Student dropout is a persistent concern in Learning Analytics, yet comparative studies frequently evaluate predictive models under heterogeneous protocols, prioritizing discrimination over temporal interpretability and calibration. This study introduces a survival-oriented benchmark for temporal dropout risk modelling using the Open University Learning Analytics Dataset (OULAD). Two harmonized arms are compared: a dynamic weekly arm, with models in person-period representation, and a comparable continuous-time arm, with an expanded roster of families -- tree-based survival, parametric, and neural models. The evaluation protocol integrates four analytical layers: predictive performance, ablation, explainability, and calibration. Results are reported within each arm separately, as a single cross-arm ranking is not methodologically warranted. Within the comparable arm, Random Survival Forest leads in discrimination and horizon-specific Brier scores; within the dynamic arm, Poisson Piecewise-Exponential leads narrowly on integrated Brier score within a tight five-family cluster. No-refit bootstrap sampling variability qualifies these positions as directional signals rather than absolute superiority. Ablation and explainability analyses converged, across all families, on a shared finding: the dominant predictive signal was not primarily demographic or structural, but temporal and behavioral. Calibration corroborated this pattern in the better-discriminating models, with the exception of XGBoost AFT, which exhibited systematic bias. These results support the value of a harmonized, multi-dimensional benchmark in Learning Analytics and situate dropout risk as a temporal-behavioral process rather than a function of static background attributes.