This is at the stage where you cant really make assumptions about what may happen because you don't know what could go wrong. (A.K.A you don't know what you don't know).
All you need to bring a traditional capsule design down to ~sea level terminal velocity safely is a blunt body with offset CG and the kind of circular ablative heat shield that's been shown over decades to be simple, safe and reliable. You don't even need active control unless you want more precision for hitting your landing target. The biggest risk, assuming your position and velocity were correct at interface, is the parachutes–which is why SpaceX took so much time testing and refining them.
Things can always go wrong, but we know enough about both classes of vehicle to be able to say that the Shuttle's design was in general terms both more complex and more risky.
This is slightly off topic, but the Shuttle was horribly unsafe on the way up as well as on the way down. Using solid rocket boosters with no means to get the crew safely off the stack until they stop burning is, for lack of a better word, demented. The Crew Dragon/Falcon 9 stack offers realistic abort modes from the moment fueling begins until the vehicle reaches its intended orbit.
I'm not claiming that OP or I are experts, but there's actually a pretty big body of knowledge for capsule re-entry. It's more 'known problems' than 'unknown unknowns'.
