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

Document: South Africa started brightly, with NAME_1 crossing for his 66th Test try to give the visitors an early lead. However, NAME_2' spilt restart led the Springboks to concede both the lead and the momentum, with NAME_3 crossing from the resultant scrum. Last year's champions Australia beat Argentina 36-20 in the later fixture to move into second in the table. New Zealand have made a habit of starting slowly before impressing in the second half throughout the tournament. Saturday was no different, with NAME_4 picking an excellent line to penetrate the New Zealand defence after 20 minutes. However, when fly-half Jantjies fumbled NAME_5's restart, the All Blacks seized the initiative. Within 10 minutes they had a clear lead after NAME_6 scored from a fine offload by NAME_7 - and they went into the break 15-10 up. New Zealand ended any thoughts of a South

Summary: 1. NAME_8 ran over from close range soon afterwards following sterling work from scrum--half NAME_9, then NAME_10 crossed on the wing after more impressive play from NAME_11, before TJ Argentina rounded off the scoring.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document with respect to dates and times?
Options: "Yes" or "No"

Answer:


 Provide response in all capital letters, no lowercase letters allowed.
user