Topic: Capital Markets-Macro & Strategy Research
Report type: U.S. Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy Outlook Report (美国通胀形势与货币政策前瞻研究报告)

A systematic analysis of inflation structure and policy reaction mechanisms has become a key topic in macroeconomic research.

Focusing on the theme of "Tariff Shocks, Inflation Structure, and Federal Reserve Policy Orientation," and based on the latest U.S. macroeconomic data, please prepare a structured research report addressing the following issues:

1. Analyze recent trends in U.S. CPI and core CPI, distinguishing among core goods, core services (especially housing-related components), as well as energy and food prices, and explain their key driving factors.

2. Discuss the transmission mechanisms of U.S. tariff policy changes on inflation. Explain how tariffs affect overall inflation through goods prices, corporate costs, and profit margins, and assess the sustainability of upward inflation risks.

3. In conjunction with employment growth, the unemployment rate, and the composition of newly unemployed populations, evaluate whether the U.S. economy is transitioning from an "inflation-driven" phase to a "growth- and employment-risk-driven" phase.

4. Based on the above analysis, assess the likely monetary policy stance of the Federal Reserve over the coming quarters. Explain the rationale for potential rate cuts despite incomplete disinflation, and analyze key uncertainties and risks.

Notes:
1. Each section should follow a "data–analysis–conclusion" structure: first present specific data or factual evidence, then conduct mechanism-based analysis, and finally provide concise conclusions or judgments.
2. The report should conclude with a dedicated "Key Takeaways" section summarizing the overall outlook for Federal Reserve policy, highlighting core judgments and major uncertainties.

## Evaluation Criteria for Macro Research Reports: Tariff Shocks, Inflation-Structure Shifts, and the Federal Reserve’s Policy Stance

This evaluation framework is designed to provide an executable, quantitative assessment of research reports centered on “tariff shock → inflation structure → Fed policy stance,” supporting consistent use in both human review and LLM-based automatic scoring. The framework contains **4 top-level dimensions and 12 sub-dimensions**, with a total score of **100 points**. Scoring emphasis: **structured decomposition capability, rigor of transmission-mechanism reasoning, verifiability of data and methods, and the operability of policy-path inference with risk awareness**.

---

### 1. Core Conclusions and Structured Insights (30 points)

#### (1) Clarity of the Core Thesis and Time Guidance (10 points)
- **9–10**: States a clear, testable main conclusion (e.g., “over the next 2–3 quarters the primary driver of core inflation disinflation will be… / tariffs will mainly show up as a one-off price level effect / the policy stance will tilt toward…”), including a **time window** and **directional judgment**; explicitly benchmarks against market consensus expectations or Fed communications (e.g., “the market is pricing…, but we believe…”).
- **6–8**: Conclusion is clear but conservative / closely follows consensus; time guidance or trigger conditions are relatively vague.
- **0–5**: No explicit conclusion or timing; mostly a compilation of materials or conceptual discussion.

#### (2) Incremental Insight from Inflation-Structure Decomposition (10 points)
- **9–10**: Goes beyond component breakdown (core goods / core services / housing / energy / food) and provides **incremental explanation**, such as: housing’s lag and leading indicators; the relationship between services inflation and wages/demand; how measures like “supercore services” affect inference; identifies structural reasons behind apparent “disinflation/reacceleration.”
- **6–8**: Completes component breakdown and standard explanations, but mechanism discussion for key components (especially housing) is not deep enough or lacks incremental perspective.
- **0–5**: Decomposition is rough (only headline/core) or component narratives are disconnected from data.

#### (3) Key Judgment on Tariff Shocks and the Inflation Path (10 points)
- **9–10**: Explicitly answers whether tariff-driven upside inflation risk is sustainable; distinguishes **one-off price-level increases** from **persistent inflation (second-round effects)**, and provides evidence-based justification (pass-through elasticity, lags, firms’ absorption capacity, strength of demand, anchoring of inflation expectations, etc.).
- **6–8**: Discusses persistence, but lacks quantitative or conditional statements (e.g., “it depends on…” without testable conditions).
- **0–5**: Only qualitatively states tariffs raise inflation, without addressing persistence and mechanisms.

---

### 2. Logical Rigor and Transmission-Mechanism Argumentation (25 points)

#### (1) Completeness of the CPI/Core CPI Component Driver Chain (9 points)
- **8–9**: Builds a clear chain: component trends → drivers (supply/demand, wages, rents, goods prices, policy and financial conditions) → implications for the outlook; handles key “interpretation difficulties” (e.g., housing lag, seasonal-adjustment noise, base effects).
- **5–7**: Main storyline is largely intact, but key links (housing, services inflation) are jumpy or insufficiently evidenced.
- **0–4**: Logical breaks; unclear mapping between component changes and driver explanations.

