It looks like you have been posting about this for a long time, so you'd know more about it than I do. I don't actually know the difference between a "certified copy" and a "digital abstract."
Would I be right in assuming that the earlier "Certification of Live Birth" was an abstract of Department of Health data? Something that contained information but not in the form of the original document?
The later image of the "Certificate of Live Birth" that you are calling a "digital abstract" -- is it called that simply because it is not in paper form? Presumably it is a digital image of some certified copy, or it pretends to be that, but because it's not on paper, they can't call it a "certified copy."
I notice you saying that this "digital abstract" may have contained the original fonts (not sure that's the right word) of the birth certificate. Why would that be if it were not a copy of the original birth certificate?
For all I know, it could well be a forgery. Team Obama could have reworked the file they were given to alter the information, but it looks a bit like you're playing word games here. I can see you've got a lot invested emotionally in this, though.
As far as the differing fonts go, I am sure that there is no lack of odds and ends in the HDOH's files about Barack Hussein Obama, Jr (or II) and Barry Soetoro (or Soebarkah)that date from differing eras. Track it:
(a)Birth name: Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (or II)... we think ... or so we have been told.
(b)Upon adoption by Lolo Soetoro (or Soebarkah), that original COLB, BC, or whatever it is, would be sealed and a new birth certificate issued in the child's "new Name." That is what would happen in most states.
(c) Upon his repatriation from Indonesia, the parents (his mother anyway) and the grandparents, who had physical custody of the child in Hawaii, gave the young Soetoro (or Soebarkah)his old name back, probably unofficially, upon enrolling him in Hawaiian school. Whether or not they sought to reinstate his original Birth Certificate, or whether or not that original document showed a reported home birth (The most popular scam in Hawaii for foreign-born children) we are never going to know, if Team Obama has anything to say about it.
That apparently is what the HDOH meant when they said they gave Team Obama an ABSTRACT of data on file. The State of Hawaii , in my opinion, feels legally covered. What happened to their digital files after they turned them over to Team Obama's lawyer is none of their concern! The HDOH undoubtedly delivered a mass of data, covering a rather long period of time. There is probably more than enough data to cut and paste together the documentation in such a way as to prove he is Elvis, or The Lost Dauphin of France. When one is creating a document from digital scraps, a lot depends upon exactly what among the plethora of data on file one chooses to select, or to ignore.
Sheriff Joe and his Posse fastened onto what is missing here. Simply put, a Birth Certificate has not been forthcoming. I think that's because there is no longer one extant. Others think that the original is in the archives but contains damaging information. Still others suspect it was "lost" on purpose.
Hook or by crook, the thing the WH and Team Obama have released as "The Birth Certificate" is simply NOT what they said it is.
FYI: A "Certified Copy" is a facsimile, or photostat that is notarized, witnessed, and is legally warranted to be a True And Complete copy of an original document on file. OTOH, an ABSTRACT is a report of the salient facts within a document on file. It is also notarized but as an abstract is not warranted to be
(1) a copy nor
(2)complete.
In regard to the stamp you have seen that says Abstract or Copy: it cannot be both, and the HDOH said it was an Abstract.