Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
NAME_1 said the room would be kept intact and a wing of the presidential palace turned into a monument to NAME_2's "Bolivarian revolution". NAME_2 died of cancer last month. Following his death, presidential elections were called for 14 April, pitting NAME_1 against main opposition candidate NAME_3. NAME_4 says that despite NAME_1's attempt at portraying himself as NAME_2's heir, the acting president lacks the late leader's charisma. "I'm going to look after it for a few years, but it'll always be NAME_5's home," NAME_1 said referring to the NAME_6 Palace in Caracas, where Venezuela's presidents have their office. Full of confidence ahead of Sunday's polls, NAME_1 said he would "occupy a small office in NAME_6 in another wing", so that Venezuelans could roam the rooms of the presidential palace and "learn how the commander had lived, and what he had eaten".

Summary:
1. Venezuelan acting president NAME_7 has said he will keep the room where he was born as a shrine to late leader NAME_8.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
 Use some words in all caps in your response, but those all-caps words should appear at most 15 times.
user