The κραζω confusion isn't limited to future/future perfect. Bernard Taylor's database, which parses all the reduplicated future forms as future perfects, parses several other reduplicated forms as aorists:
κεκράξαι vb 1aor act inf ....κράζω
κεκράξαντες vb 1aor act part masc nom pl ...id.
κεκράξατε vb 1aor act impv 2nd pers pl ....id.
κεκράξεσθε vb fut perf m/p ind 2nd pers pl ...id.
κεκράξεται vb fut perf m/p ind 3rd pers sg ...id.
κεκράξῃ vb fut perf m/p ind 2nd pers sg....id.
κεκράξομαι vb fut perf m/p ind 1st pers sg ....id.
κέκραξον vb 1aor act impv 2nd pers sg....id.
κεκράξονται vb fut perf m/p ind 3rd pers pl....id.
The whole discussion raises a larger question for lexicographers. Do we parse words according to their form or according to their presumed meaning. Should the 2perfect forms of οιδα be parsed as presents and pluperfects as aorists? It makes more sense to me from a pedagogical standpoint to parse according to form and then go on to explain that in the case of certain verbs the tense meanings have (presumably) shifted over time.
