Given the document below, determine if the summary is factually consistent with the document. A summary is factually consistent if all the pronouns in the summary are presented the same way as in the document and they do not introduce any ambiguity.

Document: After the talks, she reaffirmed Washington's support for a "full transition to civilian rule" in Egypt. President NAME_1 has become embroiled in a constitutional crisis after trying to reinstate a parliament dissolved by the judiciary and the military. NAME_2 has backed Mr NAME_1, saying Egyptians should get the government they voted for. Mr NAME_1, of the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, was elected in June in the country's first ever freely contested leadership vote. After the meeting in Cairo, NAME_2 told reporters: "I have come to Cairo to reaffirm the strong support of the United States for the Egyptian people and their democratic transition. "We want to be a good partner and we want to support the democracy that has been achieved by the courage and sacrifice of the Egyptian people." The BBC's NAME_3 NAME_4, in Cairo, says that not many years ago, one US secretary of

Summary: 1. He became the country's interim ruler after the fall of President NAME_5 in June

Is the summary factually consistent with the document with respect to pronouns used?
Options: "Yes" or "No"

Answer:


 The word "pronoun" should not appear in your response.
user