The passive-aggressive nature of "Oh dear, "your agenda", and "Alas" are just further indications of your refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue about the issues presented here. It's a tactic meant to illicit an emotional response--an attempt to make us feel sorry for you (classic Be-er approach)--instead of using your time to present an cogent and convincing counter-argument.
What you advocate is the same Tower of Babel that existed before Dramatica came along. The only "agenda" anyone has here is sanity when it comes to discussing matters of story structure.
I think it's wonderful that you use lowercase-d to describe your version of "dramatica". It's a step in the right direction away from what is the Dramatica theory of story. It helps separate your re-intepretations of the theory from efforts vetted and scrutinized by experts.
If you feel hampered by an accurate understanding of the appreciations of story structure, then that is a YOU problem. Many writers turn to Dramatica as a means of enlightening and inspiring their own creative muse--confirming their own intuition and expanding their own understanding to improve the quality and breadth of their storytelling.
Here is the Wikipedia entry for the Tower of Babel.
Every writer is free to break structure and do whatever their heart tells them. The writer/director behind Get Out purposefully broke structure at the end of that phenomenal hit. I don't think he worried about doing something "wrong".
It is a complete misunderstanding to suggest that the Dramatica theory of story is trying to tell you what is "right" with your story--the Dramatica theory of story is telling you how to write a convincing and solid argument--whether or not you feel it is right or wrong to do so is entirely up to you. And you should feel confident enough to break that structure whenever you want.
But don't fool yourself into thinking you've come up with your own understanding of how an argument works--you're simply moving away from the storyform, and moving away from what Dramatica defines as a story.
More passive-aggressiveness behavior. The reason we use terms like deficient, wrong, misinterpretation, and inaccurate is because what you present is deficient, wrong, inaccurate, and a monstrous misinterpretation of Dramatica. It's important that writers, producers, and directors understand this so they don't get confused by faulty counter-arguments.
The problem is that you're turning to Enlightenment and Wisdom when Accuracy objectively lies under Experience. The only time you'll find right and wrong in terms of Accuracy under the former two is when you're looking at a subjective biased version of the model. Your posts are justifying your point-of-view, they're not getting to the actual problem.
Case in point:
You simply lack the Experience, or familiarity, with the material to Do an accurate analysis.
If you were to engage with the community and participate in group analyses, you would quickly find yourself running up against your lack of understanding. You would have to challenge your preconceptions, tear down justifications, and re-learn what you have learned.
The fact that you refer to an analysis of Frozen, a film with obvious structural problems, as a basis from where you differ confirms this inexperience. The last thing I would do is turn to an incomplete story as a basis for why an analysis I participated in was somehow accurate.
And here's the Dramatica definition of Be-er.