A compliance reviewer states that enabling the policy that blocks suggestions matching public code means accepted Copilot output is guaranteed free of public code and free of licensing risk, so no further checks are needed. Which correction is most accurate?
- AThe filter is purely advisory and never actually blocks a suggestion, so it provides no protection at all and the reviewer should disable it to avoid false confidence.
- BThe filter inspects only comments and documentation strings, so it leaves executable code unchecked and provides no reduction in public-code matches whatsoever.
- CThe filter guarantees freedom from public code but not from licensing risk, so only a separate licence-scanning tool is needed before any output is accepted.
- DThe filter reduces verbatim matches against public code, but it offers no licensing guarantee, so developers still validate accepted output for licence concerns. Correct
Why A is wrong: This overcorrects; the filter does suppress matching suggestions, so calling it purely advisory and recommending its removal is wrong.
Why B is wrong: This invents a scope limitation; the filter matches code text generally, not just comments, so the claimed gap is fabricated.
Why C is wrong: It is tempting to split the two guarantees, but the filter does not guarantee freedom from public code either; it reduces, not eliminates, matches.
Why D is correct: Duplication detection lowers the chance of receiving public-code matches without certifying licence cleanliness, so human validation of accepted output remains necessary.