A supervisor agent coordinates five domain-specialist subagents (medical, legal, financial, technical, general). When the supervisor receives a question spanning two domains (e.g., 'What are the legal and financial implications of a medical malpractice settlement?'), how should the supervisor topology handle this cross-domain query?

C is correct because the supervisor-specialist topology's value for cross-domain queries is precisely the ability to obtain deep domain expertise from each specialist independently and then synthesize. Fanning out to the legal and financial agents in parallel is efficient (concurrent execution). Having each produce a domain-scoped analysis ensures depth in each domain. Supervisor synthesis with explicit reconciliation of conflicts (e.g., a legal recommendation that conflicts with a financial strategy) produces a higher-quality answer than any single agent could. A is wrong because routing to the general agent when specialists are available trades depth for breadth unnecessarily; the topology was designed to preserve specialist quality. B is wrong because routing to a single specialist and asking them to answer for a related domain produces shallow coverage of the secondary domain — the financial agent is not optimized for deep legal analysis and vice versa. D is wrong because rejecting multi-domain queries is a poor user experience that fails to leverage the topology's core capability; the supervisor exists precisely to coordinate across domains.