What I'm about to say I mean in a respectful tone with intent to have a constructive discussion.
To prove a theory, it isn't sufficient to find a place where it works. It isn't even sufficient to find a hundred places where it works.
Karl Popper described the characteristics of a scientific theory as follows:
1.) It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations.
2.) Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted the theory.
3.) Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4.) A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5.) Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6.) Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence".)
7.) Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, might still be upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing post hoc (after the fact) some auxiliary hypothesis or assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory post hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status, by tampering with evidence. The temptation to tamper can be minimized by first taking the time to write down the testing protocol before embarking on the scientific work.
I want to focus your attention on point 1 above. I'm not criticizinig Dramatica, itself, here as much as I am criticizing some attempts to assert that Dramatica works which focus only on confirmations of the theory. I'll also add that, as long as Dramatica is helpful in creating stories (which is going to vary from writer to writer), I don't really believe that it has to be scientific or supported by science.