There’s almost no way I’ll be able to reproduce this. Been using Rhino for this purpose for ~15 years and never seen it before. This is a much more complicated stability model than I’ve ever worked with before, with many data sources and will unlikely be tweaking it much from now on.
I’m not sure it is an import issue. Upon import of GHS file into Rhino it dealt with the identical names correctly, but the names were still identical. Upon import into the stability program it only recongnised one of the names and associated shapes, the other was ignored (which is fair enough, why would two shapes be named the same, most software would disallow it).
There were no leading of trailing spaces in the names. Perhaps there was some hidden formatting that R6 produces that R5 identified as a difference between the same names, but other software ignores.
It is such risky data that is being produced by AttachGHS that I would strongly suggest a quick look through the shape naming code by the devs. I realise this is a needle-in-haystack kind of request, but it is important to have confidence in the GHS data being exported. I only picked up the problem by chance.
I’ll see if I can minimise the GHS file to just those shapes so you can look into it.