Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of 1992, and legal review was the “main work” on the film through July of that year. This evidence, even when viewed in the light most favorable to appellee, does not raise a fact issue as to the existence of actual malice. The evidence, which we have reviewed in its entirety, shows only that the legal department took a protracted amount of time to review Women on Trial. It does not show that the legal review was based on fears that statements in the documentary were untrue and were known to be untrue by those involved in the production. Appellee’s suspicions about the reasons appellant’s legal department chose to “continuously” review the film and decided to indemnify Joseph Feu-ry Productions, Inc. is not sufficient to raise a material issue of fact. See Schauer, 856 S.W.2d at 450  (citing International & G.N.R. Co. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that mere surmise or suspicion of malice does not carry the probative force necessary to form the basis of a legal inference of malice
B. holding that a nonmovant cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment merely  on the basis of conjecture or surmise
C. holding that understandable misinterpretation of ambiguous facts does not show actual malice
D. holding that a factual finding must be supported by more than mere surmise or suspicion
E. holding a claimant must prove entitlement to benefits by the preponderance of the evidence which is not sustained by mere surmise or conjecture
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.