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: He won 55% of votes in the second-round poll, compared to Foreign Minister NAME_1's 45%. Voters had braved freezing conditions to turn out in what was being seen as a nail-bitingly close poll. Mr NAME_2 is seen as a hard-drinking, chain-smoking politician, known for his witty put-downs of opponents. As president, he will represent the Czech Republic abroad and appoint candidates to the constitutional court and the central bank, but the post does not carry much day-to-day power. Mr NAME_2 will replace the eurosceptic NAME_3, who steps down in March after ten years in office. Both presidential candidates support deeper integration of the European Union. The result is a triumphant return for a man many thought was finished in politics. Ten years ago Mr NAME_2 was humiliated in his first attempt to become president, says the BBC's NAME_4 in Prague - even members of his own party

Summary: 1. As president, she will represent the Czech Republic abroad and appoint candidates to the constitutional court and the central bank, but the position does not have much power on a day-to-day basis.

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

Answer:


 There should be exactly 6 paragraphs separated by the markdown divider: ***.
user