Quarter got stronger as it went

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management convey that the just-reported period STRENGTHENED AS IT PROGRESSED — that business conditions, activity, or execution were meaningfully better in the later part of the period (or in the weeks right after it) than in the earlier part — AND does management attribute that building strength mainly to drivers attached to the company itself that are described as still in force now? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, BOTH halves of ONE coherent story: (1) THE PERIOD ENDED STRONGER THAN IT BEGAN. Management describes the reported stretch not as uniformly good or bad but as visibly improving through its course — for example: orders, sales, volumes, traffic, bookings, utilization, output, sign-ups, or activity picking up month over month or as the period went on; a slow start followed by a strong finish; momentum, win rates, or customer activity building toward the end of the period; the current or exit pace of business running above the period's average; or the early weeks of the new period continuing at the stronger late-period pace. The improvement must be described as something already observed in real activity — grounded in what actually happened during or just after the period — not merely a forecast, a hope, or a raised outlook. (2) THE CAUSE IS COMPANY-ATTACHED AND STILL WORKING. When management explains why things strengthened, the explanation rests chiefly on something belonging to the company — a product or offering gaining traction, customers adopting or expanding, a capability, capacity, location, fix, launch, or change the company put in place now taking hold, business recently won now converting, or execution improvements now showing through — and management conveys, directly or plainly in substance, that these drivers remain in effect and have more to give in the coming periods, so the late-period strength is presented as the beginning of a trajectory rather than a bulge that is now over. Answer NO if management describes the period as uniformly strong, uniformly weak, flat, or mixed, with no clear internal progression from weaker to stronger. NO if the late-period pickup is attributed mainly to normal seasonality, a holiday or weather pattern, an easy comparison, a one-time order or event, catch-up shipments, pull-forward ahead of a price change or deadline, or anything management itself expects to unwind or normalize. NO if the strengthening is credited chiefly to outside forces — the market, industry demand, commodity prices, macro conditions, or a competitor's stumble — rather than to something of the company's own. NO if the improvement is only projected or guided rather than already observed in the period's actual progression. NO if management describes momentum flattening, slowing, or normalizing as the period ended. NO if the intra-period acceleration appears only in an analyst's question or model that management does not itself confirm in its own account of the business. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.