Does the sham pleading doctrine require us to agree to a third amended complaint?

We recognize there is some inconsistency between the first amended complaint and the alternative time frames alleged in the third amended complaint. However, the inconsistencies themselves do not necessarily require us to affirm the court's disregard of the inconsistent allegations in the third amended complaint. "Under the sham pleading doctrine, allegations in an original pleading that rendered it vulnerable to demurrer or other attack cannot simply be omitted without explanation. (Deveny v. Entropin, Inc.[, supra,] 139 Cal.App.4th [at pp.] 425-426.) The purpose of the doctrine is to enable the courts to prevent an abuse of process. (Id. at p. 426.) The doctrine is not intended to prevent honest complainants from correcting erroneous allegations or to prevent the correction of ambiguous facts. (Ibid.)" (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 751, italics added.)