What are some inconsistencies and difficulties arising from the disclosure of information obtained under authorization P3?

The defence refers to the following apparent contradictions and difficulties arising from the new disclosure: -- The new disclosure reveals that Informant 6 showed a keen and ongoing interest in agent status until at least July 2001, when, after a review of the viability of such an arrangement, the police told him or her that such status was not possible and Informant 6 concluded that informer status was in any event safer. The defence submits that even if the statements in the affidavits supporting authorization P3 are literally true when they say, as of January 2002, that none of the informants was interested in agent status, they are nonetheless misleading in failing to refer at all to Informant 6’s initial and ongoing interest up to July 2001. -- Cst. H.’s affidavit states that Informant 6 told of being asked by the targets of the investigation to fly to somewhere, pick up a shipment of cocaine, and bring it back to Canada; the recently disclosed police notes indicate variously that Informant 6 told of being asked to import a package of undetermined contents, or of money or drugs. -- Inconsistency in the date (May 29 v. May 25, 2001) when Informant 6 is said to have met with the police and provided information about a May 25 meeting with some of the targets.