Well, she had to have gotten to work somehow.
"indicate" would just mean that the records and witnesses matched up with what she told them she did. In an investigation the first thing you would do is ask the person what they did, then you would try to corroborate that through interviews with witnesses or records of some sort. Once you have done that, you have verified what the person told you is probably true (or at least there is no reason to think otherwise). If the corroboration does not match their account then you know the person is lieing, and you promptly charge them with obstruction to provide them with motivation to stop lieing.
And remember, these people making the claims of an alternative reality where SA took BD to work forget that SA's travels are corroborated as well, and he could not have been home when BD went to work. So, SOMEONE must have given her a lift (since that is what she herself told them), so the interview with witnesses would have been an interview with that someone. What confused the people with the alternate reality theory is that there are two days HD disappeared, the day she actually disappeared, and the next day when her disappearance was reported. These are two separate days, which, depending on your point of view, is the "abduction day". The first day BD got a lift from someone, the second day SA took her to work (since at that point he would have told her that he had been "fired" and consequently would have been available). The alternate reality people are conflating the first day with the second, and that is the source of their confusion. They are talking about what happened on the second day as if it happened on the first day and are going "A Ha! Gotcha!", but actually all it is is that they have not followed the timeline logically and consequently got the wrong day.
But there is only one reality regarding how BD got to work on the first day, and that is the reality set out in the affidavit.
It is not just corroboration through records and witnesses that disprove the alternate reality, it is also the indirect implicit corroboration that comes from the tracking of SA's movements, which have also been reasonably well defined and corroborated. To claim that SA took BD to work on the first day is also to claim that SA's boss did not see him pop in that morning (and lied about it), and that the cell phone tracking of SA's movements was not of SA at all. In short, it is to claim that everything that LE claim to have done in the affidavit regarding movements is made up.