Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that Ann. § 1.201(b)(10) (Vernon Supp.2006) (defining “conspicuous” for purposes of the Uniform Commercial Code). Nothing appears on the face of the two-page, single-spaced “Bank of America Mortgage Addendum to Contract” to attract the attention of a reasonable person to the jury waiver provision when he looks at the addendum. See Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 505, 508 (Tex.1993) (recognizing that to be conspicuous, something must appear on the face of the contract to attract the attention of a reasonable person when he looks at it). Nor did Martin or Powell initial the waiver provision, which would have established their actual knowledge of the waiver. See, e.g., Sydlik v. REEIII, Inc., 195 S.W.3d 329, 332-33 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) . Consequently, factor six, the conspicuousness
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that signatorys initials by specific indem nity provision established signatorys actual knowledge of provision
B. holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them
C. holding that question was within arbitration provision because provision contained no specific language precluding arbitrators from reaching question
D. holding wills more specific provision prevails over general provision
E. holding that fehbas complete preemption provision closely resembles erisas express preemption provision and precedent interpreting the erisa provision thus provides authority for cases involving the fehba provision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.