Has the file been created as a text file or a mainly graphics file?
Compare the settings in the software on the settings on the two workstations you used to create the input files to see if anything is different.
If you have access to Adobe or other software that offers a "convert to text" or "export to" another file format (text or RTF for example) see what happens with your problem version of the file using those options. Of if you have Acrobat or something similar you should be able to obtain some technical information about the file.
Displaying the file in Adobe Reader or similar may show a different cursor over the image and text areas of the pages even if the whole page looks like text only.
Your experience with different PDF writers seemingly producing different results is not at all unusual in my experiences over many years and many different PDF readers and writers.
The file came from a client so I don't have access to the two workstations that created the files. I did try to convert the file into text using Adobe Reader and all I got was a bunch of symbols.
I've had this happen in the past and I believe upgrading from Monarch v12 to v13 solved the problem. In any event, I was able to get a working copy. Whew.
It sounds like one workstation's CutePDF settings may be set to generate a PDF based on graphics rather than text.
That likely look the same on screen but have very different internal structures in the PDF file. This has to do with making the output consistent in format and so appearance across multiple viewing methods but can mean that the raw text is changed to a graphic image and the text, or a lot of it, disappears.
In that case one is left with running an electronic OCR scan to try to convert the graphic patterns back into text. The results can be very good but are often variable and so checking becomes time consuming and potentially error prone. Best avoided unless there are no alternatives.
Here is sounds like you have alternatives from the client side. It may be that if they check the differences in settings between their two source devices they will find that either of then can be used - just have to choose the most useful output type to make the process flow smoothly.
This is also true for report writers in general.
Very often report writers offer multiple options for the type of file required and for Monarch purposes simpler is better - there is no need to make something more complex than it needs to be just because the original report output looks more stylish.
If you are dealing with these matters frequently from a wide and varied customer base it may be useful to establish what your best options are from each customer (or more specifically from knowing what the customer's systems are able to produce) and so produce a guide for the customer to follow to make everyone's days as effective as possible. The chances are the people involved just do not know that they have very easy to select options that are advantageous for everyone when used effectively.
That said some of the older embedded PDF writers in what we might think of these days as "legacy" systems can produce difficult results even after selecting a suitable output type. However that's probably a subject for a different thread.
Thank you! This is some great information! This is not a frequent occurrence but it does make life difficult when it happens. Hopefully now, thanks to you, I can go back to the client with a much more informed request. Any day where I learn something that makes me better with Monarch is a very good day. Thanks again!