Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
fall within one of the limited grounds for vacation of an arbitration award. See § 16-4423(a)(3) (identifying as ground for vacatur arbitrator’s “re-fus[al] to consider evidence material to the controversy, or otherwise conducting] the hearing contrary to § 16-4415,” which provides for “a right to be heard, to present evidence material to the controversy, and to cross-examine witnesses appearing at the hearing,” D.C.Code § 16-4415). Ap-pellee’s brief, however, paints a different picture. He contends that appellant agreed to the arbitrators, that she testified at the hearing, and responded to questions. In short, appellant’s bare allegations are contested and, without support, are insufficient to prove a statutory basis for vacating the arbitration award. See Dolton, 935 A.2d at 299-300 . Appellant argues that because there is no
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the statutory grounds for vacatur and modification of arbitration awards may not be supplemented by contract
B. holding that a transcript is necessary if the asserted grounds for vacatur of arbitration award are grounded in the conduct of the proceeding
C. holding that common law grounds such as manifest disregard of law and gross mistake were not valid grounds for vacatur of arbitration award as hall street forecloses any common law grounds for vacatur
D. holding that the role of the courts is limited to ascertaining whether there exists one of the specific grounds for the vacation of an award as provided in  10 of the arbitration act and that the court should not review the arbitration proceeding for errors of law or fact
E. holding that arbitrary and capricious ground for vacatur recognized along with the four grounds for vacatur specified in chapter 1 of the faa could not be used to vacate award under the convention
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.