I am surprised there were no dissents to the June FOMC statement given the radical changes in language and structure. What were the alternatives considered? Was this their best choice?

The BEA switched to PPI legal services for estimating PCE legal services in Mar like they did in Jan. In Feb they used CPI legal services which is the official source data. The consistency across Jan/Mar is reassuring because it shows they are treating outliers in a symmetric fashion. However...

The January reset of health insurance premiums captured in the PPI has been sequentially revised up to 4.3% m/m nsa in the latest vintage from 2.2% initially. More upward revisions are still possible. Core inflation at the beginning of 2026 was hotter than first reported.

If BEA sticks with CPI for legal services in Mar (asymmetric intervention) core PCE inflation % y/y will be biased down by roughly a tenth. If they switch to PPI again in Mar (symmetric intervention), core PCE inflation will still be 0.03pp lower than if they had not intervened at all.

Troubling development--Core PCE inflation was hot in Jan at 0.36% m/m & 3.1% y/y BUT it would have been even hotter had BEA not shifted its source data in an ad hoc fashion to avoid showing an 11.9% m/m rise in legal fees shown in the CPI. The BEA acknowledged they made this choice...not a good look