I am not entirely sure what you mean with "Business Situation Framework", but I suspect you refer to some sort of Victor Cheng framework (Customer, Product, Company, Market)?
If this is the case, then you are right: this is NOT a hypothesis-driven approach. In a way, it is rather the opposite! It is an explorative way of looking into a specific set of "buckets" in the hope to find some interesting insights from this exploration. Even worse, it does not give justification for why these 4 buckets are looked into, and not 3 or 7 or 9 buckets...
So from my perspective, using such frameworks to structure your roadmap for the case is a fundamental methodological mistake and will never allow you to develop robust and bullet-proof case skills.
A robust approach towards solving case should be rooted in the actual question that you need to address. From there, you should define the criterion to answer this question, and build a corresponding value driver tree with branches and sub branches. All the "business situation framework"-elements (customer, product, company operations/capabilities, market structure, etc.) should be mapped to the different sub branches of your value driver tree. You then work through these branches by means of hypotheses which you can either confirm or not in your analyses.
This is true for almost any kind of for-profit case scenario you face (M&A, market entry, capacity expansion, product launch, etc.), and also non-profit scenarios!
The crucial point is that, thereby, you create a rigorous thinking frame which organizes all relevant elements into a structure by which you can link the analysis of every element back to the core question you need to answer by means of logic.
Unfortunately, case books are not revealing this to candidates, creating the illusion to candidates that "learning frameworks" is a viable approach towards cases.