According to the dictionary, a character with certainty element wants to be sure in what he is doing, and does not take risks. Potentiality is for risk taking, and the highest potential of all possibilities.
In the archetypal characters, the protagonist is assigned certainty. This seems to be counter intuitive. The protagonist moves the story, and faces the storymind’s problem head on. He is the one who will do what others will not, or inspire others to follow his plan. He is proactive. So why is he not a risk taker?
Looking at the chess set for characters and seeing certainty in his methodology / decision, I had rationalized that the protagonist is certain (confident) about his assessments. But then the protagonist is looking for certainty in his approach, he does not want to take a risk.
What does this mean here? I am trying to reconcile this by picturing the protagonist as being responsible about the consequences his actions have on others, and so he wants to be certain of what he is doing. He is the kind of protagonist who will not allow others to fight in battles with grave consequences. He is the kind of protagonist who will risk his life, because in absence of finding a safe plan for his friends, runs in the battle because he knows that the worst that can happen is his death, and he is certain that it is an acceptable outcome. Is this what Dramatica is hinting at?
Likewise, potentiality points towards a visionary / ambitious person. So, is the antagonist a visionary person who takes risks, or is he a delusional, ambitious person who is aiming for world domination / 100% market capture and does not think of anything in between? Put differently, the risk taking is fueled by a vice rather than a virtue. Is that a fair summation?