Somebody else pays first

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management describe that the people on the OTHER SIDE of the company's business are now PUTTING THEIR OWN MONEY OR RESOURCES AT RISK BEFORE they receive what they are paying for — paying, depositing, reserving, funding, or committing capital in advance of delivery — and does management present this as something actually happening now in real dealings rather than as a hope, a plan, or an industry norm the company has always enjoyed? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent phenomenon: counterparties are pre-funding the company. Any genuine expression of this counts, and the form varies widely across industries. For example — customers placing deposits, down payments, prepayments, or reservation fees to hold a place in line; buyers paying up front, paying earlier in the cycle, or agreeing to milestone payments weighted before delivery; customers or partners funding tooling, development, capacity, inventory, or a build-out that the company will own or operate; counterparties signing take-or-pay, minimum-volume, or capacity-reservation commitments that oblige them to pay whether or not they use it; a partner or licensee paying an upfront fee, guarantee, or advance ahead of any product changing hands; distributors, franchisees, or channel partners committing their own capital to carry or stand up the company's offering; landlords, governments, insurers, or institutions paying or funding in advance for work the company has not yet performed; or management describing that it now collects cash before it spends cash, so growth is financed by its customers rather than by the company. Two things should come through in management's own voice. First, THE MONEY OR RESOURCE IS ACTUALLY COMMITTED AND SITS WITH THE COMPANY OR IS CONTRACTUALLY OWED — deposits taken, cash received, funding in hand, obligations signed — not merely discussed, negotiated, hoped for, or offered as an option. Second, IT IS FOR SOMETHING NOT YET DELIVERED, so the payment stands ahead of the revenue: management should convey, directly or plainly in substance, that this advance commitment points to business the company still has to perform, and treat it as meaningful relative to the company's current size rather than as trivial housekeeping. Answer NO if the company simply gets paid in the ordinary course on normal terms, however promptly — routine invoicing, standard progress billing that the industry has always used, ordinary customer credit terms, or a business that has always collected in advance with nothing changed or notable. NO if the advance commitment is only being sought, proposed, negotiated, or described as something the company would like customers to do. NO if the cash coming in early is a financing, capital raise, grant, or loan from investors or lenders rather than from the company's own commercial counterparties. NO if the only money moving early is the company paying its own suppliers in advance. NO if management mentions deposits or prepayments only in passing as an accounting or working-capital detail, with no sense that counterparties are committing meaningfully ahead of delivery. NO if the advance commitments are described as shrinking, being refunded, at risk of cancellation, or as concessions the company had to give. NO if the idea 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.