Every time I think I start to understand this Dramatica stuff...
Okay so I get the analogy of an argument. The main character either stays steadfast to his/her worldview and changes the IC; or the MC "flips" and adopts the IC point of view.
But there are lots of examples where the MC is influenced to change by the IC, but you can't really say they've adopted the IC's POV. Two examples that come to mind are The Graduate and The Godfather. Yeah, Ben changes as a result of Mrs. Robinson's influence, but he doesn't take on her point of view, he runs away with her daughter! I guess I could see this as a kind of unconscious "don't become like me" perspective, not actually the "point of view" of the character. (Is that the right way to look at it?)
The Godfather is even more confusing. Michael certainly changes (for the worse) in The Godfather but in this case it seems to be in spite of, not because of Kaye's influence. Her perspective "loses" the argument. You could suggest (as I think someone did on a previous discussion somewhere) that the Dramatica storyform is wrong, that she's not actually the influence character, but that's pretty unsatisfying; it's been a while since I watched the film, but I don't see how she could be anything but an influence character.
Not that I really care so much about those specific stories -- I'm more concerned with how to approach this "argument" between MC and IC practically as a writer. This matters because my first instinct when encoding seems to be to create a literal "argument" (like two people would have) which one of the two characters "wins" -- which seems a little trite and obvious (and unconvincing).