Fresh cohort economics

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management indicate that the MOST RECENTLY ADDED PORTION OF THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS IS PERFORMING BETTER THAN THE OLDER PORTION IT ALREADY OWNS — that is, does management distinguish between newer and older vintages of the same repeatable thing the company keeps adding, and convey that the newer ones are turning out stronger, faster-ramping, more productive, or more profitable than the older ones already in the base? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent observation: the company adds the same kind of thing over and over — customers, accounts, cohorts, stores, branches, sites, plants, wells, vessels, clinics, routes, franchises, products, contracts, loans, properties, salespeople, or similar repeatable building blocks — and the ones added most recently are outperforming the earlier ones on some real dimension management can point to. Any genuine expression of this counts, and the form varies widely across industries. For example: management saying the newest locations, sites, or facilities are opening at higher volumes, ramping faster, or reaching maturity sooner than earlier ones did; the latest customer cohorts retaining better, spending more, or expanding faster than older cohorts; recently signed contracts or renewals carrying better terms, duration, or economics than the legacy book; newer production units, wells, batches, or lines delivering higher output or yield than earlier vintages; recently hired salespeople or newly opened territories becoming productive faster than prior classes; the newest product generation being adopted at a pace or price the previous generation never achieved; or management simply noting that what the company is adding now is of visibly higher quality than what is already in the average. Two things should come through in management's own voice. First, management must actually make the NEW-VERSUS-OLD comparison within its own business — reasoning at the level of the repeatable unit and its vintage, not merely reporting that the company overall is growing or improving. Second, the comparison must rest on things ALREADY OBSERVED in real recent additions — actual openings, actual cohorts, actual units, actual signings — rather than on what management expects future additions to do. Answer NO if management discusses only company-level growth, totals, or aggregate improvement without distinguishing newer additions from the existing base. NO if the newer additions are described as performing in line with, or worse than, the historical pattern, or if management is explaining why recent additions are dragging. NO if the improvement claimed for new business is only projected, modeled, targeted, or expected from units not yet in operation. NO if the only difference between new and old is a price increase or a change in accounting, mix definition, or reporting rather than a real difference in how the units perform. NO if the company does not repeatedly add a comparable building block, so there is no vintage comparison to make. NO if the comparison is a single isolated example that management itself treats as an exception rather than as a sign of what the company is now adding. NO if the idea appears only in an analyst's question or model that management does not itself affirm. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.