Well, I'm pretty sure I'm just sticking my head back in the lion's mouth here, but this feels like it's crying out for a response because this is a perfect example of what makes interpretation a subjective process: the elevation or privileging of one piece of data over another – in this case, the one second shot of a character looking up, rather than, say down, sideways or just closing his eyes.
Imagine for a second a movie in which the MC is a drug addict who spends the entire movie trying to kick the habit, only at the end to die of a drug overdose with a heroin-induced smile on his face. Do we conclude the story judgment is good? No, because for an entire movie someone's been trying to kick the habit and in the end it killed them. Is it possible that the filmmaker's message is that you just need to accept who you are and die from your addictions? Maybe.
In the case of K, we have an MC who spends the entire movie dealing with three things: trying to survive the people who are attempting to kill him, the desperate need to find out that he's special (i.e. not just a generic replicant with implanted memories), and finally, that he's worthy of true love. You can allocate the third to the RS, of course, but it certainly crosses over into the MC throughline.
When we end the movie, what do we have? K is dying from his wounds, he's definitely not special as a replicant, and he's learned that even the name Joi gave him was just an automated response (as shown by the building-sized ad who calls him "Joe" while neon lights flash "See what you want! Hear what you want!"
From the "I" perspective, "I" wanted to live, to discover that I was special, and to be loved. I ends up bleeding out on the steps while Deckard goes to reunite with his daughter.
As you've said before, the filmmaker might intend one thing, but the message of the movie might be another. What's equally possible in the filmmaker's choices – and I suspect more likely in terms of the movie's final message, is that the story judgment is intentionally ambiguous. Should we feel like K resolved his problems and came to a good end? Or should we feel like the search for self is pointless? As has been said of the original Blade Runner and the question of whether Deckard was a replicant: there is no true answer.
For us to seek objective confirmation that this is to be a Judgment: Good story, we would need to see K adopting a new context. What we get is a vague-maybe-kinda-possible-smile in a few frames. We have to ignore everything that came in the third act and decide that this one set of frames were the important ones. Is it possible that the message of the movie is, "don't worry about dying alone and unloved because that still makes you a person"? Maybe. But that is one of a couple of reasonable subjective interpretations, not an objective one.
All of which raises a question for me: does Dramatica account for movies that intentionally have ambiguous story judgments?