Consider the following case study and answer the question that follows:

Hardware maintenance was outsourced by a multinational engineering company. The contract specified that the amount of configuration items $($CIs$)$ impacted would determine priority and, consequently, target resolution times. A printer broke down and was duly reported. Because it was a single item, it had the lowest priority and a five$-$day turnaround time. It was not realized, though, that this was a manufacturing laser printer instead of an office one, and that it produced barcodes indicating which spare components were contained in each box. After a day, the production line was shut down and all of the employees were sent home because there was no way to tell which spare was in which box and they could not be packed! Senior management didn$$t become aware of what was going on and the financial loss until a full day later. Although the outsourcer in this case had complied with the contract, the parties engaged in its negotiation had failed to take prioritizing factors into account beyond a very basic method.

Question:

If the effect assessment changes or a resolution becomes more urgent during the course of the incident, it can be essential to modify the incident's priority. Which of the following elements should have been taken into account in order to evaluate the effect on the company when the production line was shut down after a full day and all employees were sent home?

$[$A$]$ The number of people affected

$[$B$]$ The criticality of the service

$[$C$]$ The financial loss being incurred

a$.$ Only A and C are more accurate!

b$.$ Only A and B are more accurate!

c$.$ A$,$ B and C are accurate!

d$.$ Only B and C are more accurate!