Sequential re-rating

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management describe that the company's SUCCESSIVE ENGAGEMENTS OF THE SAME KIND ARE COMING IN AT PROGRESSIVELY LARGER SIZE — that is, does management convey that the deals, orders, contracts, projects, customers, sites, or programs it is landing NOW are individually bigger, broader, or longer than the ones it was landing for the same offering not long ago, so that each new instance of essentially the same business is worth more to the company than the last? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent phenomenon as a present-tense reality: the unit size of the company's own repeatable business is escalating. Any genuine expression of this counts, and the form varies widely across industries. For example — management noting that the average size of new orders, contracts, or deals has stepped up versus what the company used to sign; that its newest customers are starting at a level its early customers took years to reach, or are entering at broader scope from the outset; that where it once sold a single unit, department, site, or product, the same type of buyer now commits to many at once; that follow-on commitments from the same counterparties are arriving at multiples of the initial ones; that the projects, programs, or engagements it is now being awarded are individually larger or longer-dated than its historical norm; that initial commitments increasingly arrive as full deployments rather than as trials; or that the largest single piece of business in the company's history was just signed and management presents it as part of an upward drift in deal size rather than an isolated event. Three things should come through in management's own voice. First, A COMPARISON AGAINST THE COMPANY'S OWN RECENT PAST — management contrasts the size or scope of what it is landing now with what it was landing before for substantially the same offering, so the point is escalation of unit size, not merely more units or a good quarter. Second, ALREADY REAL AND RECURRING — the larger instances are things actually signed, ordered, awarded, or begun in the recent period, and management conveys a pattern rather than one exceptional event; a single record deal counts only if management frames it as part of an upward drift in the size of what the company is winning. Third, EARLY — management conveys, directly or plainly in substance, that this escalation is recent enough that the reported results still largely reflect the smaller-instance era, and that further instances at the new, larger size are already forming, in negotiation, or expected to keep arriving. Answer NO if management simply reports strong demand, more customers, higher revenue, or a good quarter without conveying that the individual size of what it lands has grown versus its own past. NO if the growth described comes purely from volume — more of the same-sized business — or from price increases on unchanged scope. NO if larger deals are only hoped for, targeted, sitting in a pipeline, or described as an ambition to move upmarket. NO if the only evidence is one outsized transaction that management itself treats as exceptional or non-repeating. NO if large engagements have always been the ordinary unit of this company's business and nothing about their size has changed. NO if management is chiefly describing deal sizes shrinking, scopes being cut, customers downsizing commitments, or contracts being renegotiated smaller. NO if the escalation is already mature and fully reflected in current results, with nothing further ahead. 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.