Yes, this is what I suggested early on. Honestly, though, I don't think it addresses the original poster's problem. Yes, patterning a feature is the best choice in this case. But as you proved in your video there is no reason why patterning a face shouldn't work as well. In addition, the behavior when he tried patterning it as a face -- not an error but a strange pattern that is missing random instances -- seems more like a bug to me than a user/workflow problem. There is no documentation that I know of that suggests that faces created as a result of a feature must be patterned as a feature. (And if that were true then it shouldn't be possible to attempt it.)