It's an honor to be able to talk with you, Mr Saldaña-Mora. I'm a huge fan of your book (Dramatica for Screenwriters) and I've read it several times since I bought it. Thanks for being so willing to help us (and based on your first post, willing to continue helping us) in our writing endeavors.
I actually have a question about the example story in chapter 13 ("Thorough Development") of the book, the one about Mia and Doctor Williams. At the end of the story, Katherine reveals to Mia that she was responsible for everything, but when Mia threatens to blow the whistle on her, Katherine reminds her of her ongoing personal issue of having psychosis in her family (who also believes she may be experiencing it as well) and tells her she can't tell if she's hallucinating the conversation or not or William's death or anything that's happened recently.
Following the end of the draft, you mention that the "idea of blurring the boundaries between Mia's hallucinations and what happens in 'reality' and the 'open ending' that results from it (where the Main Character—and therefore, the audience—can't tell exactly which is which) was implied by the Storyform. This is an example of how Dramatica can create an unconventional ending, heightening the genre and creating a very interesting piece."
What I'm wondering about is how far you can push the idea of an "open ending" while still allowing the audience to fully appreciate the storyform. As described in chapter 22, storyweaving is used to achieve mystery, suspense, and irony, all of which obscure the storyform. However, in all the examples provided in that chapter, the truth is revealed at the end, allowing the audience to understand the events of the story. All of these appear to differ from the "open ending" in Mia's story.
The Outcome of Success and the Judgement of Bad in Mia's story are clearly illustrated in the draft. At the same time though, with the lines being blurred (as described above) even after the story ends, how can an audience know if those are the actual storypoints? If the audience can never know what's real (in the story), how can they understand the meaning of it?
P.S. I'd also like to thank you again for writing such a helpful book. It has accelerated my understanding of Dramatica tremendously.