The way central banks communicate policy has two channels: what they say, and what they project. Most people watch the statements. The projections are more revealing. The Fed issues quarterly inflation forecasts through its Summary of Economic Projections. These aren't neutral estimates — they're the institution's public signal of what it believes it can tolerate. When those forecasts get revised downward while observable price pressures are still building, it signals which constraint the institution is actually managing. The stated mandate says price stability. The revision says something about where the true floor is. The 2021 transitory episode clarified the mechanism — not because anyone was being deceptive, but because the institutional pull to avoid tightening was stronger than what the data required. The forecast justified the posture. The posture accumulated into years of catch-up. When what the projections show doesn't match what prices are actually doing, that gap isn't a mistake. It's the institution showing what it's really managing. The question isn't whether the next revision will be accurate. It's whether the distance between the stated mandate and the actual posture is widening or narrowing — and who bears the cost when it closes.