After the books closed

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management report that the MOST IMPORTANT POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS of the period happened SO LATE IN THE REPORTED PERIOD, OR SHORTLY AFTER IT ENDED, that the results being presented contain little or none of their effect — with management itself marking the timing? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent situation with BOTH halves present: (1) LATE-BREAKING, CONCRETE POSITIVE EVENTS. Management points to specific favorable developments that actually occurred near the end of the reported period or in the weeks since it closed — real events, not hopes or pipeline. The events may take whatever form fits the industry: a contract, order, customer, or program signed or won late in the period or after quarter-end; a facility, location, product, or service that opened, launched, or shipped its first volumes in the final stretch or just afterward; an approval, certification, or qualification obtained late that has already begun converting into business; a large customer that went live, began ordering, or expanded right at the close or since; an acquisition or capability completed at or after period-end that is now operating. What matters is that management itself anchors the timing — saying in substance 'late in the quarter,' 'in the final weeks,' 'at the very end of the period,' 'since quarter-end,' 'subsequent to the close,' 'just after the period ended,' or equivalent — for events that are described as done or now happening, not merely expected. (2) MANAGEMENT TREATS THEM AS THE REAL STORY THE NUMBERS MISSED. Management conveys, directly or plainly in substance, that because of this timing the reported results reflect little or none of these developments — and treats them as consequential to where the company is now heading, for example by discussing how they will contribute in coming periods, how the company is now delivering or ramping them, or by contrasting the period's reported figures with the level of business the company is already doing as it exits. The late events should be presented as meaningful relative to the company's current size — capable of changing its trajectory — rather than as routine items in a long list. Answer NO if the period's positive developments are described as spread across the quarter in the ordinary way, with no emphasis on late or post-period timing. NO if the late-dated items are only letters of intent, negotiations, pipeline, expected signings, or events still contingent on approvals, financing, or decisions not yet made. NO if the late events are routine in scale for this company — the normal cadence of wins or openings it always reports — with no sense that they change its level of business. NO if management mentions timing only as an excuse for weak results without concrete late-arriving positives now in hand. NO if the post-period mention is a boilerplate subsequent-events disclosure that management does not connect to the company's trajectory. NO if the timing framing appears only in an analyst's question or model that management does not itself affirm. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.