The most efficient implementation is to use a Splunk SOAR playbook to perform the repetitive submission and collection operations involving Splunk Attack Analyzer. The playbook can take the relevant phishing artifact, submit it for analysis, collect the resulting verdict and associated evidence, and make that information available to the analyst responsible for the finding.

This represents an appropriate automation boundary. File submission, API interaction, status polling, result retrieval, and evidence attachment are deterministic operations that do not generally require human judgment. Automating them reduces analyst handling time and improves process consistency while preserving human review for interpretation and disposition.

Automatic assignment or email notification may improve workflow routing, but neither actually performs the detonation process required by the SOP. Option D introduces PhishTank as an intermediary even though the requirement specifically identifies Splunk Attack Analyzer and does not establish PhishTank as the mechanism responsible for executing that analysis.

The course scenario therefore demonstrates a central SOAR design principle: automate repetitive data movement and enrichment while presenting the resulting context to the analyst for decision-making.

Study Guide topics: Splunk SOAR playbooks, Attack Analyzer, phishing response, automated enrichment, artifact detonation, analyst efficiency.