Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
it is not probative enough to meet Todd’s burden of production that Montoya acted with deliberate indifference. See In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d 498, 528-29 (6th Cir.1996) (“Northwest’s rewiring of the CAWS is circumstantial evidence, if only of a weak and suspect sort, that the CAWS as it existed at the time of the accident was not foolproof.”). Even if the evidence is not technically with rule 407’s scope: (i) rule 407’s underlying concerns are persuasive when evaluating the probative value of the evidence; and (ii) the circumstances of Montoya’s resignation in light of the other evidence in the record make the inference of wrongdoing one can draw from his resignation a weak one. See Gray v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 82 Fed.Appx. 639, 646-47 (10th Cir.2003) (unpublished). It is the proverbial scintilla of evidence
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that while the evidence at issue was admissible under rule 407 its probative value was minimal
B. recognizing the probative value of objective and reliable hearsay evidence
C. recognizing high probative value of evidence providing conduct that was part of the very act charged
D. holding that inextricably intertwined evidence is intrinsic evidence that is admissible if its probative value outweighs the danger of prejudice
E. recognizing that rule 608b prior bad acts evidence admissible as probative of truthfulness is subject to rule 403 balancing
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.