Fed's Cook (voter) says supply shocks have had surprisingly persistent effects, becoming more salient for policy; possible that optimal policy response to supply shock could be sector-dependent; have to be attentive to consumer confidence

Comments from a single FOMC voter on framework rather than near-term policy tend to sit in the category of agenda-setting remarks: they rarely move the front end on their own, but they flag where the committee's internal debate is heading, which is what historically reprices the path once it becomes the median view rather than a tail. The supply-shock framing is the substantive part. Officials wrestling with persistent supply effects are describing a world in which the standard response, looking through a temporary price impulse, is harder to defend, and in past episodes of this kind that argument has been the precursor to a more hawkish reaction function: supply shocks that do not fade get treated like demand shocks. The sector-dependent caveat cuts the other way, suggesting reluctance to apply a blunt policy rate to a problem concentrated in specific sectors, a distinction that matters for how hawkish such remarks actually are in practice. The consumer confidence reference is the tell for direction: confidence has been a leading input to consumption and to inflation expectations, and officials citing it have historically been signaling attention to downside demand risk as much as upside price risk. Worth watching is whether this language is echoed by the chair or other governors, and whether it feeds into the summary of economic projections' supply-side assumptions rather than remaining one member's framing.