Agreed. Stylistic hints include the heavy use of bulleted lists with bold headings, and the general lack of concern with justifying any vaguely plausible-sounding assertion ("The PINN approach ensures physical consistency, efficient computation, and accurate generalization from limited data.")

I think someone who cared about the specific content would at least note that linear PDEs like the heat equation often have closed-form solutions and/or efficient algorithms for solving any particular problem, so aren't likely to be usefully solved with PINNs.