I'm building up to be a conspiracy/thriller screenwriter. With my current project, my premise has dastardly conspirators trying to enact a new state of things. My MC tries to stop them. My calculated storyform fit quite well.
Then, when thinking honestly about those character functions, trying to apply them in an outline, and then watching Shadow Conspiracy (1997), I became concerned my Story Outcome is off. The Dramatica Users Group analyzed The Conversation. They determined the goal revolved around an awful thing.
So, I was able to keep my entire Storyform, but change my Outcome to Failure ... meaning the conspirators are unsuccessful in achieving their dastardly plan because my MC comes in to stop them. My RS problem and symptom changed, along with the signpost orders.
Perhaps it's a matter of comparing first story driver with final driver. Tommy Boy finishes when he's able to sell half a million break pads. My story finishes when my Central Character prevents a plan. Is this like the Story Judgment? You compare the MC personally, his personal tension level, between story start and story conclusion. This relates to whether his Resolve at story climax was the better way.
James Bond is a controversy when deciding which is the pursue character. I side with the villain of the week being the pursuer. Goldfinger is an excellent demonstration. I feel more honest with myself when plotting out my story now.