对比两种改进PINNs方法，发现需联合评估精度、架构与对齐机制。

Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) frequently fail on stiff or advection-dominated PDEs, and two recent accounts offer competing remedies: switching from FP32 to FP64 to repair an L-BFGS stopping artifact, or replacing the MLP with a state-space-model (SSM) backbone plus sub-sequence alignment to counter architectural simplicity bias. We test both under matched, seed-paired controls in a pre-registered 144-run study spanning convection, reaction, and wave, plus an independent 85-run convection/wave study; success is relative $\ell_2$ error below $0.05$. The two remedies act on disjoint regime-and-seed slices: neither substitutes for the other. On hard convection ($β{=}50$), alignment recovers 2/5 seeds in FP32 and 3/5 in FP64, where the unaligned SSM succeeds on 0/5 seeds at either precision and the vanilla MLP moves only from 0/5 to 1/5 across the precision switch---the recoveries trace to the alignment objective, not the backbone. On reaction the backbone alone already succeeds on 3/5--4/5 seeds, so each remedy covers a regime the other does not. Responses are also seed-specific: the same precision switch flips individual seeds in opposite directions and, on wave, lowers median error with no statistically significant success gain. Tightening the inner L-BFGS tolerance in an independent repeated-step runner likewise lowers median error at a large runtime cost, with success counts unchanged. Precision, stopping, backbone, and alignment must therefore be evaluated jointly and reported per seed.