Refer to the exhibit. A network engineer is configuring router RB to secure BGP advertisements against route hijacking activity. RB must validate all prefixes that it receives from origin AS 200…

The configuration correctly enables RPKI origin validation (`rpki origin-validation enable`) and specifies how to signal invalid routes (`rpki origin-validation signaling allow-invalid`) directly under the neighbor configuration for AS 200. This ensures that prefixes received from this specific peer, identified by its remote-as 200, undergo RPKI validation before installation into the BGP route table.

Enabling `rpki origin-validation` at the `address-family` level would apply validation to all prefixes for that address-family, not just those from origin AS 200, which is less specific than required.

The configuration contains a duplicate `address-family ipv4 unicast` command within the neighbor context, which is syntactically incorrect and causes a configuration error.

While it applies RPKI validation under the neighbor, adding an unspecific `route-policy RB-LOCAL-AS200 in` without explicitly referencing RPKI validation within that policy is redundant or incorrect for the core requirement; the RPKI commands themselves are sufficient at the neighbor level.