I agree.The second is the less ambitious, "FB-22"-esque configuration where you just lengthen the aircraft and lengthen the weapons bay a bit so it can carry more of the same A2G weapons that the baseline fighter can carry, but is unable to carry larger diameter strike weapons that you would hope a dedicated strike aircraft could accommodate. This option would likely require far less resources than developing the first, more ambitious proposal, but it also delivers a far less capable strike aircraft, to the extent that one could ask whether pursuing this less ambitious strike variant is even worth it as opposed to just buying more normal J-20s alongside more H-20s and stealthy UCAVs instead.
I'm not inherently opposed to the idea of a strike variant J-20, but for both the "more ambitious" and "less ambitious" strike variant options I feel like there are better, more cost effective choices if you want either of their capabilities.
OTOH, if the money and aerospace industry resources is there to pursue everything as well as a strike variant J-20, then sure, go wild.
My view is that a new J-20 strike variant isn't worth it.
The J-20 airframe will always be constrained by the internal volume available whilst maintaining stealth.
As a frame of reference, the F-35 can carry 2300kg internally with another 6800kg externally.
A stealthy flying wing is way better in my opinion, and would be able to carry all that payload internally.
It also wouldn't have small control surfaces which can be detected by long-wave radar.
After all, the only reason you need those control surfaces is for manoeuvrability, which is not an issue for a bomb truck.
A flying wing isn't able to go supersonic, but it's not supposed to be a fighter.
It's supposed to slip in quietly, deploy a payload, and then slip out.
Going supersonic also creates a large infrared signature, which you don't want anyway.
So I do think "normal J-20s alongside more H-20s and stealthy UCAVs" is probably the way forward, rather than also adding a J-20 strike variant.