If this were a story and you were the protagonist, you'd be correct.
Excellent. That should speed things up.
People studying telepathy were convinced they were doing science until they started undertaking actual replicable tests and found out none of it worked. Telling me you're doing "story math" is like me telling you I'm performing philosophical engineering. It sounds like it means something but I haven't given you a way to test if that's true.
I lack the requisite training in the practices of math journals and proofs to address either the accuracy or relevance of the article you've linked to.
The main resource you lack is people who have found the theory and the way its applied here convincing enough to develop a sufficient knowledge and experience in Dramatica to be deemed experts. After more than twenty years.
I think you may be confusing the scientific study of psychology, which uses replicable testing methodologies across statistically relevant sample sizes, with pop psychology which comes in the form of self-help books.
Also, I'm not sure that math ever looked like psychology.
Math: "If there are three oranges in your basket and two in mine, then together we have five oranges."
Not Math: "When six of us look in the basket, we see different numbers of oranges. So we talk about it until we all agree there are three."
The problem isn't with the math but the means by which observations and impressions are turned into data points.
That said, for all I know, the math is wrong, too, but that's a completely different subject.
I'm saying the process by which you record observations is subjective. Which it is. A group of people watch a movie and then talk about what they saw and what they think it meant and how – if it meant those things – that fits in with the Dramatical model of storyforms. How much more subjective can you get?
You know how I know the floor of my office is ten feet by ten feet? Because anyone who uses the same measuring tape as me will come up with the same answer regardless of whether we talk about it beforehand.
Imagine trying to debate whether an office were the right size for doing a certain type of work before you even have a way for everyone to independently verify the actual size of the space.
Interestingly, that was a reductio ad absurdem argument.
What you need to do is dead simple: find a statistically significant group of people adequately trained in the observational method to create measurements for a statistically significant number of cases and then compare the results to determine how closely they match or how much they disagree.
Beware, though, that's what the E.S.P. people did and that's why we don't spend a lot of time talking about telepathy anymore.