I don't think we have a mechanism in place within a script right now to accept this data. Could you please expand your proposal above to specify exactly how a script would receive this data, in addition to the form data it currently accepts?

In the current implementation the EventRule passes a serialized version of the instance as data to the script., so it isn't possible to pass any input to the Script using the EventRule.
For example:
The user wants that for every interface change a Script runs and perform Napalm checks on the interface, to implement that the user might need the Interface, the Device and the changes performed by the end user.
But in the current implementation is only receives the changed object and the way it is passed to the Script it can't even be used as Script Inputs.
The feature request aims to give the user an interface to setup what data should be passed to the Script when the changes happens

In run_script data is passed as a dict where the keys are the Script Input, but when the Job is schedules in process_event_rules it passed as built in enqueue_object, (the serialized model) and that way it ain't gonna pass the expected dict to the Script since its expecting a dict with keys as the Script Inputs.
I think that the Action Data (or any other field) could be used similar as the Templete body of webhooks using something like rende_body

I think I get what this is saying.

Basically, you can define your data template for what is passed to a script.

This is originally what I thought "action data" wass for.

@DanSheps I thougt that it was the purpose of "action data" too.
And when I look to the rest of the implementation it makes sense for me change the context injected to the template body in the webhook to whatever the user wants to setup inside the action data

I've assigned this to @renatoalmeidaoliveira with the understanding that its scope is limited to passing the action_data associated with an event rule directly to the script being executed, as if it were user input.