My PM quit after 3 weeks, now wants back on better terms and I feel uneasy. Rehire him or go with the runner-up? (I will not promote)

Quick note: English isn’t my first language, so I used AI to help me write this post in clear English. The situation, the details and the dilemma are all mine. I’m the founder/CEO of a ~10-year-old, profitable legal-tech SaaS in Mexico (small team: tech lead, 4 devs, QA, plus an offshore dev team in India that we coordinate with mostly in writing, in English). I’ve been looking for a Senior PM for months and I’m stuck between two options. Candidate A: the one who left Hired him in August after a long process. Strong profile: 6 years as Senior PM at a well-known fintech, technical background, C1 English. My tech lead picked him over the other finalists. In his 3 weeks he wrote our product methodology, which we still use. Then he quit for an outside offer paying 30 to 40% more. No performance or culture issues. A few weeks later he came back asking to return as a contractor (invoicing instead of payroll), which gives him more net income. My accountant says the tax side is fine. For me, the cost is a bit lower because I would pay less taxes. I told him: same role, same responsibilities, only the payment method changes. He drafted the contract himself. It came back slightly above that number, written as “the amount we agreed” (we hadn’t). It also includes a guaranteed annual bonus of 2 monthly fees even if no goals are set, accumulating time off, freedom to take other clients, confidentiality limited to 5 years, a liability cap, an automatic fee increase if tax law changes, and an option to move to payroll later with seniority recognized from the contract start. Every ambiguous point is resolved in his favor. Nothing outrageous on its own, but it feels like a pattern. How I feel about A I’m uncomfortable, maybe a bit annoyed. The amount isn’t a big difference, but it’s not what we discussed, and it was presented as if we had agreed on it. He also wrote that he’ll work “with no fixed schedule.” I know that’s standard for contractors, but my gut says it’s more about his convenience than about following the law. My real fear is that he’s someone who will always be asking for more. Part of me still prefers him, because he’s the most capable option. But after he left once, I don’t think I’d feel at ease with him, and I can’t tell whether that’s a fair signal or just my ego. I haven’t talked to him about the draft yet. I keep putting it off. Candidate B: the runner-up 9 years in product across 5 startups, strong with data and SQL, has done some specific scraping (very close to what we do). Comfortable with our pay range and says money isn’t what moves him, though one past job change was partly for money. He’s authentic: what he says in interviews matches what he writes, and he’s transparent about how he uses AI. My tech lead’s read: “he lacks authority.” When pushed back on, he gives in quickly. His follow-up with developers sounds more like tracking than driving. English: weak when speaking. His written test without tools had many errors (around B1). With ChatGPT the output was clean and professional. Our offshore coordination is mostly written. In both versions of the test he missed a key operational step that was the core of his own case study. He’s in another process and will follow up next week. My dilemma On capability, A wins: zero ramp-up, authority with the team, real English. On trust, B wins: no maneuvering, plain payroll, no contractor-reclassification risk. My unease about A might be the most important data point here, or it might be noise. I can’t tell which. Questions Would you rehire someone who left after 3 weeks for money and came back negotiating hard? Is a self-serving contract draft a red flag or just normal negotiation? How much should a founder’s gut feeling weigh when the stronger candidate on paper makes you uneasy? How much does “lacks authority” matter for a PM working with a small team and an offshore dev team? For written async coordination, is “B1 English plus AI tools” good enough in practice? Is there an option I’m not seeing? TL;DR: My Senior PM quit after 3 weeks for a 30 to 40% better offer. Now he wants to come back as a contractor, and the contract he drafted tilts every gray area in his favor (however, this new scenario is cheaper for me). On paper he's the stronger candidate, but I feel uneasy and a bit annoyed, and I'm afraid he'll always be asking for more. The alternative is a runner-up who is honest and easy to trust, but my tech lead says he lacks authority, and his written English is around B1 without AI tools. Proven capability vs. trust: which would you pick, and is there an option I'm missing?