We have a problem, and it's not with the spreadsheet. The user above is doing everything right, selecting rows, checking Google, trying single cells, and still getting the wrong result. Their frustration is earned. But the real issue here is that the tool they are using, for all its decades of dominance, has a logic gap that forces users to work *around* it rather than *with* it. When adjacent groups of data merge into one, the software is not just failing a task; it is actively undermining the user's intent. That is a structural flaw, not a user error.
What this means in practice is that anyone managing layered data, financial quarters, project phases, experimental batches, faces a hidden tax on their time. You cannot simply group rows by their content and move on. Instead, you must insert placeholder rows, hide helper columns, or manually split selections into separate outline levels. Each workaround adds friction. More importantly, each one introduces a point where future edits can break the structure. The user who asked this question is not looking for a hack; they are looking for a tool that respects the relationships they are trying to express. That tool should understand that "adjacent" does not mean "identical."
Our take is straightforward: a spreadsheet that cannot distinguish between two separate groups placed next to each other is not yet ready for the kind of intentional data work that modern teams rely on. The user's instinct to search for a solution is correct, but the fact that Google returns misleading answers suggests that even the documentation is working around the limitation. This is not a niche complaint. It affects anyone building reports, managing inventories, or organizing hierarchical data. The workaround exists, but it shouldn't have to. A better approach would let users define group boundaries explicitly, by content, by a flag column, or by a simple visual cue, so that adjacency is treated as a relationship, not a merger.
Here is the concrete point: if your spreadsheet cannot keep adjacent groups separate without a manual spacer row, then it is not truly supporting your data structure. You are doing the tool's work for it. The fix is not a better keyboard shortcut. It is a smarter system, one that reads your intent from the data itself, not from the gaps between rows. Until that becomes standard, keep a spacer row in your back pocket. But know that you are asking the right question, and the answer should be simpler.