Yes. But it is highly likely that the review is going to conclude and imply to stay the course, merely with a few optimizations here and there. It would be a risky decision to cancel the complete Ares concepts and start roughly at zero. The Augustine Commission by far is not what some Ares opponents seem to think. Look at the members...
Do you think Ares is anywhere but Zero right now? There is no 5.5seg booster, there is no Ares I upper stage, no J2-X engine. With Ares V, the best way to sum up the things it needs which currently exist, I heard elsewhere - "Orange foam". New tank diameter, new engines, new SRBs, pads, launch platforms, the works.
Now look at the alternatives:
DIRECT -
4 seg SRB - already exists, flown hundreds of times.
8.4m diameter external tank - ditto.
SSMEs - yup, they exist.
Upper stage engine (RL10) - mhm.
Infrastructure - same as Shuttle, pretty much.
Needs to be done - plumb the SSMEs into the bottom of the ET; alter the top of the tank to accomodate the inline design. I'm simplifying, but you get the picture. Neither task is a walk in the park, but compared to developing new rockets?
Not Shuttle-C -
Pretty much the Shuttle stack without the Orbiter.
EELV -
They also have the benefit of existing, as a whole.
Need to be manrated.
The only way the commission could actively decide to start from Zero, would be to choose to stick with Ares. Theres nothing there, other than a test flight with no real bearing on the actual Ares I. And technical problems. I cannot fathom why the commission would elect to continue to spend so much money developing two brand new vehicles. Or why Obama would allow it.