Comprehensive and Detailed in Depth Explanation:
AC.L2-3.1.12 requires OSCs to monitor and control remote access sessions, per NIST SP 800-171 and CMMC Level 2. In a BYOD environment with MDM and VPNs, the CCA must verify the effectiveness of these controls. However, the personal nature of employee devices introduces privacy concerns, limiting the CCA's ability to directly inspect configurations or logs without consent or legal constraints, as noted in the CAP. This complicates evidence collection compared to company-owned devices.
Option A (simplified evidence collection) overlooks privacy barriers. Option B (VPN security) assumes effectiveness without addressing verification challenges. Option D (employee attestation) is insufficient per CAP, which requires objective evidence. Option C correctly identifies privacy as a key challenge, making it the correct answer.
Reference Extract:
* CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) v1.0, Section 4.2:"BYOD environments may limit evidence collection due to privacy concerns associated with personal devices."
* NIST SP 800-171A, AC-3.1.12:"Assessors must verify control of remote access sessions, which may be hindered by device ownership."Resources:https://cyberab.org/Portals/0/Documents/Process-Documents
/CMMC-Assessment-Process-CAP-v1.0.pdf;https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/171/a/final

Comprehensive and Detailed in Depth Explanation:
The CAP requires a valid CAGE code for assessment continuation, and C3PAOs cannot assist due to CoPC restrictions on consulting. Option A is correct. Options B, C, and D contradict CAP and CoPC rules.
Extract from Official Document (CAP v1.0):
* Section 1.2 - Confirm Corporate Identity (pg. 11):"If the OSC does not have a valid CAGE code, the assessment cannot continue."
* CoPC Paragraph 3.1 - Professionalism (pg. 6):"C3PAOs shall not offer implementation assistance." References:
CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) v1.0, Section 1.2; CoPC Paragraph 3.1.

Comprehensive and Detailed in Depth Explanation:
The CAP requires the OSC to hash artifacts to ensure integrity, especially when they remain onsite.Option B (copying offsite) violates OSC restrictions. Option C (redacted versions) is impractical and not required.
Option D (photographs) breaches security protocols. Option A aligns with CAP's hashing mandate.
Extract from Official Document (CAP v1.0):
* Section 3.5 - Archive Assessment Artifacts (pg. 36):"The OSC must hash all artifacts in accordance with the CMMC Artifact Hashing Tool User Guide to create unique digital fingerprints for record- keeping purposes." References:
CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) v1.0, Section 3.5.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:
The CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) mandates that the OSC provide initial objective evidence, including the SSP, to the Lead Assessor during the scope validation phase (Phase 1). The SSP is critical for defining the assessment scope and verifying asset categorization and security controls, as per practice CA.L2-3.12.4.
Refusal or redaction (Options A and C) undermines the assessor's ability to validate the scope, and there is no provision delaying this until after the assessment begins (Option B). The OSC must furnish the full SSP, though proprietary concerns can be addressed via an NDA if needed, which is not mentioned here.
Reference:
CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) v1.0, Section 2.1 (Phase 1: Plan and Prepare), p. 7: "The OSC must provide initial evidence, including the SSP, to the Lead Assessor."

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:
The CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) requires establishing a Rough-Order-of-Magnitude (ROM) during Phase 1 to estimate effort and cost, balancing OSC preferences (speed, budget) with assessment requirements.
This involves collaboration between the C3PAO and OSC Assessment Official. Option B is part of scoping but not the framing step. Option C is premature, and Option D is secondary to ROM. A is correct per the CAP.
Reference:
CMMC Assessment Process (CAP) v1.0, Section 2.1 (Phase 1: Plan and Prepare), p. 7: "The C3PAO determines the ROM with the OSC."