I've seen it posted elsewhere on the board that, when it comes to the signposts and the order that they're in, the signposts reflect the story-world chronology of events in a story. I even came to understand this when I finally found the right storyform for the story that I'm revising.
But I've also seen multiple instances of the signposts being used as the context for the exploration of throughline problems in each act. Even in the Dramatica software, it seems like the examples used in the StoryGuide are using signposts as a way to show how things progress in the story as it's being told.
There's also the idea of storyweaving itself. If signpost X of each throughline must be explored before moving on to the next act, that means that the signposts have to go in a certain order. But with storyweaving, we're allowed to mix things up? If that's the case, wouldn't that mess up the actual plot progression? Or is it that, while the event that's being shown to the audience isn't necessarily showing the actual source of conflict as described by the signpost, the event itself is being caused by the source of conflict from that signpost?
Take mysteries, for example. If the signposts represent the story-world chronology, then how are we supposed to explore those same signposts in that same order without revealing the answers? And if the signposts are just the sources of conflict for each act as the events are revealed to the audience, then would that mean that the signposts are more about the things that need to happen to reach the goal, and not the actual progression of events?
I guess I'm just trying to reconcile things in my head. But if the story doesn't follow the plot progression/signpost order in the way that it's revealed to the audience, does that mean that it's using a different order, or that the actual signposts are beneath the events that are being revealed?