Read the passage depicting a systemic problem below. Assuming everything in the statement to be true, decide which of the suggested courses of action logically follow(s) for implementation. Passage: A dominant global credit rating agency has been formally accused of intentionally inflating the credit ratings of risky sovereign debt packages, directly causing catastrophic financial losses for millions of individual pension holders worldwide. While senior directors at the agency defend their actions by asserting they were simply "adapting to standard industry grading methodologies," internal whistleblowers have leaked communications exposing deliberate collusion with major investment banks to distort market risk metrics for inflated advisory fees. This major systemic failure has severely shattered public trust in global credit assessments and investment markets. Suggested Courses of Action: 1. Enforce aggressive monetary forfeitures on the agency and initiate formal criminal prosecutions against the specific executives found guilty of conspiring to distort the risk metrics. 2. Permit credit rating agencies to establish their own internal self-policing voluntary codes of conduct, since enforcing mandatory state-run rules could slow down financial innovation and weaken market agility. 3. Establish an independent, international oversight committee completely decoupled from corporate financial interests to monitor credit appraisal models and ensure full algorithmic transparency.

Analysis: The premise outlines a severe institutional crisis where a central market authority deliberately manipulated a public risk standard for corporate profit, destroying public confidence and harming individual retail investors. A valid course of action must enforce strict deterrence or structurally prevent a recurrence. Course of Action 1 follows logically. The passage explicitly details deliberate collusion and systematic distortion of financial signals by senior figures at the expense of ordinary pension holders. Imposing severe monetary penalties on the enterprise and pursuing criminal charges against the guilty executives serves as an essential punitive measure and creates a powerful legal deterrent against high-level corporate fraud. Thus, 1 is a valid course of action. Course of Action 2 does NOT follow. The text establishes that the agency's internal leadership deliberately chose to manipulate numbers for profit while hiding behind the excuse of "standard practices." Relying on self-policing or voluntary compliance for an industry already engaging in systemic bad faith manipulation is completely illogical and would directly perpetuate the risk of future consumer exploitation. Protecting "market agility" cannot justify ignoring active institutional malpractice. Thus, 2 is incorrect. Course of Action 3 follows logically. Because the current system allowed corporate agencies to secretly collude with investment banks, creating a completely independent, conflict-free international oversight body to verify these credit models is a highly rational, preventative solution. Forcing transparency ensures that market signals remain accurate and works directly to rebuild shattered public trust. Thus, 3 is a valid course of action.