does it matter how active if still eating back cals?

so 3 examples:

(person 1) eat only 1400, no exercise
(person 2) eat 1400 calories, do 600 cals of exercise, eat an additional 600 calories
(person 3) eat 1400 cals, do 2000 cals of exercise, eat an additional 2000 calories to compensate.

Would any of these 3 people be in a better position to lose weight?

so you are basically supposed to shoot for 2lbs a week, which translates to about a 1000 calorie deficit a day (ie - buring 1 lb fat takes 3500 kcal, 2 lbs takes 7000 kcal, so 7000 divided by 7 days equals 1000 calories less taken in daily than expended). You can use the TDEE - 20% or just use the MFP calculations, they all work, and are all only approximate (and can't specifically predict any one person's experience).

So, I get this.

But, I'm curious, all else being equal, does it matter which range the 1000 kcal deficit is at? Let me explain. You could theoretically just do diet alone. so let's use my example, where MFP has about 1400 kcal alotted for me daily. I enter in physical activity, and it gives me more calories to eat, and its set up at the max for me to lose 2lbs a week.

But, while still keeping 1000 deficit in mind (automatically included in the case of MFP), if I did a combination of heavy weights and cardio on a day for say 800 calories burned, I need to eat those back so as not to exceed the 1000 calorie deficit). This seems to me like the best, healthiest option because being physically active is important for long term health.

BUT, would I lose weight any faster? Putting aside the possibility that someone who doesn't eat back calories, or in the case of diet-only, just severely under-eats, and that choice effects their weight loss program in some unknowable way (like causing more rapid weight loss, or perhaps even stopping all weight loss). Putting that aside, if someone just ate back calories, would they lose weight any fast at higher levels of activity if they are still at the same ration of a 1000 calorie deficit?