The company is outgrowing its own explanations

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management convey that the company's REPORTED RESULTS FOR THE PERIOD BEING DISCUSSED DO NOT REPRESENT THE BUSINESS THE COMPANY IS ACTUALLY RUNNING TODAY — that is, does management repeatedly or substantially indicate that the just-reported numbers describe a company that has already been left behind by what is now actually happening inside the business? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent posture: the printed period is stale relative to the operating present. Any genuine expression of this counts, and the form varies widely across industries. For example — management explaining that meaningful business, capability, or activity now in motion contributed little or nothing to the reported period because it began late in the period or just after it closed; management noting that the pace, level, or mix of business the company is currently running sits above what the period's figures show; management describing that the period carried the costs of things whose benefits have only just begun; management pointing to what the company has already become — what it can now do, what it now has, what is now committed or underway — and treating the reported numbers as a picture of the company before that; or management consistently answering questions about the future by pointing to what is already in hand, in motion, or being executed rather than to what must still be won. What matters is the DIRECTION OF THE GAP in management's own telling: the business as it stands today is ahead of the business as it appears in the reported period, and management itself is the one drawing attention to that gap, grounded in things that are already real — actual current activity, completed work, committed business, or capabilities already in place — not in hopes, plans, market size, or projections. Answer NO if the call is a conventional results-and-outlook discussion in which the reported period and the described business are essentially the same size — ordinary strength, ordinary guidance, however good. NO if the claimed gap rests mainly on pipeline, bids, negotiations, market opportunity, hoped-for demand, or initiatives with nothing concrete yet occurring. NO if the only "numbers lag the business" language is a single passing remark or boilerplate about investing for the future, with no substance about what has already changed. NO if management is chiefly defending weak results, explaining a slump, or promising a future turnaround from a trough. NO if the recent developments are routine in scale for this company — the normal cadence of wins, openings, or orders it always reports — with no sense that the business has moved to a different level than the print. NO if the gap is asserted only in an analyst's question or model that management does not itself affirm with its own account of current operations. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.