Thanks for being patient, I appreciate the careful explanation! I think I'm starting to understand a bit more clearly!
And I do get that they are different things, to some degree. The problem in each throughline will have its own illustration, even if it is the same element. And I KIND of get how all of these throughlines can be resolved independently.
I guess I'm just trying to reconcile that idea with the notion that a story is just an analogy to a single human mind trying to resolve an inequity, and that therefore all the different problem elements in the throughlines are just different views of the same inequity.
If that's true, then the resolution of the problems in the four different throughlines can't ever be TRULY independent, even if the way those throughlines are illustrated makes them appear entirely unrelated, right? The truth is (I think) that no matter how unrelated these throughlines may APPEAR to be, they are in fact inextricably linked.
And it seems to me (now) like the crucial element is the representation of this abstract linked-ness between the OS and other throughlines that transcends the surface level differences in the way they've been illustrated by the author.
All of this is to ask: I've got a story with a change MC with an outcome of failure and a judgement of good. How best to think about the different problems and solutions of the different throughlines, and how their resolutions fit together?
My storyform identifies actuality/perception as the problem/solution element pair in three out of four of my throughlines. So each of these instances of the pair is different, and should be illustrated differently. Ok, got it.
Where I'm getting a bit tripped up is in considering that the MC possesses the crucial element of Perception. That element is also the solution to her throughline, to the OS throughline, and to the RS throughline. That solution doesn't get found in the OS throughline, and so the goal ends in failure and the problem of Actuality persists in that throughline. But as to the other two throughlines wherein perception is the solution, I think it gets found in the RS, but not the MC.
My understanding had been that what happened here is that the MC kind of "took" the element of perception, which could have resolved the OS, and instead plugged it into the RS, so that the RS throughline could resolve successfully, the way Jim described in his article. But that this necessarily caused the OS to fail, because that element (which the MC alone possesses in the OS) was no longer available.
I'm just concerned that this understanding I have may be critically flawed/leading me astray.
Sorry for the chunk of text, and thanks, once again, for your patience!