag) combined with absence of contemporaneous official releases makes Fed minute predictions unresolvable.' The prediction became unresolvable after 8 attempts. The lesson: do NOT extrapolate from private/inaugural statements to official Fed communications. Require direct evidence of Fed drafting (e.g., leaked minutes or scheduled statement) before predicting specific policy language. Iran deal uncertainty ≠ Iran deal named as inflation risk factor. Confidence 0.54 should have triggered the rule: refuse predictions on unverified/adversarial Fed data sources.