Costly self-restriction to protect one part of the business

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management describe that the company is CURRENTLY REFUSING, TURNING AWAY, RATIONING, OR DELIBERATELY WITHHOLDING BUSINESS IT COULD HAVE TAKEN \u2014 giving up revenue, customers, orders, volume, or work that was genuinely available to it \u2014 IN ORDER TO PROTECT OR FEED ONE PART OF ITS BUSINESS THAT IS ALREADY PRODUCING WELL? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent posture with all three of the following present as a current reality: (1) REAL, AVAILABLE BUSINESS IS BEING DECLINED OR HELD BACK RIGHT NOW. Management describes the company actually saying no, or allocating away from, business that was on the table. Any genuine expression of this counts, and the form varies widely across industries: orders, customers, or contracts declined, deferred, or turned away; output, capacity, inventory, slots, or availability allocated among buyers so some get less or must wait; a category of work, account type, channel, geography, or product the company is choosing not to serve for now even though demand exists; price or terms held firm at the cost of losing volume; a launch, opening, or rollout deliberately slowed or restricted rather than pushed as fast as demand would allow; capacity, people, or supply pulled off paying work to serve something else. The refusal must be a choice the company is making now \u2014 not an inability caused by a supplier failing, a market disappearing, a customer leaving, or a regulator forbidding it. (2) THE REASON IS TO PROTECT OR FEED SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY WORKING. Management identifies what the sacrifice is in service of \u2014 a specific part of the business, customer set, product, offering, facility, program, or standard of delivery \u2014 and that thing is described as ALREADY REAL AND ALREADY PRODUCING: actual customers, orders, volumes, utilization, output, or performance happening now, not a plan, pilot without results, or market opportunity. Management's logic should be plainly protective or preferential: the declined business would have crowded out, diluted, degraded, distracted from, or under-served the favored thing, so the company is keeping room for it. (3) MANAGEMENT OWNS THE COST AND EXPECTS IT TO PAY. Management acknowledges, directly or plainly in substance, that this choice is costing the company something visible today \u2014 revenue foregone, growth slower than it could be, customers unserved, capacity sitting for the favored use, margin or optics worse than they need to be \u2014 and defends the trade rather than apologizing for it or promising to stop, conveying that the favored part of the business is worth more than what is being given up and that its larger contribution lies ahead of the reported results. The essence is ONE phenomenon: an operator with more demand than it wants to serve on the wrong terms, deliberately spending available revenue to keep something good from being spoiled or starved. The industry, the form of the refusal, and the nature of the protected thing may vary widely. Answer NO if the company is chiefly working to win, stimulate, or defend demand, or would happily take any business available to it. NO if business is being lost rather than declined \u2014 customers leaving, orders cancelled, capacity lost, demand vanishing, or the company unable to supply because of a shortage of inputs it buys, a failure, or an external prohibition. NO if the declining is routine screening every business does \u2014 ordinary credit checks, standard customer qualification, normal minimum order sizes, ordinary annual price increases, or the usual pruning of unprofitable accounts as housekeeping. NO if the narrowing is generic cost cutting, restructuring, retrenchment, or exiting businesses because they were failing rather than to protect something that is working. NO if the favored thing is unproven \u2014 a plan, an ambition, a pilot with nothing sold, or something awaiting approvals or financing. NO if management concedes no present cost, so nothing is actually being given up. NO if management is chiefly reassuring investors that it will resume taking all available business as soon as possible, with the restraint framed as a temporary embarrassment. NO if the restraint is only contemplated or promised for the future rather than being exercised now. 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.