Hmmmm, good point. Let me think on that.
Because we're working backwards, from the Story Telling down to Encoding down to Forming, it is tempting to make these sorts of connections. But because one party reacts to the steadfastness of another party does not mean that the storyform is dictating any specific judgment of the story results. Storyforms by themselves do not dictate meaning. Meaning emerges out of encoding, weaving, and especially reception. As an audience member I can just as easily interpret that More's conscience was important enough to hold it firm until death, regardless of how the State would react to it. Both this view and the one you shared are neither supported nor refuted by the storyform.
But I get what you're feeling. It seems weird that when one side capitulates to the other, they end up worse rivals than before, or that the Steadfast man of conscience somehow makes things worse. A couple of thoughts:
A) Typically in Dramatica, in discussing the "flavor" of an ending, we speak of two variables,
Judgment. The software suggests a third: the final state of the relationship.
Reaching the [Relationship] Story Solution means the...relationship will strengthen, lack of the [Relationship] Story Solution at the end of the story means they're in a degenerating relationship.
A good example of this is seen in the end of The Verdict. The lawyer Frank Galvin has won the suit in the end and regained his faith in the legal system. This means that the story has the dynamics of Success, and Good. Frank's relationship with his Impact Character Laura, however, has completely degenerated so that their orbits may never cross again. The [Relationship] Story has not reached its Solution which puts a darker spin on the end of the story than would be there if they had somehow been able to resolve the conflict between them. This darker feeling is appropriate for The Verdict. Depending on the story you're telling, it may be appropriate for your story as well.
B) Speaking of More's 'influence' on the IC is potentially misleading -- they're called the Main Character and Influence Character regardless of their Resolves. A Change IC is still the IC, and thus directs influence toward the MC. I think it's an easy mistake to link 'influence' to the Resolve dynamic, assuming that the Steadfast character influences the Change one, but it's not quite accurate.
I could be wrong, but I believe one way to interpret a Steadfast MC / Change IC scenario is to have the IC's influence on the MC wane, to the point that the IC gives up. It's less about the IC adopting the MC approach and more about how the MC resists the influence and remains Steadfast. In such stories the IC perspective is less relevant on its own -- how it influences the MC (and succeeds or fails in this regard) is more important.