Repeat customers are now the ones asking for more capacity

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management describe that BUYERS WHO HAVE ALREADY BOUGHT FROM THE COMPANY AND SEEN THE RESULT ARE NOW ASKING FOR MORE THAN THE COMPANY CAN CURRENTLY SUPPLY THEM \u2014 that is, counterparties the company has already served (customers, accounts, partners, distributors, operators, payers, or programs) are, on the strength of that prior experience, requesting, ordering, or committing to volumes, scope, locations, or timelines that exceed what the company can presently produce, deliver, staff, or serve \u2014 and is management currently working to enlarge the company in response? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent situation with all three of the following coming through as a present-tense reality: (1) THE PRESSURE COMES FROM PROVEN, REPEAT COUNTERPARTIES. The parties asking for more are ones that have already transacted with the company and already have experience of what it delivers \u2014 not new prospects being courted, not a pipeline, not interest from parties who have yet to buy. Management may express this in many ways and any genuine version counts: an existing customer that has run the product, service, or site and now wants it in many more places; an account whose initial order, deployment, installation, or trial has performed and is now asking for production volumes; a partner or distributor whose first territory or category worked and now wants more; a repeat buyer whose reorders have grown past what the company allocated to them; or several such parties described together as a pattern. What matters is that the demand originates from ALREADY-EARNED SATISFACTION, so the company is not persuading anyone \u2014 it is being asked. (2) THE ASK EXCEEDS WHAT THE COMPANY CAN CURRENTLY SUPPLY. Management conveys that satisfying these requests is beyond the company's present capability \u2014 output, capacity, people, inventory, sites, installation or service ability, or throughput. This may show up as customers being told to wait, taking partial fulfillment, being allocated, having their timelines stretched, or being asked to phase their rollout; as management describing requests it cannot yet fill or scope it cannot yet cover; or as management plainly stating that what these buyers want is more than the company can do today. The shortfall must be about the company's OWN ability to supply its own offering \u2014 not merely a shortage of inputs it purchases with no such customer pressure behind it. (3) THE COMPANY IS ENLARGING ITSELF NOW, AND THE NUMBERS DON'T SHOW IT YET. Management describes real, already-underway work to close the gap \u2014 capacity, facilities, lines, sites, people, inventory, supply, or systems being added, built, hired, qualified, or brought up \u2014 and conveys, directly or plainly in substance, that the business these buyers are asking for is meaningful relative to the company's current size and lies mostly ahead of the results just reported. Candor about the cost, strain, or difficulty of catching up strengthens rather than weakens a YES. The essence is ONE phenomenon: the company's own satisfied buyers have become the source of demand it cannot yet meet, and the company is visibly building to serve them. The industry, the type of counterparty, and the form of the constraint may vary widely. Answer NO if the demand described comes chiefly from winning new customers, new markets, or new logos rather than from parties that have already bought and want more. NO if existing customers are simply reordering at their usual size, or growing in the ordinary way within what the company can comfortably supply. NO if the additional demand is only hoped for, in negotiation, in pipeline, or contingent on approvals, funding, or decisions not yet made. NO if the company can serve everything these buyers are asking for, so there is no shortfall to close. NO if the binding constraint described is a shortage of purchased inputs, freight, or external supply with no indication that proven buyers are asking for more than the company can provide. NO if the constraint is presented as a brief logistical hiccup, normal seasonality, or something already resolved. NO if the enlargement is only planned, budgeted, contemplated, or contingent rather than already in motion. NO if the requests and the build-out are routine in scale for this company \u2014 its ordinary cadence of reorders and annual capacity additions \u2014 with no sense that the company is stretching beyond its current level. NO if the associated business is already mature and substantially reflected in the reported results. NO if management is chiefly explaining lost customers, cancellations, downsized commitments, or its inability to keep buyers. NO if the situation appears only in an analyst's question or characterization that management does not itself affirm. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.