A financial services firm is modernizing its loan origination process using IBM BAW deployed on Red Hat OpenShift. The current architecture involves a mix of on-premises legacy systems and new containerized microservices. The lead architect needs to design a solution that ensures high availability and disaster recovery for the BAW components. The primary data center is in New York, with a secondary DR site in Chicago. The Recovery Time Objective (RTO) is 4 hours, and the Recovery Point Objective (RPO) is 15 minutes. The proposed architecture uses a primary OpenShift cluster in New York and a standby cluster in Chicago. A Global Load Balancer will direct traffic. For the BAW database, which is external to the cluster, the database administration team has configured asynchronous replication between the two sites with a typical lag of 5-10 minutes. The content store (BPM content store) is located on a shared NFS mount that is also replicated asynchronously. During a DR test, the team successfully fails over the OpenShift cluster and the database. However, after bringing up the BAW application pods in Chicago, they discover that process instances started in the last 10 minutes before the failure are missing, and some users report seeing outdated versions of documents attached to their tasks. The team needs to select a strategy that will meet the RPO without requiring a complete re-architecture to synchronous replication, which the network team has advised against due to latency. Which strategy should the architect recommend to address the data consistency issues and meet the RPO?