I HOPE it's "only" 2) - and that the March 28 shift was for LEGITIMATE reasons. But if so, they should have told us what those legitimate reasons WERE; teams of spectacularly astute independent experts are working very hard trying to help find the plane; but they are working blind because of 2).
HIGHLY relevant, I'm afraid.
Indeed, it is highly relevant that the investigation team seems to have made a set of assumptions which is at odds with their public statements. There are however, good reasons for these discrepancies.
There are two bodies of information here which are qualitatively different. One is the set of public announcements made by various bodies which may be coloured by perceptions and motives that are not transparent. The other is the data. If one treats these two sets of information as separate, it becomes clear that there are differences in the implied track of the aircraft depending on how much weight one gives to each set. It also becomes clear why the investigators may be making assumptions which look inconsistent and are unable to be forthright about why they have done this.
I don't think this implies any impropriety on the part of the investigation team since I believe that the decisions they have made are sensible based on the data alone.