Management reframes the company's own value as far larger than the market sees, with fresh internal proof

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management argue that the company itself is worth substantially more than the market currently reflects, and back that argument with a concrete action or fresh internal disclosure rather than words alone? Answer YES when BOTH of the following are present in management's own words: (1) A VALUE-GAP CLAIM: management explicitly asserts that the company's shares, assets, or individual business units are undervalued, mispriced, misunderstood, or that the "sum of the parts" / underlying asset value / embedded value exceeds what the market is giving them credit for — or management states that outsiders are wrong about the company's economics, quality, or durability in a way that will become obvious. (2) A PUT-YOUR-MONEY-DOWN OR OPEN-THE-BOOKS ACTION tied to that claim: management points to something the company is actually doing or has just done to close the gap, such as buying back its own stock (or insiders/management buying) specifically because they consider it cheap, retiring or refinancing debt to make equity value visible, monetizing, spinning off, separating, selling, or marking a business or asset to show what it is worth, disclosing standalone economics, unit-level economics, per-asset values, or segment detail for the first time in order to let investors see the value, or changing reporting/structure so hidden value becomes measurable. The claim and the action may take whatever form fits the business — this is one phenomenon: an owner-operator publicly declaring a mispricing and simultaneously taking a real, already-initiated step that makes it verifiable. Answer NO if management merely expresses general confidence, optimism, pride, or belief in the long-term story without asserting that the company is undervalued or misunderstood. NO if a buyback, dividend, asset sale, or added disclosure is presented as routine capital allocation, ordinary housekeeping, or a standard program without any accompanying claim that value is unrecognized. NO if the undervaluation talk is purely aspirational or contingent ("we may consider repurchases if the price stays low") with nothing already underway or just completed. NO if only an analyst raises the mispricing idea and management does not adopt it. NO if the only "hidden value" language is boilerplate about creating shareholder value. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.