Crossed from claiming to demonstrating

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management convey that the company has RECENTLY CROSSED FROM CLAIMING SOMETHING TO DEMONSTRATING IT — that a capability, offering, or way of doing business which until recently existed mainly as a promise, plan, or early attempt for THIS company is now something the company has actually done, and done MORE THAN ONCE, in the recent period — with management itself drawing the before-versus-now contrast? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent crossing with all three of the following present: (1) MANAGEMENT DRAWS ITS OWN BEFORE/AFTER LINE. In its own voice, management contrasts what the company could not yet do, had not yet proven, or was still being doubted on until recently, with what it is now actually doing — for example: 'a year ago this was a concept; this quarter it shipped to paying customers,' 'we used to talk about whether we could; now we are doing it routinely,' 'what was a pilot last year is now regular business,' or any equivalent contrast in substance. The before-state may be described directly or be unmistakable from how management frames the change; what matters is that the contrast with the company's own recent past is management's own framing, not an analyst's. (2) THE AFTER-SIDE IS REAL, RECENT, AND REPEATED. The demonstration rests on concrete events that actually happened in or around the recent period — real deliveries, sales, customers served, units produced, sites operating, orders fulfilled, procedures done, contracts performed, or equivalent — and there is more than one instance, or clearly ongoing repetition, of the newly proven activity, so it reads as a working capability rather than a single first event. The proof must be described with enough operating substance that an outsider can see what actually occurred; interest, pipeline, signed-but-unperformed deals alone, or milestones of validation without real activity do not qualify. (3) THE CROSSING IS FRESH AND ITS PAYOFF MOSTLY AHEAD. The change is recent — roughly within the last few quarters, in management's own telling — and management conveys, directly or plainly in substance, that the reported results reflect only the early portion of what the now-proven capability is expected to contribute, with the company continuing, scaling, or extending the newly demonstrated activity from here. The capability, the industry, and the form of proof may vary widely; this is ONE phenomenon: a company whose story has just changed tense from future to present, marked by its own management and backed by repeated real events. Answer NO if the company has long been established at what it describes, so there is no recent before/after crossing. NO if the demonstration is still a single first event with no repetition or ongoing continuation described. NO if the after-side rests on plans, pipeline, letters of intent, approvals, or expected launches rather than activity that already occurred. NO if the before/after contrast is only about financial results improving (a better quarter than last year) rather than a capability or business newly proven in operation. NO if management is chiefly still persuading the audience that the thing will work, with the proof placed in the future. NO if the newly demonstrated activity is trivial for this company or treated by management as immaterial. NO if the crossing is described only in an analyst's question or characterization that management does not itself affirm. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.