Cheap experiments: management describes running many small, fast, low-cost bets and letting the winners get…

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management describe that the company routinely RUNS MANY SMALL, CHEAP, FAST TESTS across its business and reallocates resources based on what those tests reveal — that is, does management portray the company as learning its way forward through a portfolio of limited-scale experiments rather than through a few large committed plans? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent operating habit: the company deliberately tries things at small scale before committing, reads the actual result, and then either kills the loser cheaply or pours resources into the winner. This can show up in many forms and any genuine expression of it counts — management describing tests, trials, pilots, or experiments running in a handful of stores, sites, regions, accounts, cohorts, channels, or product variants; A/B tests, controlled rollouts, or "test-and-learn" as how the company decides; management explaining what they learned from something that did NOT work and what they changed or stopped as a result; management describing a graduated sequence — tried it in a few places, it worked, now we are taking it to many more; management saying they intentionally keep the cost of being wrong small, or that they can find out cheaply before committing capital; or management describing an internal portfolio of small initiatives where only the ones that prove out get funded further. The essence is the DECISION PROCESS management reveals: evidence-driven, reversible, cheap to be wrong, and biased toward killing losers fast and scaling winners hard. Management must present this as how the company is actually operating now — grounded in specific things being tested, learned, stopped, or scaled — not as a slogan about being innovative, agile, data-driven, or entrepreneurial. Answer NO if management merely reports strong results, new products, or investments without revealing how the company decides what to back. NO if the company's approach described is a single large bet, a committed multi-year plan, or a rollout already fully decided, with no testing stage that could have changed the answer. NO if "test" or "pilot" appears only as a label for something already committed to, or as one isolated mention with no sense that this is how the company works. NO if the language is generic innovation, R&D, or agility boilerplate with nothing actually tested, learned, stopped, or scaled. NO if the only experimentation described belongs to customers or partners rather than to the company itself. 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.