Order-of-magnitude ambition

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management put a CONCRETE FUTURE SCALE ON THE COMPANY ITSELF that is several times larger than the scale it operates at today — and does management describe the company already organizing and spending against that number now, as a plan being executed rather than an aspiration being described? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent posture with both halves present: (1) A NAMED DESTINATION SIZE, WELL BEYOND TODAY'S BUSINESS. Management states, in its own voice, a specific level the company intends to reach that represents a multiple of where it stands now — for example a stated ambition to double, triple, or more than double the business over a defined stretch of years; a target number of sites, facilities, units, customers, patients, subscribers, or installed systems that is far above the current count; a stated intent to reach a level of output, capacity, production, or throughput several times current levels; an explicit long-range plan, roadmap, or internal goal for what the company will look like at a materially larger size; or management describing the company's intended end-state and contrasting it with how small the company is today. The number or multiple should be management's own stated destination for THIS COMPANY, not a market-size or industry statistic, and the gap between it and today should be large — a step-change in the size of the enterprise, not next year's growth rate. (2) THE COMPANY IS ALREADY BUILT AGAINST THAT DESTINATION. Management conveys that the organization is presently being run to hit that number — real resources, decisions, and structures already committed to it. This may show up in many ways and any genuine version counts: capital already deployed or capacity already under construction sized for the larger business; hiring, organizational structure, systems, or leadership already put in place to run a company of that size; a stated sequence or cadence the company is currently executing against (so many openings, launches, sites, programs, or units per period, with the early ones already done or underway); management explaining what has already been de-risked or proven so that the remaining work is replication; or management fielding questions about the plan by discussing execution mechanics and how far along the company already is. The essence is that the destination is being treated as a construction schedule the company is partway through, not a vision statement. The essence is ONE phenomenon: management has publicly anchored the company to becoming several times its current size, has committed the company's resources to that path, and is inviting investors to hold it to that number. Industry, form of the target, and the nature of the build may vary widely. Answer NO if management's forward framing is ordinary near-term outlook, growth rates, or margin targets for the coming year — that is normal guidance, not a destination scale. NO if the large number cited is a total addressable market, industry forecast, or opportunity size rather than a stated intention for what this company will become. NO if the ambition is generic ("we see a path to becoming a much bigger company," "our long-term potential is significant") with nothing concrete about the size or the sequence. NO if the destination exists only as a wish, an option, or something contingent on financing, approvals, partners, or conditions not yet in hand. NO if the company has already substantially reached the scale it describes, so there is no multiple ahead of it. NO if the plan is being scaled back, deferred, or defended after a stumble, or if management is chiefly explaining why it is not going to grow as previously indicated. NO if the multi-fold ambition appears only in an analyst's question or characterization that management does not itself adopt. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.