I think what Melanie is saying is that it's close to a complete story, but because it does not deal with things properly at the Problem & Solution level, especially in the Main Character Throughline (and how that throughline intersects the Overall Story with the so-called Crucial Element) it doesn't work properly at making a coherent argument.
I haven't seen Jurassic Park for a long time, but I think what Melanie is saying is that it would be like the first Star Wars if Luke was going around causing problems for himself by testing himself all the time, but then was also espousing the value of trusting in things even before Obi-Wan had a chance to influence him, and that at the end he just kind of uses the Force without needing Obi-Wan's influence? I think that's what she's getting at anyway.
You might also want to take that article with a small grain of salt, as I think it's fairly dated and understanding of Dramatica has evolved over time. I notice for example the article seems to imply that a Change MC's change is always what brings about the Outcome, but Jim has said in a recent blog post that sometimes the MC's Change is because of the Story's Outcome, more the effect than the cause.
(I mean that with no disrespect to Melanie's genius -- when understanding of a theory evolves over time that is a sign of a vibrant and effective theory!)