With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". would have to examine all of the changed circumstances and guess at the agency’s action. The Legi-Tech decision cannot be construed so as to condone this type of intru sive and certainly imprecise guesswork. In the case at bar, as in Legi-Tech, the Commission took corrective steps to cure the statutory defect. Legi-Tech, 75 F.3d at 708; A.L. Pharma, Inc. v. Shalala, 62 F.3d 1484, 1489 (D.C.Cir.1995) (distinguishing cases in which the agency refused to take corrective action). The FEC, on December 5, 2005, rendered a new decision and affirmed its prior decision to authorize the General Counsel to pursue litigation. This action properly ratified the prior decision for two reasons. First, the FEC’s action constituted a subsequent review of the evidence. See Doolin, 139 F.3d at 213 n. 11 (<HOLDING>). Second, because the FEC’s December 5, 2005

A: recognizing a subsequent agency action as a valid ratification and indicating that the court will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency
B: holding that repeated appropriations of the proceeds of certain fees constituted a ratification of agency policy
C: holding that a court is not empowered to substitute its judgement for that of the agency
D: recognizing that we may not substitute our judgment for that of the alj
A.