The only way out is through. This sounds like a key part of your thesis so there is no way around it but to immerse yourself in the theory and then write it up in your own words. Don't be tempted to quote from the other paper unless you absolutely can't avoid it. This section of your thesis could be the most important learning experience you ever have, so strap yourself in and enjoy the ride.

I am not sure if I understand what you mean by 'negative result' (e.g. you might mean 'findings were the opposite of those expected' or 'findings were null'). Also, by 'deter the confering' I presume you mean 'fail'. But if your question is 'If I don't get the results I expected, will I fail my PhD', then answer is no, because the way the research was conducted and interpreted etc is generally of much more importance than the findings. Sorry if I am misunderstanding your question though.

My advise would be to apply for it. If you don't get offered the post, then this ends dilemma. If they offer it to you, you can take it or leave it, and at least at this future point you will have had more time to think about the pros and cons of the outcome. My guess is that the main dilemma of taking the job would be the risk of forever losing the chance of achieving a PhD. This can grate a bit when in the future you work with people with PhDs who may have fewer skills that you do. But perhaps its like Marcellus Wallace said in Pulp Fiction, that's just pride messing with you i.e. just take the money and forget about the pride.

In summary, I would say to apply for the job and this will give you time to think about your options a bit more. For example you might think about whether there are more than just two options e.g. maybe you could take the job and at some future point resume the PhD part time.

Dragon is useful but you need to spend a bit of time training it to recognise your voice, so it doesn't work so well in an interview when there is another voice besides your own. One way to get around this (I have never tried, but was suggested to me) would be to play back each interview on your headphones while recording yourself repeating the interviews onto a fresh mp3. Then when you play the repeated interview to Dragon, it recognises all speech because it is all in your voice. Sounds like a lot of work, but might save on RSI if you have a lot of long interviews.

After 3 months it is nudging time. As a rough guide I think 3 months is plenty of time for an initial review, and 6 weeks to review a resubmission. Allow slightly longer for meta-analyses and complex papers, and slightly shorter for briefer submissions.