BoE's Bailey (Q&A) says there is not one single piece of information they are looking at or for. Adds, it would be too late to wait for all the 2nd round effects to be seen, but cannot guide towards a time period.

Comments of this kind, declining to tie policy to a single indicator or a calendar date, are the standard posture of a central bank that wants optionality while tightening or holding against persistent inflation; governors in this position have historically resisted time-based guidance precisely because it transfers the reaction function to the market and removes the committee's discretion. The reference to second-round effects, wage settlements and price-setting feeding back on themselves, is the channel that has driven the hawkish side of the debate at this bank and its peers; the argument that waiting for full confirmation would be too late is the textbook case for acting ahead of complete evidence, and has tended to underpin restrictive-for-longer stances rather than imminent easing. The refusal to guide towards a time period leaves the data calendar, wage prints and services inflation in particular, carrying the full weight of repricing the front end, which is the established pattern when guidance is withdrawn. The follow-ons are whether other committee members echo the same framing or diverge, and whether the remarks sit consistently with the bank's published forecasts rather than softening or hardening them. As Q&A commentary rather than a decision, the signal is directional; the vote split at the next meeting is the harder read on where the median sits.