Context is for example climate, like when Paul said he did a PDC that was contextualized for cold climate.
So I said exactly that the issue with using stories is context, thus that it is not adapted to transmit everything.
When telling a story that happened in a heavy wet soil, I do not mind that much about this superbe pond because I have to do it in rock for example. I will appreciate to know the science of the soil, but I will appreciate that someone tells me a story about having made a marvelous
compost with branches like at my place where wood will end up light and full of powder while eaten by wood bugs!
It is not about badly contextualizing, it is just that anyway there are multiple contexts. And no story can be out of a context, when and where it happened.
Then there is the other case, of a story not being a real personal story, but a way to tell something in a more amuzing way. In that case I understand it can be seen as a technique made to keep the interest of beginners or children. I would suggest that such type of story is no more relyable than any scientific stuff that will become obsolete. An imagined story can make people think it is more true than the mere information, or the reverse who knows?
A personal story is always true if it is what happened.
A story will be more open to creatively remember and use the knowldege. As you were given the context, it is clearer where it has to be adapted to a different situation. When they do not tell you any story, but some facts and numbers, they tell you the conclusion they want you to remember. You can learn it and apply it, and you'd better learn more stuff, to take context into account when needed. It might be why some people do more than one PDC!