I submitted a continuation-in-part (CIP) application patent…

I submitted a continuation-in-part (CIP) application for one patent application. Later, I decided to include a second patent application in the CIP to claim the benefit so I submitted an amendment to the application, the specification specifically, but did not include the additional Application Data Sheet so they did not include the second patent as a parent application. The amendment was also submitted before the deadline of 4 months to include a patent application in an amendment. I talked to the examiner of the second patent application and she suggested that I submit an unintentionally delayed domestic benefit (priority) claim. She also mentioned that the amendment was not submitted properly since I didn’t include a redlined copy of the specification. However, that is not the case because I submitted a redlined copy and a clean copy. She stated her remarks in the minutes of the phone interview. This second patent application is essentially a duplicate contained in the continuation-in-part application, including the claims. I got an Office action from the examiner with non-final rejections. It doesn’t make sense to respond to the Office actions because most of her remarks are corrected in the CIP. The CIP has also been assigned a different examiner but he hasn’t sent anything. How can I overcome the lack of inclusion of the second patent application in the CIP without submitting the unintentionally delayed domestic benefit (priority) claim based on the fact that it is a duplicate and involves double patenting issues in addition to the fact that I submitted the amendment before the 4-month deadline? They are copending and address the same invention. Is there a chance that the original patent application or the CIP can be canceled legally by the patent office in view of the fact that the CIP is a duplicate of the patent application? Based on the Office action remarks, the second patent application is at risk of not being patentable. However, since the CIP corrects the deficiencies of the second patent application, it could be patentable. Can I state that the CIP is necessary but that the second patent application isn’t?