Midpoints are tricky things, and there's no magic bullet, but a vastly oversimplified way of looking at them is first by function, then by execution. It's just my opinion, but I'll share one of the ways I approach them in screenwriting/teleplay writing.

So here we go...

Again, this is an oversimplification, but you can look at the function of the midpoint as a moment/scene/sequence that introduces new information that raises the stakes and adds dimension to your overall arcplot. So that's one way to look at its function. Now, in practice...

One way to think of them is like a CLIMAX at the middle of your story that that begs resolution. The midpoint creates further IMBALANCE in your narrative. It turns over your arcplot. Adds pressure to the story. Something that challenges the protagonist and demands action.

We can look at the first half of the second act as a place where your protagonist will claim some victories in their quest.

The midpoint can be a moment where the cost of that action becomes present. It can be the begging of CONSEQUENCE and that consequence can further...

...complicate the path of the protagonist throughout the second half of the second act, leading to the darkest moment in your narrative -- if you're working according to Aristotle's Poetics, Campbell's Hero's Journey, etc.

Which you don't have to, of course, but it's common.

Think of a screenplay, for example, as actually TWO short movies, stapled together at the midpoint, with the same characters and happening on the same timeline.

The first "short movie" ends on a cliffhanger that raises the stakes and evolves the story. The second resolves it.

If your protagonist is able to proceed the same way post mid-point as they have pre-midpoint, perhaps your midpoint isn't quite strong enough. It should change your story, not destroy it, but change it, breathing in new life and new complication.

One way to look at it.

/END