PDE foundation models enable data-efficient adaptation but are deployed autoregressively, so short-horizon accuracy need not imply reliable simulation. We ask whether the short-horizon advantage of a foundation-model recipe persists when its predictions are repeatedly fed back as inputs for a long horizon. We define error amplification as G=E(H_f)/E(H_s), which measures full-horizon error relative to short-horizon error. We evaluate seven models on seven two-dimensional time-dependent PDE datasets: scratch-trained FNO and DeepONet; fine-tuned DPOT, GPhyT, Poseidon, and Walrus; and frozen in-context VICON. We report VRMSE, relative L_2, and relative MAE. Six datasets provide paired short- and full-horizon scores, while CE-RM contributes short-rollout sweeps only. At least one fine-tuned foundation model outperforms both scratch baselines in 26 of 30 short-rollout dataset--budget cells under every metric. Nevertheless, full-horizon VRMSE exceeds short-horizon VRMSE in 140 of 144 paired trained configurations, with a median error amplification of $2.04$. The count below VRMSE one falls from 104 to 53, and 12 full rollouts exceed ten although none does at the short horizon. Walrus achieves the lowest full-horizon VRMSE in 16 of 24 cells, yet its median error amplification is $2.70$. Relative L_2 and relative MAE show the same qualitative pattern. These results show that favorable short-horizon rankings can coexist with substantial error amplification. PDE foundation-model benchmarks should therefore report horizon-resolved absolute errors, amplification statistics, and failure incidence rather than a single local forecast score.

翻译：暂无翻译