Following up on your points I have a couple of questions
CAVEAT: There is sometimes a tendency to overthink things, to get overly-bogged down in details. Details matter, for sure, but how ALL the details fit into the whole picture, the whole-package so to say, matters more. Focusing on individual factors or circumstances typically over-emphasizes the significance or role of that factor, and in that typically fails to adequately consider the interrelationship between that factor and other circumstances, as well as the influence of other factors generally.
An Important Reminder: I am NOT an expert. I am especially NOT qualified to give personal advice.
Another Important Reminder: It is one thing to identify some facts or circumstances which are likely to have influence, and to generally characterize the nature of such influence (example: inaccurate travel history dates => negative influence), BUT that does NOT offer a definite roadmap showing the specific impact this or that particular fact or circumstance will have. As noted, there is a great deal of variability, more than a little complexity, and additionally, typically, lurking contingencies.
OVERALL: The PR who is well-settled in Canada, who appears to have made Canada his or her permanent home, and who is otherwise in compliance with the Residency Obligation and otherwise not inadmissible (no criminality issues, no misrepresentation issues), will rarely have any reason to worry about a PoE examination when arriving in Canada from abroad, and little or no reason to worry about problems applying for and being issued a new PR card when the time comes.
Efforts to isolate individual factors beyond that, and quantify risks related to them, is largely speculative.
Observations regarding the queries posed:
It can be difficult enough to navigate
what-might-happen and
how-to-prepare-for-it in specific, concrete situations. Even when most of the key facts are established and known, wrestling with all the possibilities can be overly speculative and less than fruitful.
The speculative and relatively not-useful nature of this tends to be worse the more it is about what will be the case in the future. It is almost certain that any effort to map the influence of this or that factor depending on what will happen over the course of years to come is useless, a waste of time and effort. Especially for a PR who has not yet arrived and settled in Canada. We can outline what the rules are and how they work, and how general factors can influence how things go (the more a PR is
cutting-it-close, the greater the risk of problems; failing to comply with the RO risks loss of PR; and so on) but relative to the facts and circumstances there can be all sorts of widely diverse ways things go; way, way, way too many variables to functionally forecast the impact . . . other than, again, the more well-settled the PR is in Canada, generally the less risk there is of encountering issues.
". . . patterns of travel thats inconsistent with the PR individual, like for example someone who frequently travels while not employed yet?"
This is an aspect which is especially subject to the general caveats above. Context looms large. Whether incongruous patterns in a PR's travel history invite closer examination is one thing, which can loom larger the less the PR has a history of otherwise appearing to be well-settled in Canada, or the more the PR is
cutting-it-close relative to RO compliance.
What constitutes an incongruous pattern of travel, a travel history that in itself invites closer examination, cannot be defined more precisely and an attempt to articulate or enumerate examples tends to miss the point. Frequency and length of travel can be a significant factor, but how so depends on many other circumstances. For example, what is inconsistent about traveling frequently during a period the PR is not employed? Frequent travel will APPEAR to be more inconsistent if during that same period the PR reports having a type of job in Canada that generally demands the employee be working at a facility in Canada four or five days a week, week in and week out. A three month trip abroad makes sense for an immigrant teaching university. Not so much for an immigrant employed in manufacturing.
"Regarding employment, some immigrants if not a lot fall into the issue of not finding a permanent job through out the whole 3 periods, its far fetched but have seen it happen. What would it be in his case, given he has tried everything to look for a proper stable job."
Personnel in IRCC have seen lots of examples showing how it goes for immigrants. By the tens of thousands! They see the full range. They can put all the variable situations into appropriate context far, far better than many in this forum give them credit. They mostly get it. Sure, it is a big bureaucracy, prone to the flaws big bureaucracies tend to have, including some difficulty understanding situations that do not fit the usual patterns. But the vagaries of immigrant employment is something which falls very much inside the usual patterns. Again, they mostly get it.
Which means they can usually see the difference between a PR with a pattern of unstable employment in Canada rooted in the vagaries of the job-market, versus the PR who is concealing continuing employment abroad.
But it also means they do not always recognize who is
gaming-the-system. So they have screening criteria and processes designed to help them identify cases deserving suspicion and elevated scrutiny.
I will say this, with emphasis: the PR who has come to Canada to live permanently is NOT likely to have any immigration related problems even if he or she encounters a lot of difficulty getting fully settled into a career here, so long as the PR is indeed here to stay and making a real effort to make that work.
". . . if someone as you mentioned soft landed for a year, then landed took casual jobs and sustained him/her self from the savings given the savings are enough for rent food and drink for a substantial part of the 3 years for citizenship and/or 5 years for the PR renewal"
Sure. Within the range of what actually makes sense. Up to a limit. Lots and lots of individual factors can influence how things APPEAR. Depends on things like the PR's work-related skills and credentials, the relative job-market, the PR's age and family relationships, including where family is located. Depends on other ties, here, other ties abroad. Again, again, again: the influence of individual factors can very much depend on other factors. Context looms large.
"I remember that you have waited a year before applying for the citizenship, so taking your model as something that worked out for the best, and correct me if am wrong. Waiting does almost all the time negate the effect of periods of unemployment, inconsistencies, etc. Given of course that none of those caused a case of misrepresentation"
I actually waited quite lot longer than a year beyond when I met the requirements for citizenship to make the application. LOTS of particular circumstances influenced that. I reference that not to suggest others should wait so long, but to emphasize that the particular facts and circumstances in the individual case can vary so widely that for one it would be better to wait much longer to apply for citizenship while for another applying with just a month margin is not at all risky.
Nonetheless, waiting longer . . . be that to apply for a new PR card or for citizenship . . .
is not a magic pill. It will not entirely negate or offset reasons which might otherwise trigger RQ-related non-routine processing.
Note that in my case, despite waiting so long there were circumstances which meant I had a higher risk of RQ than most applying with a margin just 20 or so days above the minimum.
It warrants one more reminder: the vast, vast majority of PRs are NEVER questioned much about their compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, let alone overtly challenged. There is almost always some fairly obvious reason why a PR is questioned or challenged, either in a PoE examination or in response to an application for a new PR card.
Cutting-it-close or simply falling short tends to be the most common, most obvious reason, and this is rarely a surprise to the PR. And this is true for most other reasons as well, the reason is something the PR knows about.
