He breaks a well-written opening into clearly defined parts. I am particularly intrigued by the terms "surface problem" vs "story-worthy problem" and "surface goal" vs "story-worthy goal."
("Surface", of course, means just that - the specific, clearly defined problem that might set the story in motion. "Story-worthy", on the other hand, is the larger, big-picture problem woven throughout the story - what the story is ultimately about as far as theme, etc.)
Here is how Edgerton breaks down the opening of Holes by Louis Sachar:
- Opening backstory: The curse on Stanley's family; why Stanley is on the bus going to juvie camp
- Setup: Camp Green Lake and the warden; intro to Stanley
- Inciting Incident: Stanley sent to Camp Green Lake
- Surface problem: To find a way to survive camp and the warden
- Surface goal: To return home
- Story-worthy problem: To overcome the family curse
- Story-worthy goal: To become a "self-sufficient young adult who no longer allows himself to be a victim"
But did Sachar really think about them while he was writing the first draft?
A good writer is certainly aware of structure and uses it wisely during first draft - but I think that the real solid walls of structure probably come during revision.