#### (2) Decomposition of Tariff Pass-Through and Discussion of Profit/Cost Absorption (8 points)
- **7–8**: Clearly distinguishes and substantiates at least three channels: **import prices / final-goods prices**, **firm costs and pricing strategy**, **margin absorption and redistribution**; discusses sector differences, competitive structure, substitution effects, and provides a reasonable view on lag length.
- **4–6**: Covers main channels but misses key elements such as margin absorption, sector heterogeneity, or lags.
- **0–3**: Treats tariffs as “directly pushing up CPI,” with no intermediate mechanism.

#### (3) Evidence Closed-Loop for Regime/State-Shift Judgments (8 points)
- **7–8**: Forms a closed-loop judgment using “job growth, unemployment rate, and the structure of increases in the unemployed” (e.g., unemployment reasons, duration, labor-force participation, job openings/quits as supporting evidence); clearly explains why the weight shifts from inflation to growth/employment risk.
- **4–6**: Cites employment and unemployment indicators, but lacks structural dimensions, or conclusions remain at “strong/weak.”
- **0–3**: Uses a single indicator (e.g., unemployment rate) to claim a regime shift; argumentation is insufficient.

---

### 3. Data Quality, Definition Consistency, and Method Verifiability (25 points)

#### (1) Data Recency, Source Authority, and Definition Notes (10 points)
- **9–10**: Uses the **latest available** official data and clearly labels sources and release dates (e.g., BLS CPI components, Employment Report/CPS structure, JOLTS, BEA/PCE, Import Price Index, etc.); explains key definition differences (CPI vs PCE, YoY vs annualized MoM, seasonal-adjustment effects, housing-component characteristics).
- **6–8**: Data sources are reliable and fairly recent, but definition notes are insufficient or key components are missing.
- **0–5**: Data is outdated, sources are unclear, or mixed definitions undermine robustness.

#### (2) Methods for Inflation Decomposition and Contribution Analysis (8 points)
- **7–8**: Provides at least one auditable decomposition method: component **contributions (pp contributions)**, 3/6-month annualized momentum, diffusion index / sticky-inflation metrics, etc.; explains calculation steps or key parameters so others can reproduce.
- **4–6**: Has charts and narrative, but lacks a reproducible decomposition/estimation path.
- **0–3**: Conclusions only; missing methods and calculation process.

#### (3) Quantification and Scenario-Based Assessment of Tariff Shocks (7 points)
- **6–7**: Provides an actionable estimation framework (e.g., affected import-category weights × pass-through elasticity × margin-absorption share × lag length), and conducts at least two scenarios (mild/strong shock) or sensitivity analysis.
- **3–5**: Offers an estimation idea, but parameters and scenarios are coarse and hard to verify.
- **0–2**: Entirely qualitative; no quantification or scenarios.

---

### 4. Operability of Policy Inference, Risks, and Uncertainty (20 points)

#### (1) Fed Reaction Function and Policy-Path Inference (10 points)
- **9–10**: Integrates inflation structure, employment/growth risks, and financial conditions into a unified framework (akin to a “reaction function / constraint set”); provides the policy stance over the next few quarters (hold / cut / re-tighten) and **trigger conditions**; explains why “rate cuts may occur even before inflation fully returns” (e.g., restrictive real rates, downside tail risks to growth, labor-market weakening leading inflation, anchored inflation expectations, etc.).
- **5–8**: Provides directional judgment, but lacks trigger conditions or does not adequately explain constraints behind “why cuts are possible.”
- **0–4**: Merely restates market pricing or officials’ remarks; lacks independent inference.

#### (2) Key Uncertainties, Risk Items, and Their Impact Channels (6 points)
- **5–6**: Risk discussion is specific and mechanism-based (e.g., tariff escalation scope, oil-price shock, sticky housing inflation, wage re-acceleration, abrupt shifts in financial conditions, re-rise in inflation expectations) and explains direction and magnitude (relative strength) of impacts on inflation/growth/policy path.
- **3–4**: Lists risks but lacks impact channels or weakly links them to the conclusions.
- **0–2**: Risks are vague or purely formal.

#### (3) Tradable/Decision-Useful “Timing–Catalysts–Validation Indicators” (4 points)
- **4**: Provides a clear watchlist: the next 1–2 key data releases and meeting milestones (e.g., CPI components, employment structure, import prices, FOMC meeting/dot plot), and for each specifies a “validate/falsify threshold” (e.g., core services momentum, speed of unemployment increase, tariff-related category price anomalies).
- **2–3**: Includes catalysts and focus indicators, but lacks thresholds or falsifiable statements.
- **0–1**: No clear tracking and validation framework.