Justification Objective vs Subjective

I’m still trying to understand how to create justifications thematically.

Working through the different levels of justification, I have a question, based on something Jim @jhull said in May 7 episode (3.18) of Writer’s Room.
Are all justifications an interplay between two throughlines? Should they be? Or just “can” they be?

If a story’s overall justification is OS Solution vs MC Direction/Solution,
… bringing that to a scene level (ie: OS SP 4 Present While Prerequisites)
…does that mean

Prerequisites (OS) vs Something going on in the MC SP 4 Learning while Doubt? (Or exacerbated/conflicting by IC SP4).

When writing a justification, should I be reaching to tap another throughline element, or element vs itself?

https://raskoph.lima-city.de/dramatica/justification/# has it as justification element vs itself.

Tension and Justification
I found this today, which is interesting in light of the 4someness of it, and the fact that (!!) he "discovered’ tension in the 4 domains: https://thanetwriters.com/essay/subtext/the-four-types-of-tension/

Picking (or creating) two illustrations of the same story point is how Jim has been teaching it.

Here was how I summed up my understanding of it (but see Jim’s clarifications further downthread).


Thinking in terms of justifications is a way of intellectualizing the felt sense of an inequity. As you have an interest in writing, it’s likely you intuit this all on your own–though it can be helpful to occasionally check-in with your hunches and see if you they’re consistent.

The entire model is inequity. Every single Storypoint is an inequity. The articles you’ve probably read and the post above are specifically working to help writers write inequities. They’re not meant to describe relationships between Storypoints.