Now that the more experienced have answered, I feel more assured in writing out my response, especially since I'm still rather new to the application of the theory myself.
This is exactly the situation I found myself in only a few months ago. Or, at least, I thought I had found myself in this situation. The answer was quite as @MWollaeger put it: "ditch both maps".
And, now to borrow ideas from @mlucas, while sprinkling in my experience and advice.
Instead, switch to focus on what you are certain of, which when you are new to Dramatica you might still not have as correct as is possible.* From that, though, you can use what you have so far to write an outline or draft and come back to storyforming after you finish that outline/draft.** Then, while actually working on that draft, refer back to the basic definitions if and only if you actually need them. [Hint: You don't! You may think you do, but generally, you don't, except in a few rare cases, and even then, you don't, not really. (That hint was mostly for my personal benefit.)]
Most likely, in the process of finishing your outline/draft, you'll get a far better idea of what you're trying to say with your story, and you'll intuit a number of areas that could be improved, and ways to improve them, without the need for Dramatica.
This is where my actual experience ends. Thus, the following is conjecture: After all of this, that is when to go back to the storyforming, if only to determine whether something is missing or if there are areas of your story that could be improved more.
That's my take on it.
* I was convinced that my MC was a Change character, but I'm starting to see that he is actually a Steadfast character.
** This has been the hardest part for me, as I'm both a perfectionist and a mathematician, which when combined with such a theory as Dramatica, is a dangerous theory-hound combination.