pronoun ambiguity contradiction

I believe this is the most blatant case of the GMAC being contradictory. I know most experienced GMAT victims have found that pronoun ambiguity tolerance is somewhat of a gray area, but can someone please explain how pronoun ambiguity is cause for dismissal of choice C here, yet a nearly identical situation further below is allowed. Or how can the two not be compared?

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.
C. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past.
D. Executives’ being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear.
E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

OA = E
Reason for C being incorrect is -- "The reference for the pronoun it is unclear because many nouns have intervened between the appearance of the logical referent (course of action) and it."

YET

Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fie lds of large sea areas. they have already stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands.

(A) Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated
(B) Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated
(C) Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating
(D) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, this has already stimulated
(E) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fie lds of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, which is already stimulating

OA=B
Couldn't make these two cases more similar if I tried!