Nearing the climax of The Dark Knight Rises we see Bruce return to Gotham while Miranda Tate gets captured together with Gordon's men. While the latter gets sentenced to "death by exile", the former becomes Bane's hostage. But then in the next scene we see Bruce getting brought into Wayne Tower, meeting up with Lucious and Miranda. In subsequent scenes she's then again hostage of Bane.
Now of course as it turns out Miranda isn't actually anyone's hostage, but at this point we as well as everyone else still ought to believe that and she can't just switch places without effort or suspicion. So this scene in Wayne Tower apparently has to happen before she helps Gordon, which is supported by the fact that the scene doesn't impose any other continuity requirements on its surrounding narration and could as well have been placed before that. Now it's also a given that Christopher Nolan has a penchant for both flashbacks as well as superposing simultaneously happening scenes and cross-cutting between them, so I wouldn't downright call this out as a continuity error. Yet it still is a bit of a curious case as this is the only incident in this movie (or the whole trilogy for that matter) where a scene appears in slightly but directly contradicting chronology to its surrounding scenes and causes a bit of confusion in an otherwise chronologically coherent narration (in contrast to complete flashbacks of much longer time, whose chronological disconnectedness is immediately clear from the scene), and this for no reason, or none I can see yet.
So I was wondering why this scene was apparently "misplaced" in its chronology. Was this a concious decision or really an actual editing error? In the former case (and I'd really doubt something like this could just "slip through") I'd like to know why this was done, seeing that it is the apparently only time this has been employed in the whole movie. Is there any word from the filmmakers that sheds some light on this or did I just miss some other explanation that either demands this scene's exact place in the narrative or maybe even dispels the continuity problem I happen to see here?