I used the digitizing wizard that is clumped in with the other wizards under the "Wizards" menu in Mach3, version R2.0.065 and not the digitizing plug-in.
Yes, I too have noticed that it skips a point on each row, but the software that I am bringing it into (Global Mapper) does not expect any particular values in any particular order, but rather just interprets the points as absolute points with their respective elevations. It doesn't matter what order they are in because a location is a location and not dependent on which location you last looked at. I can mix up the lines in the point cloud file in any way and Global Mapper will still map each point independently from the others and end up with the same grid of x,y points at their respective elevations and use it to generate the output, which is a 3D image consisting of points and their elevations and interpolated elevations between the points. Obviously, this is not quite the same as interpretting points as adjacent locations like you would want to do in order to ultimately generate efficient G-code. To get to G-code would require another step for me that would go from point to adjacent point in the output from Global Mapper with no missing points in the grid. Global Mapper fills in the missing points as well as filling in the elevations between points, so I could generate a new point cloud by exporting one from Global Mapper that would tend to have smoothed out the original input and also filled in missing points. Of course, this doesn'tg really help the problem of the wizard skipping points to begin with, which it does in my copy of the program. You can see where the points are missing in the Mach3 toolpath display on my copy. There is a diagonal line from the end of one line to the beginning of the next line, instead of a perpendicular line like you would see if it didn't skip a point. So the wizard is in error and is decrementing or incrementing the x value (depending on which direction change you are at) at the same time it increments the y value to start the next line.
This file is probably not a good one to work with because the elevations are very small. The lowest point is (-0.012") and the highest point is (-0.006"). The image I created had a vertical exaggeration added to it in order to visualize and emphasize the elevation differences, while in reality, the max difference in elevation from the lowest to highest points is only 0.006". (I may have those numbers wrong, but it was something like that.)