I would do it completely differently. Instead of having a single sequence in a single macro with Waits in between, have a bunch of macros that each does only one transition. Or perhaps a hybrid. You only really need 2 macros to make this concept work.
This is already a loop, because each one switches to the other. Of course, you can make the loop as long as you want, with different wait times in the conditions. Each one goes to the next, and that last one simply goes to the first one.
A huge advantage of doing it this way is that it's also easy to manually escape the sequence, just by switching to something that's not in the sequence. Or you can jump to a particular point in the sequence just by manually (or automatically by other means) going there. A bunch of Wait actions forces you back to that exact sequence when each of the wait timers runs out.
A disadvantage, and why you might want a hybrid, is that you can't repeat the same step at different points in the sequence. If you use variables, you can, but then you actually have to simulate the function in your head while keeping track of the value of that variable, which takes a lot more effort than just reading it off.
So a hybrid might have a sequence of Wait steps, but not the entire sequence, in one macro, and another macro uses the logic shown here to continue that sequence with some more Wait steps. The Wait step that would have been in between, gets converted to a condition timer in the next macro, which is waiting for the last step of the previous one to be active for that time. 2 of those can loop, simply by having their last steps switch to what the other one is waiting for.
