The short answer
Yes, given time, and the second half of that is not decoration. A yes that arrives at the wrong speed is not the answer this card gives, and readers who drop the timing have kept only half of it.
Why the card reads that way
A winged figure pours liquid between two cups, one foot on land and one in water, with a path leading to mountains behind. The pour is impossible if it is rushed, which is the whole of the image.
The card is read as moderation, blending and the correct rate. Those are favourable, so the polarity comes out affirmative, but every part of the picture is about proportion and timing. A yes taken from this card without the timing attached has kept the sign and thrown away the content.
Position matters here too. Temperance sits immediately after Death in most orderings, so the sequence has it doing the slow work that follows an ending. Read that way the affirmative is about a recovery being conducted carefully, which is a narrower and more useful claim than a general promise of good fortune.
Reversed
Reversed, the readings are imbalance, excess, or two things being combined that should not be. Most lists move to no, and a few keep a weak yes read as the right thing attempted at the wrong speed.
Either way the reversal is usually about proportion rather than about direction.
Where yes-or-no readings come from
The binary is a modern imposition. Traditional interpretation describes proportions, pressures and conditions, and there is no operation within it that turns any of that into a ruling.
The tables that do the turning were assembled by individual readers and are not consistent with each other. Two sources will differ on a card's polarity for reasons that come down to temperament and artwork, which is worth remembering before quoting any verdict as fact.
A better question to ask
Ask what two things in this situation need to be combined, and at what rate, rather than whether the combination will succeed.
The card answers the first and is silent on the second. This site treats no draw as evidence about outcomes, and the reframed question does not require it to. It also has the merit of being checkable against what you did yesterday.