​@ronhu not providing an answer (yet), but a few comments. You mentioned this is the Level 0 part, so the message of “...this component conflicts with parent...” is confusing as this is not a component to any parent, or maybe IFS always returns the same generic wording when any date conflict exists. I also see the Make/Buy = Make but the Part Type = Purchased. Was it Manufactured at one point?

​@matt.watters Thank you for your reply.

I believe the engineering team changed the part type. first Eng Rev = 0, it is transferred as Manufactured. later, they modified it in inventory part type from Manufactured to Purchased. meantime, there must be some components new revision is created and transferred,  the Proposed Start Date is not specified so system take the transfer date as the default Proposed Start Date, which is younger than the top parent part Proposed Start Date.

That is what I could imagine.

Maybe we should talk to engineering team about the new revision of the components. Pick them out one by one, and compare the Proposed Start Date with Top level parent part level Proposed Start Date, correct the component date older than the TLA Proposed Start Date.

or

simply we could change the TLA Proposed Start Date to current system date, which should be the easiest way to handle this error I think.

Thank you.

​@matt.watters  Some updates.

I learnt from Engineering Team, all the modifications are comming from PLM-Windchill, different team and department, so option 1 is not an option.

I used the compare tool to compare the structure difference between Engineering Rev and Manufaturing Rev. , noticed some new component and its structures. so for TLA part, the proposed start date should be inherited down to the new component structure level, this step can avoid the component date younger than the TLA start date. 

I have below check box ticked. It will do its job.