Since the CASPT2 results in vacuum are already significantly different, direct comparison between the two solvation models is challenging. Nevertheless, considering that the solvent effect on FC is qualitatively captured at the CASSCF level, the discrepancy should largely be attributed to differences in the CASPT2 implementation. One interesting observation is the shift in S 1 energy for FC: RISM predicts a redshift, while PCM predicts a blueshift, consistent with CASSCF results. This contradictory finding suggests that dynamical electron correlation effects depend significantly on the solvation model, but further analysis is difficult given the inherent differences in the CASPT2 calculations. Despite these differences, the local topography of the (CCT) CoIn in vacuum and MeOH is compared in Figure . To mitigate the non-invariance issue of the MS-CASPT2 method, RMS-CASPT2 was employed for subsequent analysis. The x and y (see page S-9 and Figure in the Supporting Information) approximately correspond to C-C stretching mode adjacent to the amino group and the torsional mode around the C-C bond, respectively. The P CoIn value is 4.11 × 10 -3 in vacuum and 0.40 in MeOH, indicating that the CoIn is locally peaked in both environments.