Owner-operators pushing chips in

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management describe that the company is KNOWINGLY ACCEPTING WORSE NEAR-TERM RESULTS RIGHT NOW because it has chosen to pour its own money, capacity, or people into something it believes will be much bigger later — and does management defend that trade-off directly to investors on this call rather than apologize for it or promise to stop? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent posture: a deliberate, already-committed self-funded investment whose cost is being felt today and whose payoff is explicitly placed in the future, with management openly telling investors it is willing to look worse in the short run to get there. This can show up in many forms — for example, management saying it is spending, hiring, building, subsidizing, discounting, or absorbing losses ahead of the return; that it is prioritizing long-term positioning, share, or capability over near-term profitability or optics; that it will not pull back on this investment even though it depresses current results; that current-period costs, start-up drag, ramp expenses, or reinvested profits are suppressing what the business would otherwise show; or that they are "playing the long game," "investing through" a soft patch, or accepting dilution of today's economics because the opportunity in front of them justifies it. What matters is the combination of (a) real resources already being committed, (b) an acknowledged and accepted cost to today's results, and (c) management's own conviction, stated on the call, that this is the right trade because the future prize is disproportionately large. Answer NO if the company is simply spending in the ordinary course of running its business and never frames any current pain as a chosen trade-off. NO if elevated costs are attributed to inflation, one-time charges, integration of an acquisition, restructuring, compliance, weak demand, or other things imposed on the company rather than chosen by it. NO if management is chiefly defending or cutting costs, protecting margins, or reassuring investors that spending will come down. NO if the big investment is only planned, contemplated, or contingent rather than already underway. NO if management describes an ambitious future without conceding any present cost. NO if the trade-off framing appears only in an analyst's question or in a sell-side characterization that management does not itself adopt. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.