You seem to be comfusing two different concepts: a return separated list of values used as a match field and a repeating field used as a match field.
If you have a repeating field with "Woodstock" in the first repetition, "Barnard" in the second repetition and so forth... , then a record in SummarybyTown_Address will match to any record in SummaryByTown_Contact if the ContactIDs match and if the name in City is one of the names in at least one of the repetitions.
In similar fashion, if you use a nonrepeating text field with the calculation you have shown here, you'll get the same result.
I've never tried a repeating field that also contained a return separated list as I cannot conceive of ever needing to do that. Normally, you would use one or the other and since there are no defined limits to the number of values with a return separated list, I generally use that option instead of a repeating field.
I suspect that the fact that you are using both options here is what is causing it to fail.
Well, yes, I sure was confused.
However, I changed the calculation to 1 repetitions, which removed the Repating Value option from Storage options so I assume that worked, but my report still doesn't run.
I get one line, the grand total, with the total number of records.
I take it back.
There was a separate problem.
Many thanks, Phil: that's twice today.
Sorry to be a nuisance!
If this is a layout of only sub summary layout parts, check your sort order and the "when sorted by" settings for your sub summary layout parts.
If that's not it, can you describe your system in more detail?
On which of the three table occurrence boxes shown in the layout based? (check "show Records From" in "layout setup..." )
How are you using this relationship to show related records?
Fields added directly to the layout from the related table occurrence?
IN a Go to Related Records step?
Correction: Make that: If this is a layout with sub summary parts, but no body layout part...
Yes, you were right: it was the sort.
Changing my relationship to a table occurence required all sorts of changes, and I missed the sort.