Cost of hesitation just flipped

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management describe that THE PEOPLE WHO BUY FROM THE COMPANY HAVE RECENTLY LOST THE ABILITY TO POSTPONE THE DECISION — that is, does management convey that waiting, deferring, or sticking with the status quo has become materially more expensive or more risky for its counterparties than it was until recently, so that buying decisions which used to sit unresolved are now being forced to a conclusion — and does management point to real, current behavior showing that this change in the cost of delay is already producing business? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent phenomenon: something has recently changed such that the counterparty's option to do nothing has become costly, and the buying decisions that follow are now landing on this company. Any genuine expression of this counts, and the form varies widely across industries. For example — management describing that deferred purchases, delayed projects, or postponed replacements can no longer be put off, and those decisions are now being made; buyers whose own operations, obligations, commitments, competitive position, or economics are now visibly penalized for each period they go without what the company provides; customers who had been evaluating, stalling, or living with an older arrangement now moving because the cost of not moving has risen; decisions that used to sit at a lower level or in a queue now being escalated, prioritized, or funded because inaction has consequences; buyers accepting the company's terms, timing, lead times, or price because delay costs them more than the concession; or management explaining that its market has crossed from "customers can wait" to "customers cannot wait" and describing what that has done to orders and conversations. Three things should come through in management's own voice. First, THE CHANGE IS ON THE BUYER'S SIDE AND IS RECENT. Management conveys that something has shifted in the counterparties' own situation — their obligations, economics, operations, competitive pressure, aging assets, commitments to others, or circumstances — that makes standing still expensive in a way it recently was not. This is about the price of inaction having risen for them, not simply about the company's offering being attractive, valuable, or a good investment. Second, IT IS ALREADY SHOWING UP IN REAL BEHAVIOR. Management points to concrete current evidence: orders placed, decisions closed, stalled evaluations now converting, deferred work now released, customers committing sooner or on terms they previously resisted, or activity in the recent period that management attributes to buyers no longer being able to wait. Interest, pipeline, market-size claims, or expectations do not satisfy this. Third, MOST OF IT IS STILL AHEAD. Management conveys, directly or plainly in substance, that the population of counterparties facing this pressure is large relative to what has been served so far, so the reported results reflect only the early part of the decisions now being forced. The essence is ONE phenomenon: the option to wait has been repriced on the other side of the table, and the company sits where the resulting decisions land. The industry, the reason waiting became costly, and the form of the resulting business may vary widely. Answer NO if the offering is described mainly in terms of value, savings, returns, performance, or benefits for the customer, however compelling — attractive economics are not the same as a rising cost of delay. NO if the urgency is only anticipated, or rests on a change management expects rather than one already in force. NO if management merely asserts that its product is essential, mission-critical, or non-discretionary without describing what has changed about the cost of waiting. NO if the urgency described belongs to the company itself rather than to its buyers. NO if the pressure is attributed to a brief disruption, shortage, seasonal deadline, or pre-buy that management expects to unwind. NO if the only evidence is one isolated customer anecdote with no sense of a broader pattern. NO if buyers are described as deferring, stalling, tightening, or waiting for better conditions. 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.