Pete, just a couple of spelling corrections before I respond. The name of the progenitor of affect/script theory is spelled T-o-m-k-i-n-s and my name V-i-c-k, making it more gender accurate.
I am not certain whether your simplification of the three theories works. It is more difficult for me to comment on the other systems than on affect theory (I hope the other faculty will join in), so let me just tackle that one. The affect system is indeed part of our evolutionary heritage. And it is a vital piece of information to know that nothing becomes conscious unless it first triggers an affect. Affect is, therefore, being triggered almost continually while we are awake.
Stimulus-affect-response triads called scenes also occur all the time because we receive stimuli constantly from both our external and our internal worlds. In some scenes the affect is very intense, but in many the affect is very mild. It is not correct in affect/script theory terms, however, to assume that the intensity of the affect generated is caused by the "meaning we ascribe to a scene," that would be a more cognitively oriented point of view that assumes we think therefore we feel. The intensity of any given affect (remembering that an affect is a short-lived phenomenon) is related to the intensity of the stimulus, the biological condition of the CNS at the time of the stimulus, how the memory of that affect interacts with the affect and the condition of the CNS, and probably other things about which we currently do not know enough.
You wrote "scenes that we experience frequently and have a certain level of affect will develop into scripts." Yes and no: Scenes that become grouped together—in part because of their frequency or the intensity of the affect, but infrequent scenes and/or scenes without intense affect can do this also—do so because of what Tomkins described as an amplification of an amplification or magnification of affect. Magnification operates through memory, thought, and imagination causing prior scenes to be coassembled with scenes currently experienced and scenes anticipated in the future and new affect to these scenes is now triggered. It is around this new affect that scripts develop as (and I quote Tomkins here) "sets of ordering rules for the interpretation, evaluation, prediction, production or control of scenes."
[What I present here is, of course, a gross oversimplification and represents less that 5% of affect/script theory as proposed by Tomkins. Those interested in further detail are directed to Tomkins's seminal works "Affect/Imagery/Consciousness" Volumes I-IV published by Springer Publishing in New York.]
Every system ever used has some sort of organizing principle to explain how humans produce meaning. Thus, it is difficult for me to disagree with your conceptualization. But I believe there are very great differences in the systems you are trying to correlate and that one must be careful not to overlook those differences. From an affect/script theory point of view, the affect system is the primary motivator of human action and thought. The affect system is always operative during any kind of cognitive activity, guiding and directing that activity. Although he is not an affect theorist, see the book "Descartes' Error" by Antonio Damasio. He presents another strong body of evidence supporting the idea that one is very mistaken to view cognition as being disconnected from affect. Pure reason, it becomes clear, is unreasonable if neurologically disconnected from affect.
The differences in various systems, of course, make very great differences in the way one approaches treatment. We believe that those who disregard affect, who consider intense affect especially anger (as is almost always the case with those still stuck in drive theory) as simply a pathological manifestation of something or another, who do not look for affect first in their interactive style, or who cannot recognize the 9 innate affects on the face of those with whom they work in therapy are nowhere near as effective as they otherwise might be.