This is exactly the kind of problem that should make anyone managing thousands of open orders stop and ask if the tool they are using is doing the work for them. The user here has a clear need: take a sparse list of line numbers and backfill every missing prior line, turning a two-row example into a complete seven-row table. It is a data transformation task that is repetitive, rule-based, and painfully manual if done row by row. The instinct to reach for a macro is understandable, but it also reveals a deeper truth about how we often accept complexity that no longer needs to exist.
What this person is describing is not a macro problem. It is a pattern problem. Every order with a line number of 03 implies lines 01 and 02 exist, even if they are not listed. Every order with a line number of 04 implies lines 01 through 03. The logic is simple: for each order, generate every integer from 1 up to the maximum line number that already appears. That is a straightforward sequence, and in an AI-native spreadsheet, you would not write a single line of code to produce it. You would describe what you want in natural language, and the tool would expand the data for you. The user is asking for "some assistance on how to populate the new table," and the honest answer is that the assistance should come from the spreadsheet itself understanding the intent behind the request.
For anyone managing thousands of open lines, the practical takeaway here is that you should not be writing macros to fill gaps in a sequence. The barrier is not the complexity of the task; it is the assumption that you must translate your intention into a technical workaround. When a spreadsheet can interpret "backfill line numbers 01 through the highest value for each order" as a direct instruction, the minutes saved per task start to compound rapidly. More importantly, you eliminate the risk of human error in writing or debugging that macro. The user's frustration is not with spreadsheets in general; it is with the friction between what they need and what their current tool requires them to do to get it.
The core shift is this: instead of asking "how do I write a macro to do this," the better question is "why do I need to write anything at all?" The data is structured, the rule is clear, and the output is predictable. That is precisely the kind of work AI is best suited to handle. If your spreadsheet still expects you to figure out the code or the formula for every transformation, you are working with a tool that has not kept pace with how you actually think about your data. The next time you face a thousand rows that need backfilling, you should be able to say what you need in plain language and move on to the decisions that really matter.