Borrowed urgency: counterparties are racing the company's clock, not their own

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management describe that the company's CUSTOMERS, PARTNERS, OR OTHER COUNTERPARTIES ARE NOW ADJUSTING THEIR OWN TIMING, PLANS, OR BEHAVIOR AROUND THE COMPANY'S SCHEDULE OR AVAILABILITY — that is, the other side is visibly reorganizing when and how it acts in order to be ready for, to secure, or to keep pace with what this company is doing — and does management present this as something actually happening in current dealings rather than as a hope or a projection? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent phenomenon: the direction of accommodation has flipped, and counterparties are now bending to the company's clock. Any genuine expression of this counts, and the form varies widely across industries. For example — customers placing orders, signing, or committing earlier than their own normal cycle because of when the company's product, capacity, slots, or availability will exist; buyers reserving, prepaying, depositing, or locking in now specifically to hold a place against the company's future output or calendar; counterparties accelerating their own projects, build-outs, launches, or internal approvals so they are ready when the company is; customers asking the company to slow down, phase, or sequence deliveries because they cannot absorb what is coming as fast as it is arriving; partners or channels rearranging their own rollouts, seasons, or plans around the company's timing; counterparties accepting the company's lead times, windows, or schedule as the constraint they must plan around rather than dictating their own; or management describing that conversations now revolve around the company's availability and calendar rather than the counterparty's preferences. Two things should come through in management's own voice. First, the adjustment must be REAL AND CURRENT — described as observable behavior in recent or ongoing dealings (orders placed early, commitments made ahead of need, plans shifted, readiness work on the counterparty's side), not as something management expects, hopes, or believes should happen. Second, the adjustment must be AROUND THE COMPANY — the counterparty is timing itself to this company's schedule, availability, or output, not merely acting quickly for its own unrelated reasons, and not simply buying more in the ordinary course. Answer NO if management simply reports strong demand, a good quarter, a healthy pipeline, or fast-growing orders in the usual way, with no sense that counterparties are changing their own timing or plans around the company. NO if the urgency described belongs to the company itself (management racing to execute) rather than to the other side. NO if earlier buying is attributed by management chiefly to a temporary shortage, a pre-buy ahead of a price increase, a regulatory deadline, seasonality, or stockpiling that management expects to unwind. NO if the only evidence is one isolated deal or anecdote with no sense of a broader pattern. NO if the behavior is only anticipated, hoped for, or described as something the company is working to create. NO if the idea appears only in an analyst's question or characterization that management does not itself affirm. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.