Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to the superior court “for appointment of mental health experts,” Ariz. R.Crim. P. 11.2(d), the supreme court evinced its intent that, once a court has made the reasonable grounds finding, the matter move on to the next phase of the Rule 11 process and the issue of a defendant’s competency be determined after full proceedings consistent with the rule. See, e.g., Ariz. R.Crim. P. 11.3(a) (requiring court to appoint two or more mental health experts upon finding reasonable grounds for examination exist). Were we to interpret Rule 11.2 as permitting the superior court to review another court’s reasonable grounds finding, we would be inserting words into the rule that do not exist. This we cannot and will not do. See Cervantes v. Cates, 206 Ariz. 178, ¶ 24, 76 P.3d 449, 455 (App.2003) . ¶ 14 For the reasons stated, we conclude the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding rules of appellate procedure are obviously procedural in nature
B. recognizing appellate courts are not free to rewrite rules
C. recognizing appellate courts must not make fact findings
D. recognizing the supervisory power of appellate courts
E. holding that where both the appellate and trial courts are reviewing the paper record  there is no reason for the appellate courts to defer to the trial courts finding
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.