Why does monetary policy still depend on 'confidence' when markets look stable?

I’ve been skimming the latest Fed minutes and I’m perplexed. The committee talks a lot about "public confidence" as a lever for future actions. Yet stock indices are flat‑facing, bond yields have hardly budged, and inflation targets seem under control.

If the economic fundamentals look solid—solid growth, moderate employment gaps, stable price dynamics—why is sentiment still a headline factor? Is it a true sign of invisible volatility, or is it a PR move to signal "we’re thinking ahead"?

The debate feels polarized: one camp says central banks use confidence signals to prevent runs and to keep monetary policy credible; the other argues that an overemphasis on sentiment undermines the discipline of objective policy and may inflate risk premia.

Can anyone provide empirical evidence where sentiment moves preceded tangible policy shifts that weren’t warranted by any real data change? How has the Fed balanced this since the 2008 crisis?

I’d appreciate detailed examples or models you’re comfortable sharing—no flashy jargon, just the real mechanics as practiced.