Fresh evidence outrunning the reported numbers

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management repeatedly ground its case for the company's future in OPERATING FACTS THAT ARE BOTH FRESH AND EARLY — concrete business developments that (a) began, occurred, or first became visible only within roughly the last quarter or two, (b) are already real today (actual orders, customers, shipments, openings, conversions, utilization, activity, or commitments in hand — not pipeline, interest, or plans), and (c) are explicitly described by management as only the BEGINNING of their contribution, with most of their effect still ahead of the reported results? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent evidentiary posture across the call: the strongest support for where the company is heading consists of recently-arrived, already-real developments whose weight has not yet landed in the published numbers. The developments may take any form that fits the industry — new business recently won and now beginning to flow; a product, facility, capability, or offering that recently went live and is now producing its first real activity; customers or counterparties who recently started, expanded, or converted and are now ramping; recently secured commitments now entering delivery; or a recent operational change whose measurable results have just started appearing. What matters is that management (1) points to these developments as things that actually happened or started recently — described in the past or present tense with concrete substance, not as intentions; (2) treats them, individually or together, as meaningful to the company's trajectory relative to its current size; and (3) states, directly or plainly in substance, that the results just reported capture only a small share of what these developments are expected to contribute, so the reported period understates the business as it now stands. Answer NO if management's forward case rests mainly on market conditions, industry tailwinds, pipeline, opportunity size, or general optimism rather than on identifiable recent developments already producing. NO if the cited developments are plans, negotiations, pilots without results, or contingent on approvals, financing, or decisions not yet made. NO if the recent developments are already substantially reflected in the reported results, with no meaningful contribution still ahead. NO if the fresh facts are routine in scale for this company — the ordinary cadence of wins, openings, or orders this business always reports — with no sense that they step the company beyond its current level. NO if management describes recent developments but never conveys that their contribution is still mostly ahead of the numbers. NO if the call is chiefly explaining weakness, delays, or problems with previously promised developments. NO if the posture 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.