Concedes the skeptic's point with new specifics

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: In the question-and-answer portion of this call, when an analyst raises a skeptical, critical, or challenging point about the company (for example questioning a weak result, a slowdown, a competitive threat, a delay, rising costs, or a risk to the business), does management at least once DIRECTLY CONCEDE that the analyst's negative point is valid AND voluntarily add specific substantive detail about that weakness that goes beyond what the analyst's question already contained (for example: which product, region, customer type, or operation is affected; how it developed; or its current extent)? Answer YES only if both elements occur together in the same exchange: (1) an explicit acknowledgment in management's own words that the critical point is correct or fair (such as 'that's fair,' 'you're right,' 'yes, that business is underperforming,' 'correct, we are behind on that'), rather than deflecting, disputing, or immediately pivoting to positives; and (2) management then supplies concrete additional information about the acknowledged weakness that the questioner did not state — not merely repeating the analyst's words, giving a generic reassurance, or moving straight to a promise that things will improve. The concession must concern a real weakness, problem, or risk for the company, not a trivial clarification, a modeling detail, or an acknowledgment of an industry-wide fact with no bearing on the company. Answer NO if there is no question-and-answer section; NO if management responds to all challenging questions by disputing, deflecting, reframing to strengths, or answering a different question; NO if any acknowledgment is purely pro-forma ('good question,' 'I understand the concern') without affirming the substance; and NO if management concedes the point but adds no specific new detail about it. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.