Yes, static story points DO repeat -- at least once per signpost (ideally). Each throughline has its own static story points, which need to be explored within the confines of the respective domains.
For example, the Story Goal and Story Consequence should make an appearance at least once in the Overall Story Signpost 1, the Overall Story Signpost 2, the Overall Story Signpost 3, AND the Overall Story Signpost 4. (The same is true of all other static story points with the caveat that some works do not have the 'real estate' to explore everything in every Signpost.)
Why? Because each signpost creates a different context within which to explore / expose the static plot points in an attempt to discover the source of the inequity at the heart of the story. They can also be seen as ways to test the imbalances created by the story inequity by discovering what works to re-balance the conflict and what works to further push the conflict into greater imbalance.
By the end of the story, the source of the inequity is revealed by the various testing and retesting of the static story points within the changing contexts manifested by the signposts.
Okay, so unless I misunderstand your meaning, for there to be 2 kinds of forewarnings, there may also be 2 different kinds of consequences (sort of); one is things worsening (or getting better) and the other is things not changing--i.e., "the Goal will not be achieved" (which, is a type of worsening or getting better from the audience's point-of-view).
All of the Dramatica story appreciations (or story points) in any single perspective have a relationship to each other. My example involving the story Forewarnings put forewarnings in two different contexts. The first was in terms of the Consequences (forewarnings as indicators of an impending Consequence). The second was in terms of the Goal (forewarnings as indicators that the Goal will not be achieved). Since Consequences are "what happens if the Goal is not achieved," then the second example could be read as: forewarnings as indicators of the Consequence (which is conceptually, if not linguistically, identical to the first example).
I'm not trying to play games with words here. What I'm trying to communicate is that there is a relationship between each of these items and ALL of its compatriot items. You may choose the context in which to look for understanding, but realize that changing the context of your understanding will not alter the relationship between the items.
Here is a COMPLETELY non-story related analogy that I hope gives you a "feel" for what I mean. Imagine a family consisting of one Father, one Mother, and one Child. The Father and Mother are married to each other. We can look at the child in terms of the Father, the Mother, or both (the marriage). Forewarnings are like the child of Goal and Consequences. They can be seen in either context, both of which are valid. The Child can be shown to be related to the Mother directly (the Child is the offspring of the Mother), or indirectly through the Father (the Child is the offspring of the wife of the Father). Both expressions of the relationship are accurate, but convey slightly different information. It's your job to pick which is most appropriate to the way you want to present the information.