Next Wednesday sees the release of Australia's June quarter CPI - data that the RBA would have loved to have had in time for their last meeting, when, in a move that caught most economists out, Michele Bullock and her board voted 6-3 to keep rates on hold.

Since that July rate decision we've had a few more insights into the board's collective thinking - albeit with no indication or leak as to who voted which way. In the minutes of the July meeting, released earlier this week, they noted an expectation for headline inflation to pick up to around the top of the target range later this year, and remain there in 2026. While all members agreed the inflationary outlook would decline further, the debate was over timing.

Meanwhile, global concerns remain thanks largely to Donald Trump's policy announcements, even if the world - and markets - seem to be less reactive now to the constant back and forth as they become used to them. The RBA however are not so easily swayed, with "uncertainty"mentioned no less than nine times in the minutes of June's meeting

Caution - as it probably should be for central bankers - seemed to be a dominant theme, including the fact that having eased twice earlier in the year, a third cut in just "four meetings would unlikely to be consistent with the strategy of easing monetary policy in a cautious and gradual manner". Given the RBA's expectation that the cash rate will "decline to a little over 3% by mid-2026"(in other words, three cuts of 0.25% from here), they certainly didn't need to rush, in spite of the market's expectations.

Assuming next week's CPI number is clear-cut one way or the other, either the Board (or at least 6 of them) or the economists who got it wrong last time, will be able to claim "I told you so".

Although the RBA's language is unlikely to be prone to such colourful exuberance.