The linked file (Google Drive) requires authorization to access (you'd preferably want to make it public).

OpenStudio's forward translation (to EnergyPlus) code here or here logs this info/warning (not an error, right?) when paired interzone surfaces (e.g. 2 adjacent walls, adjacent floor & ceiling) don't inherit the same (reversed) construction from each's default construction set. This is OK - OpenStudio is simply informing you that it has detected an initial conflict, and that it has picked Surface 9's default construction (instead of Surface 6's).

This determination is based on OpenStudio's "search distance", which I admit isn't really informative to the typical user. It refers to OpenStudio's building-to-space hierarchy when assigning default constructions, default schedules, etc. When sorting out potential conflicts, OpenStudio picks the shortest "search distance" (e.g. "1" is preferred over "3"), as described here:

a space's default construction set                  search distance = 1
a space's space type's default construction set     search distance = 2
a space's building story's default construction set search distance = 3
a building's default construction set               search distance = 4
a building's space type's default construction set  search distance = 5

Open your .osm file with a text editor. CTRL-F for "Surface 9". Then determine (through successive searches) whether its space inherits a "space" default construction set, or a "spacetype" default construction set, etc. Do the same for Surface 6. You're likely to find something like Surface 6's space inherits the "building" default construction set, while Surface 9's space references a "spacetype" default construction set (or something similar).

Again, this isn't typically something to worry about ... if that's what you actually intended when assigning default construction sets with different "search distances". Hope this helps.

EDIT. Thanks for providing access. Going through your .osm file, I notice "Surface 6" has a shorter search distance than "Surface 9" - not the other way around (as originally stated). "Surface 6" instead has a construction hard-assigned to it - not inherited from a default construction set. When I run OpenStudio, I get the following:

[openstudio.energyplus.ForwardTranslator] Surfaces 'Surface 9', and 'Surface 6' reference different constructions, choosing 'Surface 6''s construction based on search distance.

So OpenStudio's search distance prioritization is working as expected, as hard-assigned constructions take precedence over default construction sets (is it possible the uploaded file had since been updated?). The EnergyPlus simulation ultimately fails because of a severe error related to an invalid material thickness - easy to fix. Otherwise, there are a fair number of geometry issues to fix ...

2nd EDIT (in relation to reported geometry "errors", see your follow-up comment). I have to backtrack a bit, I think. Having gone through parts of your .osm file, I'm unable to find anything wrong with surface geometry. This may instead be related to stacking multiple spaces (25) within a limited number of thermal zones (8) in your model. EnergyPlus may be tripping over interspace floor/ceiling pairs ... (more)