Comprehensive and Detailed in Depth Explanation:
The CAP requires the Lead Assessor to ensure evidence fully demonstrates compliance with CMMC practices. The SSP's omission of privileged account management procedures indicates an evidence gap for practices like AC.L2-3.1.3 (Control Access). Option A (accepting) ignores this gap, risking an inaccurate assessment. Option B (explaining but accepting) is not actionable per CAP, as assessors cannot coach. Option C (marking "Not Met") is premature without seeking additional evidence. Option D aligns with CAP's guidance to request further evidence to address deficiencies.
Extract from Official Document (CAP v1.0):
* Section 2.2 - Conduct Assessment (pg. 25):"If evidence does not fully demonstrate compliance with a practice, the Lead Assessor shall request additional evidence from the OSC to address the gap." References:
CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) v1.0, Section 2.2.

The CMMC practices for cryptographic protection (SC.L2-3.13.11, SC.L2-3.13.8, etc.) require that cryptography protecting CUI must be FIPS-validated. The authoritative source for validation is the NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP).
Extract:
"To use cryptography in compliance with CMMC requirements, organizations must use modules validated under the NIST Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP). The CMVP is the authoritative source to verify whether a cryptographic implementation is FIPS-validated." Vendor documentation or SSP claims alone cannot serve as authoritative proof. The CCA must consult the NIST CMVP validation list.
Reference: CMMC Assessment Guide - Level 2; SC.L2-3.13.11, SC.L2-3.13.8; CMVP Guidance.

Comprehensive and Detailed in Depth Explanation:
The CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) assigns the Lead Assessor responsibility for risk management, including personnel delays. Identifying an alternate resource to shadow the delayed team member (Option D) ensures continuity by preparing a backup, aligning with CAP's proactive mitigation approach. Option A (proceeding without the member) risks incomplete assessments. Option B (requesting OSC resources) shifts burden inappropriately. Option C (rescheduling) is less efficient than a successor plan. Option D is the correct answer per CAP guidance.
Reference Extract:
* CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) v1.0, Section 2.4:"Lead Assessors must mitigate risks,such as identifying alternates for delayed team members."Resources:https://cyberab.org/Portals/0/Documents
/Process-Documents/CMMC-Assessment-Process-CAP-v1.0.pdf

AC.L2-3.1.7 (Privileged Functions) requires that execution of privileged functions be restricted to authorized privileged accounts. The best evidence is an access list demonstrating who is allowed privileged access.
Extract:
"Limit the use of privileged functions to authorized users. Assessors should review access control lists or equivalent evidence to verify only privileged accounts have privileged permissions." Thus, the best next step is to examine a user access list for authorized privileged users.
Reference: CMMC Assessment Guide - Level 2, AC.L2-3.1.7.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:
AC.L2-3.1.18 requires "controlling mobile device connections with device-specific identifiers." The main consideration is consistency and scalability across all devices (A), ensuring uniform management and authorization, per CMMC guidance. User-friendliness (B) is secondary, differentiation (C) is a byproduct of uniqueness, and randomness (D) lacks organizational coherence.
Extract from Official CMMC Documentation:
* CMMC Assessment Guide Level 2 (v2.0), AC.L2-3.1.18: "Use consistent, scalable identifiers for all mobile devices."
* NIST SP 800-171A, 3.1.18: "Examine identifier consistency across devices." Resources:
* https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/CMMC/AG_Level2_MasterV2.
0_FINAL_202112016_508.pdf