Jenny, a CHFI specialist, is assigned to a case involving potential corporate fraud within a...

Option C is the strongest answer because the scenario emphasizes two critical forensic requirements: maintaining chain of custody and ensuring the findings are usable in court . CHFI v11 gives heavy importance to evidence preservation , chain of custody , data acquisition methodology , and validating data acquisition . These objectives make it clear that before deep analysis begins, the examiner must first preserve the integrity of the evidence and document it in a defensible way.

Creating hash values for the leaked files at the start provides a baseline for proving that the evidence has not been altered during handling, storage, or later examination. This is especially important when dealing with a very large dataset and multiple investigators or later court scrutiny. Hashing supports integrity verification and ties directly into the broader chain of custody process.

Option A risks examining unverified evidence. Option B may help later with triage, but it should not come before integrity controls. Option D increases the risk of poor evidence control if done before proper preservation and verification. Therefore, under CHFI data acquisition and legal evidence principles, Jenny should first hash the files and preserve evidence integrity before conducting substantive analysis.