Option A is the best addressing design because it gives each site enough capacity while avoiding excessive address waste and supporting summarization. A campus requiring 12,000 devices needs at least 14 host bits because 2^13 minus two is only 8190 usable addresses, while a /18 provides 16,382 usable addresses. That leaves room for growth without assigning an unnecessarily huge block. Each branch requiring 1,000 devices needs at least 10 host bits; a /22 provides 1,022 usable addresses, but /21 provides 2,046 usable addresses and additional growth capacity. The selected branch blocks, 10.0.192.0/21 and 10.0.200.0/21, are contiguous on valid /21 boundaries and can be summarized cleanly where appropriate. Option D fails because a /20 supports only 4094 usable addresses and cannot accommodate the 12,000-device campus. Option B overallocates a /16 to the campus and /20s to branches, wasting resources. Option C is grossly oversized and operationally poor.
Reference topics: hierarchical IPv4 addressing, route summarization, VLSM, host-capacity planning, convergence containment.