Dear Jason
as mentioned by Mark: if you use ECC 6.0 EnhPack 6 or 7 you don't use EHS 2.7b; starting with ERP 204 there is no EHS version numner any more in place.
But coming back to your topic:
ESTRH does have two fields which are "significant", RECN and ACTN; as they are different there is no issue. The "Issue" is: the RECn and RECNROOT of both sepcs is the same; never seen that.
Can you provide some ideas: My assumption is that the change number used "J1400436" is valid
06/09/2014; As well I assume that the second line is created on "06/04/2014"; As i do not know your "date" format: I can only assume something: 06/04/2014 could mean "06. April" or "4. June"
E.g. 06/09/2014 could mean 6 of september; therefore somebody has maintained data in the future. The "maintenance" date would be "06/04/2014"; the first line does not have "CRDAT" etc. Something like that I have never seen. What we can imagine is that "UPDdat" is 12/04/2014 which is later as 06/04/2014 and indicates that somebody has maintained on the top.
My advice to you is now: you need to check the "change log" of both specs. It is "very" important to get some idea if the first line has been created as well on 06/04/2014
As I have not use changes numbers for a long tiomeI am not sure of the first line need to have a "change number" or not. But what is "curious" is that ACTN is "0".
So the first challenged is to "detect" if nboth specs might be created on same date and by whom (user id). can you chcek e.g. assigned identifiers? If you can detect that there is indication that first spec is as well related to userid: JPLEITNE this would help. Than you need to ask this user: what was your process to genearte your "spec"?
Quite interesting topic really
C.B:
PS: tipp of Mark is important:
Once you have the reproducible scenario, check if any custom coding is involved at all.
You need to identify: do you use standard CG02 or do you custom coding to generate new specs
PPS: if you use change numbers: the use of the "key" date is crucial in daily maintenance; long ago we have done some experiments with EHS 2.7 and the "Change number"; based on the results we found we decided never to use the "change number" in CG02;