When an EBGP router advertises a route to a neighbor in a different AS, it appends its own AS number to the AS_PATH attribute. This helps other routers recognize the path the route has taken and prevents routing loops.
If an EBGP router receives a route advertisement that already contains its own AS number in the AS_PATH attribute, it will drop the route. This prevents the router from accepting a route that would create a routing loop.

A classic and well-documented gotcha in filter-based forwarding deployments is that the static default route configured inside each forwarding instance frequently references a next-hop address that Junos cannot resolve, simply because the interface and other directly connected routes needed to validate that next hop as reachable exist only in the master inet.0 table by default, not automatically inside the newly created forwarding instance's own table. Since a static route's next hop must be resolvable against routes present within its own routing table to become active, the static default routes inside the ISP-A and ISP-B forwarding instances remain inactive precisely because the necessary interface/next-hop routes were never made visible inside those instances. The standard solution taught for this exact FBF scenario is to configure a routing information base (RIB) group that explicitly imports the relevant interface routes between the master inet.0 table and each forwarding instance's table, allowing the static default route's next hop inside each instance to resolve correctly against the leaked routes and become active.
Applying a firewall filter without ever attaching it to an interface accomplishes nothing, since an unapplied filter never evaluates any traffic. Increasing the static route's preference value only affects which competing route wins selection and does nothing to resolve an unreachable next hop. Changing the instance type away from forwarding (to virtual-router) would in fact break FBF entirely, since filter-based forwarding specifically depends on the forwarding instance type working together with a routing-instance firewall filter action.

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/high-availability/topics/topic-map/bfd-configuring.html

The 10.20.0.0/22 aggregate covers the four /24 blocks 10.20.0.0/24 through 10.20.3.0/24, but only the first three of those (10.20.0.0/24, 10.20.1.0/24, and 10.20.2.0/24) are configured and present as active contributing routes; 10.20.3.0/24, the block containing the destination address 10.20.3.100, has no corresponding contributing route in this configuration. Because no more-specific route exists for 10.20.3.100, the longest- match lookup falls through the missing /24 and matches only the broader /22 aggregate itself. By default, when Junos installs an aggregate route, it assigns that route a reject next hop rather than any usable forwarding next hop; this is a deliberate design choice so that traffic destined for gaps within an advertised summary block - gaps where no real, more-specific path actually exists - is not blindly forwarded toward whatever next hop happens to belong to one of the unrelated contributing routes. A reject next hop causes the router to drop the packet and generate and return an ICMP destination-unreachable message to the originating source, explicitly informing it that no path exists, which is functionally and behaviorally distinct from a silent discard next hop that would drop the packet without any such notification. Aggregate routes never adopt or forward through any single contributing route's next hop, which rules out the two forwarding-based answer choices entirely. Reference topics: Junos Enterprise Routing - Protocol Independent Routing, Default Reject Next Hop for Aggregate Routes.