Running through this post, there are some things here that need to be addressed.
In the past I've been pretty strict when it comes to people suggesting their own version of the Dramatica theory--in fact, it's one of the first things mentioned when you sign up. But I can see now that the confusion that drives this kind of thinking is based on a misunderstanding of the theory itself, so I'll do my best to clarify what Dramatica is, and what Dramatica isn't.
Plus, I can't get rid of @decastell - he gives me too much to write about!
The model does have a bias. That's how it works--in fact, that's the only way it can work. Without bias you have no position, no place to stand, and therefore would be open to all kinds of subjective interpretations (pretty much the problem with many discussions like this).
Don't know how I missed this one the first time around, but this is brilliant, clear and succinct - if your hypothetical does intend to be broad enough to accommodate constituent parts of the theory as set, then it is by internal definition, a Tale and not a Grand Argument Story.
It's not Dramatica.
You absolutely have to look at all Four Throughlines at once because you measure the accuracy of one based on the other three. You can always make an argument for a perspective in any Domain to the exclusion of the other three. This isn't "lost in the weeds"--this is actually how Dramatica works.
The best example of this right now is the thread on The Domains of The Sixth Sense. Yes, you can make an argument for Malcom's personal problem to be in Universe or Mind--but it fails to hold up to scrutiny when you look at the other three Throughlines--as you must.
When Dramatica says it looks at the source of the problem (inequity) it means why is being stuck in a well a problem?. Why he got stuck in the well is Backstory.
Only if you're not taking into consideration the other four perspectives (Throughlines).
This is backwards.
Throughlines are not in Domains--Domains are in Throughlines. The Throughlines are perspectives. Perspectives, by definition, do not see the same thing--so it's impossible that two different perspectives would find conflict in the same area.
The model doesn't demand they be present, the reality of the difference in perspectives demands it.