I've noticed a trend where certain feats (usually ones that have their own action cost to do) keep referencing you doing other actions when the feat in question counts as its own separate action anyway, thereby changing the raw amount of actions it takes to do the feat in question.
The most recent example I've read so far is the Quick Draw feat:
You draw a weapon with the Interact action, then Strike with the weapon you just drew.
The wording on this seems confusing, because it creates multiple possibilities as to how it gets resolved:
1. The action is you draw a weapon as the interact action, the feat lets you strike for free when doing so.
2. The feat is an action, which involves you drawing a weapon (requiring another action), and striking for free.
3. The feat is an action, which involves you drawing a weapon (requiring another action), and striking a foe (requiring another action).
So, which one of these would be correct? While common sense would indicate #1, I'm certain that based on the wording, some groups will rule #2 (due to it referencing the interact action directly, instead of it being "as" the action for things that provoke an AoO), and in rare events of GM rules lawyers, may even rule #3 (because they identify the strike terminology as referencing an action without it mentioning being done for free).
In short, do action-based feats only ever cost the amount of actions the feat says they cost, or can there be "hidden" action costs within the feat which reduces the feat into uselessness a la Ye Olde Prone Shooter? Or Elephant Stomp/Monkey Lunge from PF1?
Read "dependent abilities" on page 296.