How to make a plagal cadence sound convincing?

Out of all the cadences to the tonic, I find them to be convincing in this order when I write just the cadence:

• PAC and Leading Tone IAC equally convincing
• Root position IAC
• Inverted IAC with the dominant inverted
• Inverted IAC with the tonic inverted
• Inverted IAC with both the dominant and tonic inverted
• Plagal Cadence

The Plagal Cadence is so unconvincing on its own that it doesn't even sound like a cadence, but rather the middle of a harmonic cycle, like a cadence preparation rather than the actual cadence. The nocturne I am writing for piano sextet(string quintet + piano), I am thinking of possibly ending with a Plagal Cadence, given that there is a lot of subdominant emphasis in the nocturne. Ending with a Plagal Cadence would match up with that preexisting subdominant emphasis that is throughout the nocturne. But, no matter what inversion I have the subdominant in, I just can't seem to get a convincing Plagal Cadence. First inversion subdominant seems to be the most convincing, but only by a margin(Root position subdominant sounds more like a circle of fifths modulation to my ears). Am I doing something wrong? Is there a chord I am supposed to put before the subdominant to make a convincing Plagal Cadence? Or is it just so ingrained into me that V, V7 and vii°7 are cadential chords and IV is not, that my brain just isn't accepting the sound of a Plagal Cadence as being a true cadence but more like a cadence preparation? It gets even less convincing with the minor subdominant(Minor subdominant hints to me at a modulation to a minor key about to occur when the piece has been in a major key), but I have the problem of an unconvincing Plagal Cadence even when both the tonic and subdominant are major(which is like the most convincing you can get with just the subdominant and tonic).

Would using the subdominant of the subdominant, making it a Double Plagal Cadence make the cadence any more convincing? In the case of my nocturne, that would mean this chord progression:

A -> E -> B

I really am thinking of ending my nocturne with a Plagal Cadence to match up with the subdominant emphasis that occurs throughout the piece, but I just can't seem to make it sound convincingly cadential. Any advice for me as to how to make a Plagal Cadence sound convincing?

The plagal "cadence" is best understood as a post-cadencial process, it is often used to confirm a tonic that has been already clarified by another strong cadence, like a perfect cadence of V i. So, a plagal cadence never will sound as convincing as a authentic cadence, or autenthic perfect cadence.

Try to emphasize the Tonic of the IV going to the Third of the I, since it functions as a weaker leading tone.

The plagal cadence has a softer sound that  the PAC, but if you want to make it more convincing you could add the augmented 4th, but, there not be point of using the PC if you do that.

Listen to more pop music. Uses plagal cadences all the time. Obilque motion helps.

If I'm not mistaken, plagal cadences are used often in choral music. You might find some examples in that literature as well. In fact, I might go so far as saying that any use of plagal cadences has the potential to recall memories of / associations with choral and / or folk music in the audience.

When I've used plagal cadences, I've found that the most pleasing way to pull it off (for me) is to have the bass remain in a tonic pedal with the other instruments resolving the rest of the tones from the IV chord (4th and 6th) to the I chord (3rd and 5th). It invokes a "cozy" sort of feeling for me. Just some thoughts

What is "convincing" here? More convincing is when a cadence resolves by semitones from tritone, I suppose. That's what centuries of tonal music has left us. But before, there where 1000 years of modal cadences, and they were totally convincing.

As @Monarcheon mentioned above, the V - I cadence has been replaced by IV - I (or IVm - I) in pop music.

Academic music of our days doesn't use this kind of cadences.