Which means what is being shown is not being certified as "Original."
Now go ahead and chase your tail.
It's being certified as true in substance. It is not being certified as to form, as an electronic image obviously isn't in the same form as a paper original.
Certification as to essential substance is what most states do. I've given you an example:
"I do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the essential facts recorded on the birth record on file in this office for the individual named hereon."
This doesn't purport to say what is provided is in form exactly a copy of the original record on file. It affirms, though, that the "essential facts" as shown are "true" as compared to the facts shown on the birth record on file. And this is legally sufficient. And it's consistent with the practice of near all states to issue short-form certificates.
Your special-pleading fallacy is showing again. You assert that every other state's Secretary of State should have asked for Hawaii for a copy (even though no such secretary in history has demanded a candidate's birth certificate in a Presidential election, nor even the predecessor church/baptismal records, despite your claim the Constitution requires this). But even worse, you further assert that the form of certification used by Hawaii should be deemed insufficient, even though that very type of "short form" certification is used by most of the other states.
For being the supposed resident expert on logical fallacies, you fail to see in the mirror on this one.
One gets dizzy observing you spinning around your logical circles.