Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
with the merits of whether the resolution in question authorized METRO to construct a light rail line along Richmond Avenue. She argues, “This is precisely the type of situation that the Texas Supreme Court had in mind when it decided the Miranda case: ‘[i]f the evidence creates a fact question regarding the jurisdictional issue, then the trial court cannot grant the plea to the jurisdiction, and the fact issue will be resolved by the fact finder.’ ” See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227-28. We disagree. The alleged contract with the voters upon which Scarbrough bases her claims consists of Resolution 2003-93, i.e., the bond proposition itself, together with its exhibits, which the 2003 referendum approved, not extraneous documents. See Taxpayers for Sensible Priorities, 79 S.W.3d at 676 . Thus, the ripe issues raised in Scarbrough’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because the record does not indicate that the extraneous documents or averments were excluded by the court  we must assume that they were considered
B. holding that documents that were not created by but that were received maintained and relied upon by a business are business records under  8036
C. holding that documents that are created in the ordinary course of business or would have been created irrespective of litigation are not protected by the work product doctrine
D. holding that extraneous documents were not part of contract with voters created by voter approval of bond proposition
E. holding that the bond was intended to and did substantially comply with sjection 71323 therefore because its conditions were not broader and more protective than the statute required the contention that the bond was a common law bond failed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.