Victor Cheng was mostly useful 10 years ago.
Mind that he worked at McKinsey before the turn of the century (pre-2000s) and while he is the OG of case interview prep (all credits to him), you can see that his methods are no longer 100% effective in today's case environment.
The reason is that he focuses very much on a framework/ cookie-cutter approach rather than on the creative and communicative approach that is needed nowadays.
MBB and especially McKinsey have moved away from the typical cases to more creative ones. It is not about pre-learned frameworks but you need to demonstrate your own thinking and creative process.
For instance, at the core, McKinsey wants to see creative ideas communicated in a structured manner, the more exhaustive the better.
Now the danger with Victor Cheng's approach is that candidates learn his frameworks and feel well prepared, then go into the real interview and receive the feedback that their approach was not broad or deep enough and lacked insights and insightfulness.
Your goal should be to come up with a tailored and creative answer that fits the question. The framework should - broadly speaking - follow these three characteristics:
You would need to go into more detail and qualify your answer with practical examples and more details at the lowest level. Learning frameworks will give you a false sense of security.
I'll leave you with a case I received when I was recruited:
Our client is a manufacturer and operator of self-check-in machines at different US airports. They break down at different rates in different locations. What could be potential reasons for this?
Now, try using a cookie-cutter approach on that initial case structure question.
That is why I am advocating the HOW of approaching cases much more than the WHAT. You want to be able to solve every case, no matter the industry, function, or context.