Generally, when I'm working with editing clients, I try to keep all of the Dramatica machinery in my head and use generic language for the issues I'm seeing. The only one I really struggle with is the Influence Character; for such a critical character in the structure of the story, it's a shame they show up so little in other story theories. That being said, if they have an Influence Character, I think it's easy enough to say, "I think this character is more important than you're giving them credit" or "I think you should put more emphasis on the relationship between X and Y." Stuff like that.
Another option is to just let minor Dramatica peccadillos go and let the story breathe its own way. If they don't have a Sidekick, or if the Driver from Act 2 to Act 3 is a bit bumpy, that might not be worth getting worked up over. (That being said, I assume you're talking about major structural/character deficiencies here. )
Other than that, I'm not sure. I understand the difficulty of, e.g. trying to explain that the Protagonist drives the plot, not the MC, or trying to explain the reasoning behind our 4-Act structure as opposed to Aristotle's 3-Act one. (Don't even get me started on that one. ) Only recourse I see is to do a quick Dramatica 101 explanation ("Okay, see how at every major point in the story, the character makes a big decision, but then here he takes an action instead? Don't you think that's inconsistent?") and hope they accept you know what you're doing.