First, hc60, like all of the hc variables, is only coded for young children. In LSPR60FL.dta, hc60 is missing (".") if hc1 (months of age) is missing, i.e. if hc1>59. If you do "label list hc60" you get this:

. label list hc60
hc60:
993 mother not de facto
994 incomplete woman's interview
995 not in household

If you then do "tab hc60" in LSPR60FL.dta, there are 2,584 non-missing values, one for every child with hc1<=59. Of these, 29 have code 993; 233 have code 994, and 591 have code 995.

Code 993 would typically mean that the mother was in the household but she was a "visitor" who did not sleep there the previous night, so she was not eligible for the woman's interview; code 994 means "incomplete woman's interview", i.e. she is a de facto member in the household listing but is not in the IR file, even though she should have been; code 995 means that the mother was not in the household at all, in which case the child should have hv112=0. However, I see that of the 591 children with hc1<=59 and hc60=995, there are 125 who do not have hv112=0. There are 470 children with hc1<=59 and hv112=0, and 4 of them do NOT have hc60=995.

I doubt that these 125+4=129 apparent discrepancies between hc60=995 and hv112==0 are data quality problems, because codes such as these are usually forced to be consistent. If I had more time, I would look into that.

However, I hope this answers your question about the coding of hc60.