Winning is getting easier

Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management convey that IT HAS RECENTLY BECOME EASIER FOR THE COMPANY TO WIN BUSINESS THAN IT USED TO BE — that landing a new customer, order, contract, or expansion now takes visibly less effort, time, persuasion, or concession than the company's own recent past required — and does management ground this in real business actually won in the recent period, with the easing described as still in effect now? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent phenomenon: the resistance the company used to face when winning business has measurably dropped, and real recent wins demonstrate it. Any genuine expression of this counts, and the form varies widely across industries. For example — sales cycles, evaluations, negotiations, or approval processes that now close faster than they used to for this company; win rates or conversion of opportunities into actual business described as higher than the company's own prior experience; customers arriving already familiar, already convinced, or already referred by existing users, so less selling is required; repeat, renewal, or expansion business now coming with little or no re-selling effort; buyers who previously demanded trials, discounts, concessions, or lengthy proof now committing without them; the company's reputation, references, track record, or installed presence now doing work its salespeople used to do; doors that used to require months of effort now opening on approach; or management plainly contrasting how hard wins used to be with how they come now. Three things must come through in management's own voice. First, A COMPARISON AGAINST THE COMPANY'S OWN PAST — management conveys, directly or plainly in substance, that winning is easier NOW than it was BEFORE for this same company, not merely that demand is strong, the market is big, or the team is executing well. Second, REAL RECENT PROOF — the claim is anchored in actual business won in the recent period (orders, customers, contracts, renewals, expansions actually landed), described concretely enough that the easing is demonstrated by events rather than asserted as atmosphere. Third, STILL IN EFFECT — management conveys that the easing continues as they speak, with the reason attached to the company itself (its proven product, references, reputation, position, or track record) rather than to a temporary external condition, so that future business is expected to keep arriving on these easier terms. Answer NO if management describes strong demand, growth, or a good quarter without conveying that winning business has become easier than the company's own past experience. NO if the ease is attributed chiefly to a temporary condition — a competitor's stumble management expects to reverse, an industry shortage, a pre-buy, restocking, or a one-time event. NO if the claimed easing is only hoped for, projected, or expected from future initiatives rather than already being experienced. NO if the evidence is a single isolated deal or anecdote with no sense of a recurring pattern. NO if management describes winning as getting harder — longer cycles, more scrutiny, heavier discounting, tougher competition — anywhere as the dominant characterization. NO if the easing language is generic boilerplate ("our value proposition resonates," "customers love us") with no contrast against the company's own past and no recent wins behind it. 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.