Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
intended to clarify the scope of those registrations, not expand it”).) However, these changes amount to far more than cosmetic adjustments to various titles; they would, if valid, affect both the titles and the content of the registered works—introducing thousands of additional CardPac component files not registered in PaySys’s Initial Registrations and impermissibly expanding the scope of the Initial Registrations from eight discrete component files to the entire CardPac software package. Courts have consistently rejected such attempts to squeeze additional works into a registered copyright through the supplementary registration process. See, e.g., Muench Photography, Inc. v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publ’g Co., No. 09-cv-2669 (LAP), 2012 WL 1021535, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2012)  (citations omitted); Schiffer Publ’g, Ltd. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a hearing would serve no purpose because the registration act and notification law subject all sex offenders as defined by the registration act to the registration and notification provisions and law enforcement authorities have no discretion to determine which offenders would be exposed to public dissemination
B. holding that supplementing a registration by adding new works impermissibly changes the content of the originally registered work in violation of 17 usc  408d and 37 cfr  2015b2
C. holding that the postmark on the registration application was the determining factor when a registration is subsequently approved
D. recognizing the plaintiffs burden of proving a violation of 48 cfr  6301c
E. holding that 8 cfr 10031d3iv merely prohibits the bia from taking new evidence into the record
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.