Transported audiences counter-argue less. That is the whole commercial case for narrative in marketing, and it is also the reason the technique carries an ethical weight that a bar chart does not: reduced scrutiny is a real effect and using it to carry a claim that would not survive scrutiny is a decision, not an accident.
The conditions are unglamorous. Concrete detail, a coherent world, a character whose situation is legible, and no interruption to the surface — a factual error, a visible seam, an obvious falsity all break it instantly and the audience returns to evaluating. This is a specific reason generative artefacts cost more than they appear to: a wrong hand is not an aesthetic problem, it is a transportation problem.
It also explains why testimonial advertising outperforms feature advertising while being less informative. The information is not what is doing the work.
Why do stories persuade better than facts?
Because an absorbed audience counter-argues less. Transportation reduces the scrutiny applied to claims, which is why narrative outperforms information and why it carries an ethical obligation not to smuggle claims through it.
What breaks narrative transportation?
Anything that returns attention to the surface: a factual error, a visible edit seam, an implausible detail, a generative artefact. This is why a wrong hand costs more than it looks like it should.