No problem at all, sir. And by no means am I saying that I am "doing it right", either. As many of you know, my game is quite heavily house-rules, though most of it is ways of clarifying (and expanding upon) the RAW.
Multiple attacks have long been problematic; I'm glad they put the bit in there about the GM being free to limit them "to keep things under control". Early on I/we found this to be a problem, and it's something I've been really strict on since.
Just as a fun aside, allow me to share one humorous anecdote relating to multiple attacks:
My buddy played in a PBEM (or PBP, something electronic, not face-to-face) and had a really cool, super-strong martial artist called the Dragon. His GM allowed up to four attacks per phase (IIRC) on the same target.
So we tested things out, playing Dragon vs. Wolverine (as my best friend in high school had statted him out). Dragon, who was very fast, moved up to Wolverine and hit him. Then did so again and again and again. Then when it was his turn to move again, he did the same, doing four more attacks.
Before Wolverine had even had the opportunity to move or act (or use his Regeneration), his Power was at 0 and his Hit Points were so far in the negative that he would have been atomized (i.e., loss of Basic Hits).
My friend then understood why - in the FTF group we were both in - I was so against multiple attacks on the same target in the same phase.
I know we've discussed auto-fire at length before, and TBH it's pretty confusing as written. I know when
Justice first visited here we found we were both doing it completely differently.
In any event, however one decides to do Carrier Attacks is good by me. I think a GM who keeps a reasonable cap on Damage Modifiers (and Heightened Attack damage) it probably isn't game-breaking to allow on both attacks.
I'm still 95% sure I've seen (at least a somewhat) "official" answer on this, though. Could have been anywhere over the years (one of the many email lists, message boards, forums, etc.).
Since it wasn't clear before (from either the RAW or my own Supplemental Rules), I definitely decided to spell out how we do it in my latest version (Version 5), so I'm glad this issue came up!