Another Possibility - Could the praxeis tou kuriou Mentioned in to Theodore be a Reference to Acts?

I have been wrestling with the strange reference that starts Clement's discussion of the origin of the Gospel of Mark in to Theodore for months.  The passage again is:

during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote of the Lord's doings (praxeis tou kuriou), not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed.

I have noted many times that this text written 'during Peter's stay at Rome' is never identified as a 'gospel,' a 'gospel of Mark' or anything like this.  The text simply says that Mark wrote of the Lord's doings (praxeis tou kuriou).

Last week I referenced my theory that our canonical text of Acts would make more sense if it were argued to have been written by John Mark originally (the figure whom Copts identify as their St. Mark) to this day.

While I don't think it has any bearing on the discussion of this 'acts of the Lord' the idea that Mark might have been connected with a 'praxeis' is interesting because the original Alexandrian name of the canonical Acts of the Apostles as we commonly call it seems to have been the 'Praxeis'

The Title is simply 'Praxeis' in Aleph, Origen, Tertullian, Didymus, Hilary, Eusebius, Epiphanius. Praxeis apostolōn is the reading of B D (Aleph in subscription) Athanasius, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret, Hilary. Praxeis tōn hagiōn apostolōn is read by A2 E G H A K Chrysostom.

A number of scholars throughout the ages have argued that the proper name for this book is 'the Acts of the Lord' or some such variation.  A few examples:

Not 'the Acts of the Apostles' but 'the Acts of the Lord in and by His Servants' is the proper name of this book [Alexander MacLaren Exposition of Scripture p. 380]

and again:

the two treatises [i.e. the gospel and Acts] are regarded separately as ... the ministry of Jesus in His own person and the ministry of Jesus through the apostles. [William Smith, Dictionary of the Bible p. 26]

One could argue that praxeis tou kuriou should be taken to mean 'the accomplishments of the Lord'?

A sample of Clement citing from the 'Praxeis' in Stromata 1.23:

He [Moses] learned, besides, the literature of the Egyptians, and the knowledge of the heavenly bodies from the Chaldeans and the Egyptians; whence in the Acts he is said "to have been instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." And Eupolemus, in his book On the Kings in Judea, says that "Moses was the first wise man, and the first that imparted grammar to the Jews, that the Phoenicians received it from the Jews, and the Greeks from the Phoenicians." And betaking himself to their philosophy, he increased his wisdom, being ardently attached to the training received from his kindred and ancestors, till he struck and slew the Egyptian who wrongfully attacked the Hebrew. And the mystics say that he slew the Egyptian by a word only; as, certainly, Peter in the Acts is related to have slain by speech those who appropriated part of the price of the field, and lied.

And again from the same book:

And the mystics say that he slew the Egyptian by a word only; as, certainly, Peter in the Acts is related to have slain by speech those who appropriated part of the price of the field, and lied

And again Stromata 6.8:

Further, Peter in the Acts says, "Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted by Him."

Some other references to the 'Praxeis' in the writings of the Church Fathers:

But it is recorded in the Acts, that "being seen during forty days," He expounded to His disciples "the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." [Origen Against Celsus II]

Then why not His names also? When, therefore, you read of Almighty God, and the Most High, and the God of hosts, and the King of Israel the "One that is," consider whether the Son also be not indicated by these designations, who in His own right is God Almighty, in that He is the Word of Almighty God, and has received power over all; is the Most High, in that He is "exalted at the right hand of God," as Peter declares in the Acts. [Tertullian Against Praxeis]

speaking of (Him as) God It is to these same times that Peter in the Acts refers, when he says: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets." [Tertullian Resurrection of the Flesh]

Whosoever falls on this stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust." And Luke writes in Acts [Origen Commentary on John I]

and that temple was made in honour of Him who made heaven and earth, why are we not at once told that He is the Son of no one else than the Maker of heaven and earth, that He is the Son of God? To this house of the Father of Jesus, as being the house of prayer, the Apostles of Christ also. as we find in their "Acts," are told [ibid book X]

and partly also by the assistance of demons perpetrating his villany, attempted to deify himself. (But) the man was a (mere) cheat, and full of folly, and the Apostles reproved him in the Acts. [Hippolytus Against the Heresies vi]

My question now is whether 'the Acts of the Lord' was the name of the original work behind our familiar canonical text of Acts and ascribed to John Mark. Later, under Irenaeus the text was slightly altered and attributed to a hitherto unknown 'Luke.' It is worth noting that a number of scholars have noted that they think that Clement did not view the Lukan Acts text as canonical.

The bottom line is that most of scholarship just follows Morton Smith's lead in thinking that there are two gospels of Mark being referenced here. The reality of the situation is that we don't know enough to make our suppositions conclusion. All the research that has been carried out hitherto is a result of HABITS of thinking, and nothing more ...