Post-mortem on a bad bet

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management REVISE ITS OWN PRIOR STRATEGIC JUDGMENT — telling investors that a direction, assumption, priority, or bet the company itself previously chose has turned out to be wrong, unattractive, or not worth continuing — AND make clear that the resources tied up in it (money, capacity, people, management attention, or time) are ALREADY being moved to something else the company has identified as working better? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent phenomenon: an honest downgrade of the company's own earlier thinking, paired with a live reallocation of what that thinking was consuming. Any genuine expression of this counts, and the form varies widely across industries. For example: management saying a market, product, customer segment, channel, geography, or acquisition they pursued has not developed as they expected and they are pulling back from it; management saying they were wrong about the timing, size, adoption path, or economics of something they had been funding, and are now sizing it differently; management deprioritizing or slowing a program, plant, launch, expansion, or spending plan they had previously championed because the evidence did not support it; management conceding that a way of operating, selling, pricing, staffing, or organizing that they built no longer makes sense and has been changed; management admitting they overbuilt, overhired, overpaid, over-diversified, or spread themselves too thin, and describing where those resources are going instead. The second half matters as much as the first: management should convey that the freed-up capital, capacity, or attention is being pointed at a specific part of the business — an area, product, customer set, capability, or opportunity — that management says is demonstrably working, growing, or earning better, and that this redirection is already in motion rather than under study. What distinguishes YES is the epistemic move: management is publicly updating on its own beliefs, treating what it learned as more authoritative than what it previously said, and letting the reallocation follow the evidence. It need not be framed as an apology, need not concern a failure large enough to be a crisis, and need not be a formal restructuring — a matter-of-fact "we tried this, it didn't work the way we thought, so the money and people are going here now" is exactly the phenomenon. Answer NO if management's account of the business contains no revision of its own earlier judgment — including confident calls, strong quarters, ordinary strategy updates, and ambitious new initiatives that are simply added on top. NO if the problem being addressed is attributed chiefly to outside forces (macro, weather, FX, regulation, customers, competitors, suppliers, industry conditions) rather than to a choice the company itself made. NO if management acknowledges a misjudgment but describes no actual movement of resources, or describes only cost cutting, headcount reduction, or belt-tightening with no identified better use for what was freed. NO if the reallocation is only being evaluated, contemplated, or promised for a future period. NO if the change is routine annual budgeting, ordinary portfolio pruning, or a normal reprioritization that management does not connect to having been wrong about something. NO if the admission is vague ("we can always execute better," "we learned a lot") with nothing identifiable that was reconsidered. NO if the concession 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.