Given the document below, determine if the summary is factually consistent with the document. A summary is factually consistent if all entity names in the summary are presented the same way as in the document.

Document: The BBC has learnt lock NAME_1 NAME_2 and centre NAME_3 are both in danger of being shock exclusions from NAME_4's squad. England captain NAME_5 NAME_6's chances are rated as 50-50, but about 14 Englishmen are expected to be included. Rookie prop NAME_7 and centre NAME_8 NAME_9'o look likely to make the cut. Head coach NAME_10 is set to name his squad of 37-39 players at midday on Wednesday. NAME_10 and his coaches will meet for a final selection meeting on Tuesday, with NAME_11 sources insisting nothing is yet set in stone. Wasps forward NAME_2, 26, was short-listed for Six Nations player of the tournament, but is part of a fierce competition for places in the second row. With NAME_12 and NAME_13 certainties to make the touring party, NAME_2 is believed to have slipped below compatriots NAME_14 and NAME_15 in the NAME_11 pecking

Summary: 1. The BBC understands that both NAME_2 and center NAME_3 may not be excluded from NAME_16 's lineup.

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

Answer:


 Please answer in JSON format.
user