Mid-ramp quarter: contribution has started but the period only caught part of it

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management describe an identifiable piece of new business activity that has ALREADY STARTED CONTRIBUTING PARTWAY THROUGH THE REPORTED PERIOD OR IS STARTING RIGHT NOW — and make clear that the reported results captured only a PARTIAL, EARLY SLICE of it, with the fuller run-rate arriving over the next few quarters as a matter of timing rather than as a matter of winning anything further? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent timing story with all three of the following present: (1) A NAMEABLE NEW CONTRIBUTOR THAT IS ALREADY LIVE OR JUST GOING LIVE. Management identifies specific business that recently began or is beginning now — for example, a contract or program whose deliveries or billings recently started; a facility, location, line, or capacity that recently opened or is opening; a product, service, or offering that recently launched and is now selling; a customer or group of customers recently onboarded and now ramping; an acquisition recently closed and now contributing; or newly added capability now taking on its first real volume. The contributor must be described as actually transacting or commencing — real revenue, orders, shipments, output, or activity happening — not as pipeline, negotiation, or plan. (2) THE REPORTED PERIOD CAUGHT ONLY PART OF IT, AND MANAGEMENT SAYS SO. Management conveys, directly or plainly in substance, that the just-reported results include only a fraction of this contributor's normal level — because it started mid-period, is still ramping toward its intended level, or its costs arrived ahead of its revenue — so the printed numbers understate the level the business is already operating at or stepping to. (3) THE FULLER CONTRIBUTION IS A TIMING MATTER, NOT A WINNING MATTER. Management discusses the path to the fuller level in execution terms — ramp pace, onboarding, production schedules, utilization building, quarters until full contribution — with the remaining uncertainty being how fast, not whether the business exists. Management should treat this arriving contribution as meaningful to the company's trajectory, not as a minor housekeeping item. Answer NO if the new activity is only planned, signed-but-not-started, contingent on approvals or financing, or still pipeline. NO if the contributor is already fully reflected in results with no meaningful further phase-in ahead. NO if the forward story rests mainly on market recovery, demand strength, or hoped-for wins rather than on the phase-in of activity already begun. NO if the ramp described is routine, immaterial, or the company's ordinary ongoing cadence that management does not treat as changing its level of business. NO if management is chiefly explaining delays, shortfalls, or problems with a previously promised ramp. NO if the timing story appears only in an analyst's question or model that management does not itself affirm. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.