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

Document:
Media playback is not supported on this device. The 19-year-old nephew of trainer NAME_1 led the 33-1 chance to victory in his first ride in the NAME_2-famous race. His nine-year-old mount, trained by NAME_3, triumphed by six lengths. "Everything just went to plan. I couldn't give you a word to describe how I feel," said the jockey. The youngster had never even walked the Aintree course before Saturday's race, but he showed his skill to make up three lengths on The Last Samuri after the final fence to take the lead at the Elbow and go on to win. NAME_4 NAME_2, who has twice broken his pelvis, was the first horse since the 19th century to claim his maiden win over fences at the Grand National. NAME_5 was pleased to play his part in the victory for owners Gigginstown House Stud, headed by airline NAME_6

Summary:
1. Jockey NAME_5 rode NAME_4 NAME_2 to victory in the Grand National at Aintree for the first time on Saturday.

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.
