With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". approach should be distinguished from the mechanical approach to calculating a debtor’s projected disposable income, which was rejected by the Supreme Court in favor of a forward-looking approach in circumstances “where changes in the debtor’s income or expenses are known or virtually certain at the time of confirmation.” Lanning, 130 S.Ct. at 2478; Baud, 634 F.3d at 337-38 (distinguishing the interpretation of a debtor’s applicable commitment period from the calculation of a debtor’s projected disposable income, the latter of which was addressed by the Supreme Court in Lan-ning ). Adopting a hybrid approach in Alexander, this court held that the term “applicable commitment period” does not apply to debtors with zero or negative projected disposable income. 344 B.R. at 750-51 (<HOLDING>); Musselman, 394 B.R. at 814 (affirming, after

A: recognizing the applicable commitment period requirement as temporal but only applicable to a debtor with projected disposable income
B: holding that projected disposable income for abovemedian debtors is disposable income as defined by  1325b
C: holding that the statement of current monthly income was the presumptive amount of projected disposable income but presumption could be rebutted by the debt or upon a showing of substantial change of circumstances
D: holding that projected disposable income for an abovemedian income debtor would not include a deduction for contractual payments on undersecured debt that the debtor would not actually be required to pay because the plan bifurcated the claim or surrendered the collateral
A.