Here is my opinion, for 'iso_intersection_small' not sure what the problem is, but your geometry in some places look like this ... think about how to arrange it, i.e. the problem is most likely the length of coordinate values, for example ...

(4 row)
2.24052434999272 48.633728,
2.2494507 48.633728,
2.2515106 48.6344147,
2.25202558437494 48.633728,
(6 row) 
2.3648071 48.5733032,
2.36618038333414 48.5733032
(7 row)
2.42197043750091 48.6472892624991, 
...etc.

Here is my opinion, for 'iso_intersection_small' not sure what the problem is, but your geometry in some places look like this ... think about how to arrange it, i.e. the problem is most likely the length of coordinate values, for example ...

(4 row)
2.24052434999272 48.633728,
2.2494507 48.633728,
2.2515106 48.6344147,
2.25202558437494 48.633728,
(6 row) 
2.3648071 48.5733032,
2.36618038333414 48.5733032
(7 row)
2.42197043750091 48.6472892624991, 
...etc.

As a result, your data is not identical,

as evidenced by the artifacts in the figure below, resulting from the difference...

Here is my opinion:

I don’t know where you took this data, but your geometry is torn apart, this is how the first line table "iso_intersection_small" should look like, think how to put it in order, i.e. what you think corresponds to the value of the "id" field is actually the tails of the previous geometry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

Here is my opinion, for 'iso_intersection_small' not sure what the problem is, but your geometry in some places look like this ... think about how to arrange it, i.e. the problem is most likely the length of coordinate values, for example ...

(4 row)
2.24052434999272 48.633728,
2.2494507 48.633728,
2.2515106 48.6344147,
2.25202558437494 48.633728,
(6 row) 
2.3648071 48.5733032,
2.36618038333414 48.5733032
(7 row)
2.42197043750091 48.6472892624991, 
...etc.