Option A is strictly superior to option D, as you are still have the data for original 90 responses. If second round responses are similar, you have increased confidence that you are not running into responder bias. If it's different, you can publish both and note uncertainties and need for further study.
I hear your argument, but that also introduces a slippery slope of cooking the data to support your original hypothesis. Now that you have the original data set and the expanded data set, one is likely to do that better than the other.
If the research industry were as pure as science itself of course that would never happen...
