Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and Skelly relied on their design expert, Sicher, who testified about the important role testing plays (or should play) in the design process: “[T]he basic design principles are set your goals, determine how you’re going to test or evaluate them, and then start testing them.” If the test results are unsatisfactory, then the company should “go back and either do a redesign or evaluate whether that was a true indicative method of evaluating [the goal] properly.” That is, in Sicher’s opinion, rollover testing is vital to producing a careful design because it allows a company like GM to discover how a vehicle performs during a rollover and what alternatives, if any, can improve that performance—to him, failure to test means failure to exercise reasonable care. Cf. McKnight, 36 F.3d at 1411 ; Zesch v. Abrasive Co. of Phila., 353 Mo. 558,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that rule 54b applies when plaintiffs theory of recovery against one defendant is largely subsumed by its theory of recovery against the other defendant even though there was no formal joint liability
B. holding that although an adequate warning will prevent the reliance on a theory of strict liability in a failure to warn defect ease such a warning will not make safe a product with a manufacturing defect
C. holding while there may be some case law to support plaintiffs argument the majority approach is that the failure to attach process defect is merely procedural and that this particular procedural defect may be cured
D. recognizing failure to test is a viable theory of recovery under missouri law in a manufacturing defect case
E. holding that notice of a defect could not be imputed to a defendant inasmuch as it created the defect
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.