Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(addition) claim was excluded under exclusion “m.” Id. at 92. We conclude that exclusion “m” applies to the homeowners’ negligent-construction (addition) claim because the damage claimed was to addition work performed entirely by RDI. But the negligent-construction (original house) claim is not excluded by paragraph “m.” Specifically, the work performed on the original house by RDI was limited to the remodel and installation of the master bedroom window and other trim work. We read exclusion “m” to exclude the work performed by RDI on portions of the original house but exclusion “m” does not apply to adjacent walls and structures that had moisture damage caused by the work performed by RDI. See, e.g., Brown v. Concord, Grp. Ins. Co., 163 N.H. 522, 44 A.3d 586, 589-90 (2012) ; Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. T & G Constr.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that  the work to be completed in accordance with the time limits of section 6 is the work for which lien enforcement is sought
B. holding that the unambiguous terms of the your work exclusion do not eliminate coverage for harm done to a subcontractors work
C. holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations
D. holding that j5 exclusion did not bar coverage for damage to subcontractors work because damage did not arise from insureds performing operations on subcontractors work
E. holding that your work exclusion is triggered only where the damage at issue is to work performed by you and is caused by work performed by you  and does not apply to damage caused to original construction of a house during later repair work
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.