[Chris]

It does, but it creates it "in place"---in the same place that the original action sat. That seems reasonable, but in a sequential group with repeating actions, it means that the second, third, fourth, etc. actions never become available. Completing the first one just generates an identical action (with a more advanced due date) at the top of the group. It seems to me that in this situation (sequential action group), that the next iteration of a repeating action should be inserted at the bottom of the group when the original is completed, not at the top.

The current behavior basically means that sequential action groups shouldn't ever have repeating actions.

I'm curious what others think. If you agree with me, send feedback to OF. If not, why not? Is there a downside to my suggestion?