To be clear, what I am arguing is that the 10-year yield minus the 3-month yield only works as a recession indicator if the assumption that the 10-year yield rate of change is less than the 3-month yield rate of change holds true (i.e. the long-term yield is less volatile than the short-term yield). Whereas if the 10 year yield rate of change is higher than the 3 month yield rate of change, the tool would never be able to trigger, and thus the tool is not valid as a measure of recession in the context of the assumption not being true. For the first time since the tool has been used to gauge whether a recession is coming, the 10-year yield rate of change is higher than the 3-month yield rate of change. Therefore, the tool is currently producing what scientists would call a "false negative" -- meaning that the tool is incorrectly indicating that no recession will occur.