The case study mentions attacks in the Suez Canal and the effect of climate change on the Panama Canal. This has influenced global shipping routes. In the aftermath of recent attacks in the Red Sea, vessels are opting to bypass the Suez Canal and navigate around South Africa's Cape of Good Hope. This shift has disrupted the crucial global shipping routes, compelling ships to add another $15$ days to their journeys, accompanied by increased costs. These cargo delays and increased delivery times will influence supplier selection and assessment. Look at figure $5\mathrm{.}2$ in the prescribed book. Due to the above scenario the evaluation criteria change as follows:

On$-$time delivery $(15)$

Fill$-$rate $(0)$

Cost reduction materials $(5)$

Cost reduction transport $(20)$

Question: In terms of Supplier C$,$ how did its position change after the weights for cost and delivery have been changed?

Supplier C moved up one position in terms of delivery.

Supplier C remained in the second position overall.

Supplier C equalled Supplier B$$s totals on both cost and delivery.

Supplier C had the highest totals in terms of both cost and delivery, far above the rest for both criteria