What I've Gathered from Blades in the Dark

 Pursuing Dharma or Responding to Karma

I read an article about Ki-Sho-Ten-Ketsu which put forward an argument that the Western 'Goal-Oriented' story structure (Goal, Threat, Resolution) is fundamentally different from the Eastern 'Response-Oriented' story structure (Scene, Development, Twist, Resolution). While I haven't fully internalized this, I thought it had an interesting parallel in the two modes of Score and Faction play in Blades in the Dark.

Action Roll (i.e. Threat Resolution)

The fundament of the Action Roll from Blades in the Dark is that it determines how well your Action resolves the Threat to your Goal. Each Threat should be resolved by a single roll, ergo your Action should be a full Plan to neutralize the Threat. This Threat is predicated on knowing the Goal of the PC/Crew, which in a Score is determined entirely by the Players. This Goal-Oriented play is one half of the Blades equation, and everything from the Engagement Roll to the end of the score functions in this mode.

Entanglement

The Blades in the Dark engine is designed around putting pressure on the Crew to create Goals. This is done at the Faction level and by the fact that someone claims each resource in the city of Doskvol. Others are out to exploit your weaknesses and take your resources, while for you to do anything you need to take theirs. The reason you need to take others' resources is that the tier of what you can muster is dependent on having great social and material capital. 

I find the Downtime Activities to be incredibly important, as it is the key to progressing the world state after the Score, i.e. develop situations or introduce twists.

Reflections (2 sessions in)

The game is highly reliant on the proactivity of the players. If they are not in an offering mood, then the game will stall greatly. I found the crew character sheet and faction sheet to be great resources to prompt the players to develop goals, especially when combined with their "reputation". However, in the second score I found I set up obstacles which seemed to really stall any suggested actions to ending the score.

I also find that Actions are effectively Saves, but in a convoluted package so to emphasize Position and Effect. Basically, if you are trying to negate/resist some consequence/threat/harm then you describe how, and then hash out with the GM both the proximity of the harm (Resist/Desperate/Risky/Controlled) and the magnitude of the effect (None/Limited/Standard/Great/Critical) against said harm.

Thus, I come back to the same methodology on running the game. First of all, for any questions the characters either know or know where to find out an answer, and for any declarations the resolution is as follows:

1. Is it impossible? If so, communicate your reasoning as to why there is no effect.
2. Is there an obstacle? Generate its Challenge (qualities, threats, and hits).
3. It happens (Ask yourself what good is there to deny them this during free-play?).

and player success when dealing with Threats should be determined by the following flowchart:  
Save -> Build up an Action or Fortune die pool and roll
Suck -> It happens (chance to roll Resistance)
If there is a Challenge, then I think it stands that there should be an Engagement Roll per Rules as Written.

Based on the observations of Save and Suck, I think you could compress the Resistance roll into the Action and Fortune rolls by introducing a mechanic like Hero Points from EZD6.