With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15, 641 N.E.2d 1342, 1346 (1994)). Consequently, Quartaro was the preeminent testifying witness. He testified as to his own conclusions; he did not act as a conduit of the opinions of, or parrot the data produced by, other analysts. Cf. United States v. Ramos-Gonzalez, 664 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2011) (“Where an expert witness employs her training and experience to forge an independent conclusion, albeit on the basis of inadmissible evidence, the likelihood of a Sixth Amendment infraction is minimal. * * * Where an expert acts merely as a well-eredent-ialed conduit for testimonial hearsay, however, the cases hold that her testimony violates a criminal defendant’s right to confrontation.”); Commonwealth v. Munoz, 461 Mass. 126, 958 N.E.2d 1167, 1174 (2011) (<HOLDING>). Quartaro, as the author of the DNA profiles

A: holding that court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency
B: holding that admission of the testimony of a substitute analyst who offers an independent opinion does not violate the confrontation clause however a substitute analyst cannot testify to or otherwise introduce the original analysts reports and conclusions on direct examination
C: holding that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the directors of a corporation 
D: holding that a reviewing court is not to substitute its decision for that of the board
B.