I am no expert. The nature and scope of enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation is in flux (more regarding this below) and thus extremely difficult to forecast relative to any particular individual.
Nonetheless, my view about your situation differs significantly from what is discussed above.
This is not to say I disagree with much of what has been offered so far. Indeed, most of the observations I agree with (with some quibbling as to this or that detail, not worth going into). But in how those observations apply to your situation, I see things differently.
Main thing is it seems to me that much of what you are considering as options is premature, and moreover that what your options are is in large part dependent on what your priorities and practical plans actually are. It appears to me that you need to identify your objectives, that is your realistic and practical objectives, and based on what those are, then identify your options and formulate a strategy or plan.
For example, to be clear, it is time to decide, and act accordingly, whether it is your present intent to settle in Canada or not. This decision will largely dictate the course you navigate from here.
The concept of holding PR status in a sort of abeyance, trying to retain PR status without actually settling in Canada, is not a practical option. In the past, sure, scores of PRs managed a dance in which they were able to hold on to PR status for much longer, keeping their options open so to say. That avenue is in effect closed except for those who successfully engage in what amounts to fraud. That path is not a good way to go.
For example, the idea of coming to Canada and in effect lying to POE officers about your intentions, saying for example you intend to settle and stay in Canada this time, if your actual intentions are otherwise (that is, planning not to settle but to return to your home country in the relatively near future), might work . . . might not work . . . probably worked for many in the past . . . but now, as a practical matter, this is not the way to go about things. If CBSA or CIC perceive deception, the options dramatically shrink rapidly. Even if it works, the odds are high a subsequent departure from Canada to the contrary (that is without really settling and staying) will establish a history all too transparent which could negatively affect any subsequent dealing with CIC or CBSA, including any later application for so much as a visitor's visa.
To be clear: forget about what's the best thing to say upon arrival at a POE. Answer questions truthfully, even regarding your intentions. (No need to elaborate or explain, except as specifically asked. Definite need to be straight.)
Sure, many will continue to get away with gaming the system. But that's not what is going to really work for the majority going forward. The gaming-the-system net is closing. Best to know the rules, where you stand, what the consequences are, and play it straight.
If your main objective is to visit Canada, not settle:
If you have no present intention to settle in Canada, there is no rush to surrender status. Given that in October you will still have a valid PR card, good until sometime in the calendar year after next, and that you have recently been in Canada, it is a roll of the dice whether you will face elevated scrutiny at the POE.
As others have noted, based on the last entry experience it is quite likely there is a flag in your FOSS record. But if and when that will trigger a more extensive residency examination is nonetheless still a guess. Other PR's anecdotal POE experiences only reflect what is possible, very little about what is likely. Actually being in breach of the PR RO is a big factor, as should be expected, but being still well within the first five years and having been recently in Canada may very well garner a shrug and a waive-through at the POE entry in October.
Obviously, since you will have been outside Canada more than 1095 days since landing, which is the tipping point for when a PR RO breach occurs for a PR still within the first five years of landing, you will be in breach and at risk of being reported, which means being issued a 44(1) Report to be followed, usually, immediately by a Removal Order. That Removal Order, however, is NOT enforceable, and it only becomes enforceable if you do not make a timely appeal, or if you appeal it becomes enforceable when you lose the appeal. In the meantime you get to hang on to your PR card. While the appeal is pending you can come and go as you like. The appeal process ordinarily takes around a year (rough guess), a matter of many months in any event.
Alternative is to surrender PR status IF the POE officer suggests this in the alternative. If you surrender PR status at the POE, my understanding is that so long as there are no other admissibility issues, the typical procedure would be to allow you to enter Canada for up to six months as a visitor. Whether this allows you to return to Canada after leaving I do not know. But, if you do leave timely, your history is likely to support the issuance of future visitor's visas, no need for a super visa. (But if at any point you do something which makes CIC or CBSA perceive an attempt to game the system, the open door tends to slide shut.)
But in any event there is a fair to good chance that if you return in October, that will not be the occasion that the POE examiner gets tough about the PR RO. That would leave the surrendering of PR status, or go through the process of receiving a Removal Order, open until the next trip.
Too difficult to guess which way things will go at the POE. Better to be prepared for either.
If your main objective is to preserve PR status:
No point doing this unless your objective is to actually settle in Canada. If that's the case, the sooner you arrive the better. Which is to say the fewer days over 1095 days absent the better. Be prepared to discuss time in Canada and reason for delays in coming to settle in Canada (needed to continue working at existing job is typical . . . but again, stick to your real story, the truth), and the extent to which you have current ties in Canada (children living in Canada should be a big factor).
Since you would be in breach of the PR RO, there are NO guarantees. But you might be waived into Canada (the more recent the last entry in conjunction with a PR card valid well into 2017 makes this feasible), or you might be examined about compliance with the PR RO, in which event you would make your best case about having to settle affairs (or whatever it is that has been keeping you away from Canada) and trying to get to Canada to live as soon as possible.
None of us can really so much as guess what the odds are . . . could go either way . . . but I would guess the odds are at least fair this will get you a pass, no 44(1) Report, good to go so long as you then do settle and remain in Canada for a good while . . . the closer to two years the safer. The other obvious possibility, though, is that indeed you are issued the 44(1) Report and a Removal Order . . . you appeal. Odds on appeal are not good (it appears that POE officers are typically the most lenient link in the enforcement chain), so if you get to this stage you may want to re-assess what your goals are, and revise your plans accordingly.
Additional Observation/Caution: The nature and scope of POE screening is constantly changing, the trend consistently in the direction of both more thorough checks and elevated enforcement. Forum reports have been increasingly out-of-date for a long while now due to the rate of change compared to the very limited number and range of sources, along with the tendency to extrapolate invalid generalizations from particular experiences. The technology which in large part determines the scope and thoroughness of the checks is, of course, continuously being upgraded, enhanced, and recent changes in laws and regulations have expanded inter-agency information sharing, in addition to expanded information sharing with the U.S.
There are some key take-aways from this:
-- You cannot rely much on how the border crossing experience has gone for others in the past. For example, some of this is clearly acknowledged by others and reflected in their observations about arriving in Canada via a private vehicle at a land crossing with the U.S. versus arrival by air from abroad, compared to what was the conventional wisdom in the not-so-distant past. Not like the old days one might say.
-- In general, screening and enforcement are up. What this really means is that PRs (and others) are more subject to the rules and regulations than in the past. This trend is likely to continue (and this is regardless of who forms the government after the coming election). In particular, it is obvious that both CBSA and CIC have elevated enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation.
There are some key aspects however regarding which it is difficult if not impossible to draw conclusions:
-- We do not know the extent to which CBSA and CIC continue to approach new immigrants (those who landed within the previous five years) with flexibility or even leniency; elevated enforcement suggests less flexibility let alone leniency, but there is no where near enough reliable information to draw conclusions about this. My guess (emphasizing it really is just a guess) is that indeed, the extent of flexibility or leniency is down, but that there is still a significant amount of flexibility even leniency. That said, how it will go for any given individual still in possession of a valid PR card, still within the first five years since landing, but who has passed the threshold for being in breach of the PR RO (outside Canada for 1095 days or more since landing) is impossible to guess.
