PPI came in at 0.5% vs 1.1% expected — does this change the inflation passthrough model from an oil shock?

Today's US PPI for March came in at 0.5%, significantly below the 1.1% consensus estimate.

Given that the dominant inflation concern has been the passthrough chain from an oil price shock (Iran war → elevated Brent → energy input costs → PPI → CPI), this miss raises a question about the transmission mechanism.

The standard model would suggest oil price increases feed into PPI relatively quickly — especially in energy-intensive sectors — before passing through to consumer prices with a lag. A PPI miss of this magnitude after six weeks of elevated oil prices suggests either:

(a) The passthrough to production costs has been slower than historical patterns would predict, possibly because firms have absorbed margins temporarily rather than passing costs through.

(b) The oil price level during this period, while elevated, hasn't been sustained at extreme levels long enough to trigger the full passthrough.

(c) The data is being influenced by sectors where oil cost increases are less direct.

My questions: Is there a framework for distinguishing between these explanations with the available data? And does a soft PPI reading materially change the probability distribution for next month's CPI — or is there enough lag in the transmission that this month's PPI gives us limited information about next month's CPI?

Also: the Fed has said it will look through "temporary" oil-driven inflation. Does a soft PPI actually give them more cover to do so, or does one month's data change little given the structural uncertainty?