Spending like a bigger company on purpose

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management acknowledge that the company's CURRENT reported results are being visibly weighed down by the cost of an expansion the company has ALREADY undertaken — spending, hiring, capacity, inventory, footprint, or organization added ahead of the revenue it will serve — AND does management justify carrying that burden by pointing to demand or business that it says is ALREADY REAL — arriving, committed, or observable now — rather than merely hoped for? Answer YES when management's own words convey BOTH halves as one coherent present-tense posture, in whatever form fits the business: (1) THE EXPANSION IS REAL, ALREADY UNDERWAY, AND VISIBLY COSTING SOMETHING NOW. Management describes concrete enlargement of the company that is already executing — such as facilities, capacity, or locations being built or recently opened; people being hired, trained, or carried ahead of their full workload; inventory, equipment, or supply being added ahead of shipments; systems, teams, or infrastructure stood up for a larger scale of operation — AND acknowledges, directly or plainly in substance, that this build is depressing, straining, or weighing on the current period's profitability, margins, cash, or efficiency. The cost must be presented as a deliberate choice management is defending, not an accident it is apologizing for. (2) THE JUSTIFICATION IS DEMAND MANAGEMENT SAYS IT CAN ALREADY SEE. Management grounds the expansion in business that is already showing up — such as orders, bookings, contracts, or commitments in hand; customers already won, ramping, or asking for more than the company can currently serve; volumes, utilization, or activity already climbing; or work already secured that the new capability will deliver — rather than in market size, industry forecasts, pipeline hopes, or general confidence. It should come through that management expects today's numbers to understate the company once the expansion is absorbed by the business it was built for. Answer NO if the spending described is routine maintenance, ordinary annual investment, or expansion at the company's usual pace with no acknowledged weight on current results. NO if management attributes weak results mainly to inflation, weak demand, competition, or external problems rather than to a chosen build. NO if the expansion is only planned, announced, or contingent rather than already executing. NO if the justifying demand is only projected, hoped for, in pipeline, or dependent on market recovery or decisions not yet made. NO if management is chiefly cutting, consolidating, defending weakness, or promising the spending will come down. NO if either half 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.