Fresh operating detail replaces the pitch

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSE OPERATING DETAIL ABOUT ITS BUSINESS THAT IT CLEARLY WAS NOT SHARING BEFORE — newly opening up a part of the company to investor scrutiny — and does management tie that new openness to something in the business that has RECENTLY STARTED TO WORK, such that the new disclosure exists mainly to let outsiders see and track a result the company is now confident enough to be measured against? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent behavior: a management team choosing, on this call, to give investors a window it did not previously give them, because what is now inside the window is working. Any genuine expression of this counts, and it may take many forms across industries. For example — management saying it is disclosing, breaking out, quantifying, or reporting something "for the first time," "starting this quarter," or "going forward," and explaining that the reason is that this part of the business has become large enough, consistent enough, or important enough to show; management introducing a new segment, category, product-level, cohort-level, site-level, or per-unit view of the business so investors can follow it separately; management putting a specific number on something it previously described only qualitatively, or naming a customer, program, product, or metric it had kept generic until now; management volunteering a new internal yardstick, target, or scorecard it says it will be held to from here; management walking through the mechanics of how a newly-working part of the business actually generates value — the steps, the flow, the drivers — at a level of granularity that goes beyond what the audience asked for; or management removing an old opacity (an unnamed counterparty, an undisclosed pipeline, a lumped-together division, a metric it used to decline to give) and explaining that it is doing so now because the underlying results have arrived. Two things must both come through in management's own voice. First, the disclosure must be genuinely NEW relative to how this company has been talking — management itself should signal the change, whether by saying it is a first, by contrasting it with what it has previously provided or declined to provide, or by clearly introducing a view of the business the audience is encountering for the first time. Second, the newly-revealed thing must be described as ALREADY PRODUCING — real current activity, adoption, output, contribution, or economics that management points to as happening now, not a program still to be proven. The essence is a deliberate act of self-exposure by insiders who believe the numbers about to become visible will keep getting better. Answer NO if the call contains only the company's ordinary reporting package, however detailed or well-explained — routine metrics, standard segment reporting, and thorough answers to analyst questions are not this phenomenon. NO if the added detail is provided reluctantly, only because an analyst pressed for it, or as a defense of a disappointing result. NO if new disclosure is being introduced chiefly because of an accounting change, a restatement, a regulatory requirement, an acquisition's reporting mechanics, or a reorganization of reporting lines, rather than as a choice to reveal something that is working. NO if management is instead REDUCING transparency — retiring a metric, declining to break something out, withdrawing detail, or citing competitive sensitivity as a reason to say less. NO if the newly disclosed thing is a plan, target, pipeline, or opportunity that has not yet begun producing. NO if the only "new" information is standard periodic guidance or an updated outlook. NO if the transparency framing appears only in an analyst's question or compliment that management does not itself adopt. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.