Case in Point vagueness -- For those of you who've used it
I'm studying for case interviews and am using basically all the resources I've been able to get my hands on. One of them, of course, is CiP, which nearly everybody recommends.
I've got a question for people who used it successfully, though: The practice cases/dialogues Consentino lays out in CiP seem to be a bit blunt. I'm contrasting this to, say, Victor Cheng's discussions where he keeps drilling down and asking relevant questions about a certain topic to test a hypothesis (looking for data on different relevant segments, etc. etc. before jumping in), so that his final approach is data-driven.
Looking at Consentino's case dialogues (the first ones at least), there seems to be more, "What would you do in x?" ---> "Well, I know that such-and-such industry is characterized x and y-ways, so I'd [fill in the blank]." There's a lot more of a sense of "jumping in" without having actually looked for a solid foundation, data-wise.
There's a mismatch: If the cases are like Consentino's, then you'd apparently be wasting the interviewer's time by "drilling down" and getting data to back up your hunches. On the other hand, if the cases are more along the lines of Cheng's, you'd have only done part of the work by using Consentino's approach.
Having never actually done one of these for a real interview, I'm curious as to peoples' experience. I would bet that sometimes interviewers are just in a hurry/otherwise occupied and don't want to give you all sorts of data, so cases are more like those in CiP, over in a few minutes with just a bit of discussion --kind of like if you were casually discussing it with a friend--, where other times, you get the full-fledged handouts, charts, and other data and you really have to isolate problems.
What have successful interviewees found?
(If this has specifically been discussed elsewhere, sorry for the duplication and just point me in the right direction. )