Jerome Powell was asked on Wednesday if, and to what degree, the recent selloff at the long-end of the US Treasury curve stood in for Fed action at the November FOMC meeting.

That was the question. While editorializing around the new policy statement, I briefly recapped recent events: Officials spent the better part of October explaining how and why the rapid rise in long-end US Treasury yields witnessed since early August could theoretically substitute for a rate hike, or anyway assist the Fed in its efforts to curb demand and cool the economy.

Given that, everyone knew the Q&A on Wednesday would revolve around Powell’s assessment of that dynamic, even as he already discussed his views at length during remarks to the Economic Club of New York on October 19.

Before answering the question, Powell made it clear that the Fed is “not yet confident” that policy settings are sufficiently restrictive to fully restore price stability.

With that on the record, Powell said the Fed’s obviously “attentive to the rise in long-end yields since summer.” He was adamant that tighter financial conditions brought about by higher yields would need to be “persistent” to matter for monetary policy. He came back to that again and again on Wednesday.

He mentioned lower equities, a stronger dollar and 8% mortgage rates in addition to higher Treasury yields, but said the Fed can’t make policy based on day-to-day or even month-to-month changes in financial conditions, no matter the cause. It must be a “persistent” shift.

In addition, Powell was keen to emphasize that the Fed is “looking for something other than” the pricing in of expected policy changes. In other words, if tighter financial conditions brought about by an increase in bond yields are simply the product of policy expectations, that can’t stand in for rate hikes — as soon as the Fed took the hikes off the table, the tightening impulse would evaporate in a self-defeating process.

Reuters circled back and questioned Powell about his contention that the Fed isn’t yet confident they’ve reached sufficiently restrictive territory. “We’re not confident that we haven’t, we’re not confident that we have,” Powell said.

Asked if a skip in December definitively means the end of the hiking cycle, Powell said no. “We haven’t made a decision about December. You’re asking about a hypothetical,” he began, addressing the reporter. “I would say, though, that the idea that it would be difficult to raise again after stopping for a meeting or two is just not right.”

Nick Timiraos asked if Fed staff put a recession back in the baseline forecast. Recall that staff had a recession penciled in for year-end, but eventually changed their mind as the economy continued to (out)perform. Powell smiled and said he didn’t really want to answer the question, but would anyway since it’d come out in the meeting minutes. Staff doesn’t see a recession.

Timiraos also asked Powell how many basis points worth of rate hikes could theoretically be offset by a persistent tightening in financial conditions. Powell was understandably reluctant to offer an estimate, even as Timiraos helpfully noted that he (Powell) endeavored a guess earlier this year. It’s “too early,” Powell said, to venture another guess. He leaned on the “persistent” talking point. “We just don’t know how persistent [the tightening in financial conditions] will be.”

Queried by the FT if a prolonged period of tighter financial conditions could prompt the Fed to pull forward rate cuts, Powell brushed the question aside. The Fed isn’t even sure rates are sufficiently restrictive yet. The next question is how long to hold terminal once it’s achieved. “The question of rate cuts doesn’t even come up,” he said.

Steve Liesman asked if the Committee has abandoned the “tightening bias” conveyed by the September dot plot. “I wouldn’t say that at all,” Powell responded. “It’s fair to say the question we’re asking is ‘Should we hike more?'”

Later, while responding to a somewhat convoluted question from Michael McKee, Powell gently noted that “Many things could change that would cause people to change their dot.” “The efficacy of the dot plot decays” over the three-month period between SEP meetings, he remarked.