In the last episode of S1, you get this:
O'BRIEN: Aquino never went anywhere near pad A. It doesn't make sense.
ODO: On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. Ensign Aquino goes to runabout C because some sensor shows an anomaly in the security net there. He interrupts whoever is tampering with it and is killed. The killer puts the body in the conduit and instead of going back to pad C, which might be traced with Aquino's turbolift log, he changes his plan and moves to pad A.
On the other hand, in a successive scene, you get:
SISKO: Anything new on Aquino?
[Neela goes quietly to a console.]
O'BRIEN: Yes, sir. I found a security bypass module at runabout pad A. It looks like someone might have wanted to steal a runabout. That's probably why Aquino went there in the first place. I've put security seals in place at all three pads and I'm checking for any other anomalies.
The anomaly I've detected is that in the 1st scene it's stated that Aquino went to runabout C, whereas in the 2nd one O'Brien asserts that Aquino was at runabout A in the first place.
And effectively, Odo said that the killer was tampering there, at C. After killing the ensign, he changed his plan moving to pad A.
It seems that replacing A with C and vice versa in the 1st scene in Odo's reconstruction of the facts, all makes sense!
At first sight, these dialogues seemed to me very ambiguous and confused in my language translation, but looking at the original version that impression still remains.
The question is if these quoted dialogues make sense. Basing on the interpretation I've given they seem inconsistent, isn't it?