Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: Brandt was from earlier trials of Extremis (she is seen on the videos regrowing an arm during an early set of the experiments). Savin is from after the work has been more refined, similar to Killian himself, who shows a number of additional abilities on top of the regrowth/strength of the earlier instances. Note that in the early part of the film, Tony is investigating the mysterious "explosions without a bomb" which are the result of early Extremis treated victims going critical. The process itself is clearly not 100% effective or when Killian shoots Maya Hansen, he wouldn't then be offering Tony a "high level position" to perfect it - Tony even notes that he "almost had this 20 years ago, when I was drunk" so expects that he could figure it out fairly easily.  <sep>  Q: How come this Extremis Soldier died so easily? A: Brandt was from earlier trials of Extremis (she is seen on the videos regrowing an arm during an early set of the experiments  Q: was Brandts body blown apart? A: Note that in the early part of the film, Tony is investigating the mysterious "explosions without a bomb" which are the result of early Extremis treated victims going critical  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What does Stark do for a living?
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: I just did a bit of digging on your behalf regarding this line, and there seems to be no concrete definition of it from any official source. That said, I found several interpretations along the way, including: 1) "You cannot wash away your sins."; 2) The blood is worn as a badge of merit on the blade; 3) The blood remains on the blade and not on your hands (meaning you are relatively guilt-free). Personally, considering the overtly religious themes within the film, I would side with option 1, especially since Priest Vallon is saying the line.  <sep>  Q: What's the meaning behind the phrase "The blood stays on the blade"? A: there seems to be no concrete definition of it from any official source  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: In Gangs of New York, a character is told not to wipe blood off a razor when he cuts himself cause the blood stays on the blade. What could that mean?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: It is as simple as Ivan is Trevor's guilt, manifested into a human hallucination. He uses Ivan's supposed mysteriousness to start blaming his distractions and his recent obsession over who is out to get him when really Ivan does not exist at all. Fight Club spoilers explain this best: In a way it is like the ending of Fight Club where The Narrator turns out to be Tyler Durden. In the end, the picture that he kept claiming was Ivan, was really him. The picture is taken before his accident and shows how Trevor was before the guilt of killing a child started seeping into him and causing him to lose sleep for a year. Notice that Ivan is finally gone from his life when he finally turns himself in for what he has done and is also able to finally sleep.  <sep>  Q: How come Ivan exists in the Machinist? A: It is as simple as Ivan is Trevor's guilt, manifested into a human hallucination  Q: Why is he a part of Trevor's imagination at all? A: He uses Ivan's supposed mysteriousness to start blaming his distractions and his recent obsession over  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are there any clues in the movie that Ivan is a real part of Travor's past?
[EX A]:
Yes