i'm not sure i have any deep thoughts to offer on the topic, but it is an interesting question. just personally, i would probably try to think about the fact that even though i studied them in a certain way, that's not necessarily the way they were meant to be read (they weren't meant to be read at all, really) and try and find an "in" that way. i'd maybe consider how people always say that, for example, shakespeare isn't meant to be read, but to be seen on the stage. which is, really, oversimplistic, considering that the distance we have from it does require some study of the text if we want to understand what we're even looking at. but then once you do you can see how watching it kind of adds to the experience. but i also think it's not divorced from the study of it either. everyone who's studied shakespeare has been told to think about how the puns play out to an audience -- to the reader there's the one meaning, in the way it's spelled, but to the viewer who doesn't see the spelling it has a double meaning, and adds a lot more depth to the work.

i think actually writing the blueprint means leaving room for interpretation. i have a good picture in my mind of what is happening -- even when i write prose people have remarked that they feel they're looking at a scene through a camera angle, so i think that's just how i view stories. in prose i like finding the very specific way in which a character speaks a line. none of that changes when i write a script, but i do try to leave a lot of what i'm seeing out of it. i mean, obviously that is kind of expected in the business, but i do genuinely find it interesting to think of scriptwriting as a collaborative experience.

i don't know if any of that is what you're looking for, but it's what came to my mind!