Fresh outside capital or a heavyweight partner just chose this company, and management is spending it on…

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management report that an OUTSIDE PARTY has recently committed real, meaningful resources INTO this company — and that management is directing those resources toward expansion rather than survival? Answer YES when management's own words convey, as one coherent development, BOTH of the following: (1) AN EXTERNAL COMMITMENT INTO THE COMPANY THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED OR IS BEING EXECUTED. Someone outside the company has recently put something substantial behind it — in whatever form fits the business. This can look like: a capital raise, new financing, credit facility, or investment that management describes as completed or secured; a strategic or corporate investor, sponsor, government body, or large institution putting money in; a major partner, customer, or manufacturer agreeing to fund, prepay, co-invest in, underwrite, or dedicate its own capacity, facilities, distribution, or people to the company's effort; a large counterparty signing a long-dated commitment that de-risks the company's build-out; or an acquirer/joint-venture partner bringing assets or capital alongside the company. What matters is that an outside party with its own money or scarce resources at stake has chosen this company, and management presents it as done or in motion — not as a plan, a hope, an ongoing search, or an option they are evaluating. (2) MANAGEMENT IS DEPLOYING IT ON OFFENSE, WITH THE RUNWAY QUESTION OFF THE TABLE. Management explains that this commitment lets the company go after something larger — funding a scale-up, a new facility or market, an accelerated program, a bigger build, or the next phase of growth — and conveys, directly or in substance, that the company is now resourced to do so without needing to come back for more just to keep the lights on. The tone should be about what the company can now attack, not about repairing the balance sheet, meeting covenants, refinancing distress, or bridging a shortfall. The counterparty, the instrument, and the use of proceeds may take whatever form fits the business; this is one phenomenon — a credible outsider just underwrote this company's ambition, and management is spending that credibility on getting bigger. Answer NO if the financing is routine treasury housekeeping — an ordinary revolver renewal, refinancing at better rates, a standard shelf, or a buyback — with no change in what the company can pursue. NO if the money is chiefly for repairing a stressed balance sheet, curing covenants, funding losses, or bridging to survival. NO if the outside commitment is only being sought, explored, negotiated, contemplated, or described as "options we have." NO if the only outside party involvement is a normal commercial order or reseller agreement with no dedicated resources, funding, or capacity committed to this company. NO if management raises capital but gives no sense of what larger effort it enables. NO if the company is instead the one deploying capital outward (an ordinary acquisition or investment it makes) with no outsider committing into it. NO if the idea appears only in an analyst's question and management does not affirm it. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.