Management is describing the same physical/structural business getting fundamentally cheaper or more…

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management describe that the COST OR EFFORT REQUIRED TO PRODUCE ONE UNIT OF WHAT THE COMPANY SELLS HAS DROPPED SHARPLY, OR THAT THE SAME EXISTING RESOURCES ARE NOW YIELDING MATERIALLY MORE OUTPUT THAN THEY DID BEFORE — because of something the company has learned, changed, engineered, or figured out about how it does the work — and does management treat this productivity step-change as an already-achieved fact that changes what the business can profitably pursue from here? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent development: a real, already-realized improvement in the company's own physical or operational productivity — how much it costs, how long it takes, how many people or how much material or capital it consumes to deliver a unit of its product, service, project, or output — described as a step-change relative to how the company itself used to perform, not as a normal incremental efficiency gain. The unit and the mechanism may take whatever form fits the business. Any genuine expression of this counts, for example: a design, process, formulation, or engineering change that has taken a large chunk out of the cost of the thing the company builds or delivers; drilling, mining, harvesting, manufacturing, installation, construction, or delivery cycle times that have collapsed versus the company's own prior norm; yields, recoveries, throughput per line or per site, output per employee, output per acre or per well or per vehicle, or utilization that has stepped up on the same asset base; a technology, automation, or software capability the company has put into its own operations that has cut what a given piece of work costs it to perform; scale, learning-curve, vertical integration, or in-sourcing effects that management says have already brought its unit cost down markedly; or the company having found a way to serve customers at a price point or cost level it previously could not reach at all. AND management should convey — directly or plainly in substance — that this changed cost or productivity position OPENS SOMETHING UP: work, customers, markets, price points, projects, geographies, or volumes that were previously uneconomic or out of reach now make sense for the company, or the company can now do considerably more with the resources it already has. Answer NO if the cost improvement is chiefly the fading of external cost pressure — input prices, freight, energy, wages, or currency moving in the company's favor — rather than something the company itself changed about how it works. NO if the only cost discussion is headcount reduction, overhead cuts, restructuring, plant closures, or belt-tightening in response to weak demand. NO if the improvement is described as routine, ordinary continuous improvement, or a normal annual productivity target. NO if the better unit economics are only expected, targeted, modeled, or promised for a future period rather than already being achieved in current operations. NO if management describes the productivity gain but conveys nothing about it enabling business the company could not previously do or serve. NO if the productivity being described belongs to the company's customers or suppliers rather than to the company's own operations. 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.