Thank you, but that is not the case. Rule 100 is related to one application, rule 200 is related to another and rule 300 is related to third application. They are not sharing any VMs, there are no IPs from rule 300 which belong to SGs referenced in rules 100 and 200.
It happened multiple times (example is simplified, there are 50+ rules like the examples above as there are 50+ applications).
Basically, for application CCC, we have detailed, specific rules 190-199 and the permissive rule 200. Rules 190-199 are there to permit what we know is required. Rule 200 is temporary rule, we use it to check if something was missed. Once we are confident that rules 190-199 are sufficient for that application, we will change action on rule 200 to drop. And after that, if we do explicit verify, it complains that 200 conflicts 100. If we push policy, it gets verified and installed on gateways. Next verify is successful too.
If something was wrong with the policy, I would expect installation to fail too. Also, doing explicit verify after policy push is successful and policy is identical to the one when it failed.
And last, customer has upgraded management to R81 and we see the same behaviour.