using NBAR to identify application and bandwidth usage, then adjust existing QoS polices would be a more simple option. Of course, B is still ok if the network admin know all traffic and bandwidth consumption by other tools, say netflow. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/qos_nbar/configuration/15-mt/qos-nbar-15-mt-book/nbar-protocl-discvry.html#GUID-ED1AEDA1-AE69-45C3-A77E-2AF881CA9C36
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/ios-nx-os-software/network-based-application-recognition-nbar/index.html

Traffic shaping is required in the parent policy when hierarchical QoS uses CBWFQ in the child policy for low-bandwidth remote sites. In Cisco hierarchical QoS, the parent policy commonly shapes outbound traffic to the real available rate of the WAN service, especially when the physical interface speed is higher than the provider committed rate. The child policy then applies class-based queuing, such as CBWFQ and LLQ, inside the shaped rate. This structure creates an artificial congestion point on the router so the child queues can schedule packets predictably instead of allowing the provider to drop traffic after it exceeds the service rate.
Policing in the child policy would drop excess packets and is not the normal prerequisite for nested CBWFQ.
CBWFQ is supported in child policies within hierarchical designs, and parent shaping is the mechanism that makes the hierarchy effective. This is especially important on low-bandwidth WAN links where voice, video, and business-critical applications require deterministic treatment. Reference topics: hierarchical QoS, CBWFQ, parent shaping, child queuing, WAN QoS design.

The requirements point to a Layer 2 multipoint WAN service. VPLS provides an emulated Ethernet LAN across a provider network, allowing multiple sites to appear as if they are connected to the same Layer 2 domain. This supports full-mesh Layer 2 connectivity and preserves customer control over higher-layer services such as IPv6, multicast, routing protocols, and QoS markings. Because the provider delivers an Ethernet multipoint service, the enterprise can retain protocol independence rather than depending on the service provider to participate in IPv6 routing or multicast routing. CoS marking is also a Layer 2 QoS mechanism, so a Layer 2 VPN service is better aligned to the stated QoS requirement. VPWS is point-to-point rather than full-mesh multipoint, so it does not meet the topology requirement by itself. MPLS Layer 3 VPN is a provider-routed service and does not give the customer full Layer 2 mesh behavior. DMVPN is an overlay routed VPN and does not provide a native Layer 2 full-mesh service. Therefore, VPLS is the correct WAN connectivity option.