Here's a simpler truth: if you're manually clicking each row to collapse sub-data in a spreadsheet with hundreds of entries, you're doing work the tool should be doing for you. The user who posted this question, frustrated after Googling for a solution and finding nothing that actually works, isn't asking for a workaround. They're asking for a command that respects their time.
That command should exist. And the fact that it doesn't, in a tool millions of people rely on for daily productivity, isn't a minor oversight. It's a symptom of how traditional spreadsheets were built. They were designed for static tables, not dynamic hierarchies. When you add sub-rows, grouping, or any layered structure, the interface expects you to manage every toggle yourself. Collapse one, collapse ten, collapse a hundred, each click is a decision you shouldn't have to make. The user found suggestions online, tested them, and they failed. That's not a skill gap. That's a product gap.
What this person really needs is a way to say, "Show me the summary, nothing else," and have the tool understand. One command. No macros. No fragile workarounds that break when the data updates. This is the kind of friction that makes people feel like they're fighting their tools instead of using them. And it's exactly the kind of friction that an AI-native approach to spreadsheets can eliminate. When the software understands the structure of your data, not just the cells but the relationships between them, collapsing all rows becomes a basic feature, not a hack.
We think this user's frustration is a signal worth paying attention to. It points to a broader expectation: that software should adapt to how people actually work, not the other way around. The next generation of spreadsheet tools should let you manage data at the level of intent, not keystrokes. Until then, we hope someone builds a solution that works for this user. And we hope it doesn't take another hundred clicks to find it.