Some of the other options are not appropriate because:

A. Negotiate a reduced review attendance with the stakeholder and update the stakeholder engagement plan to reflect this reduced. This option may compromise the quality and effectiveness of the reviews, as the stakeholder may miss important information, feedback, or decisions. It may also create a perception of low priority or commitment from the stakeholder, which can affect the trust and relationship with the project team3. The stakeholder engagement plan should reflect the optimal level of engagement for each stakeholder, not the minimum4.

C. Record the issue in the issue log and escalate the conflict to the project sponsor for assistance. This option may be too drastic and premature, as the issue may not be a serious conflict that requires escalation. Escalation should be used as a last resort, when the project manager cannot resolve the issue by themselves or with the stakeholder5. Escalation may also damage the rapport and communication with the stakeholder, as it may imply that the project manager is unable to handle the situation or respect the stakeholder’s perspective.

D. Explain to the stakeholder that the stakeholder engagement plan requires their attendance at all reviews. This option may sound too rigid and authoritative, as it does not acknowledge the stakeholder’s concern or provide any justification for the frequency of the reviews. It may also create a sense of resentment or resistance from the stakeholder, who may feel that they are being forced to comply with a plan that they do not agree with or understand. The stakeholder engagement plan should be a flexible and collaborative tool, not a rigid and imposed one4.

I hope this information helps you with your query. However, I suggest that you consult the official PMP and PBA reference materials and guides for more accurate and reliable information. Thank you for using Bing. ????