The NYSAC rejected Nino Valdes as a worthy challenger after the Parker fight

No, this was in February 1954. Valdes had won all of his last five bouts - two of them against ranked contenders, including Charles himself of course. He was ranked #1 by the Ring and #2 by the NBA. As Gleason put it:

"I don't know what they expect Valdes to do to get a title shot. He beat Charles and if they are still not convinced that Valdes is ready we'll fight him again. If Nino can't beat Charles then he doesn't deserve a title bout. But we are not fighting Charles for nothing like we did when Valdes won easily the last time. Valdes fought for practically nothing to get the chance and now all we ask, if they want a return bout, is the same percentage as Ezzard got. After all, Valdes won."

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-standard-times-gleason-on-valdes-ma/205471619/

 

That record doesn't set me alight

 

A Baker/Patterson fight would have been good. He was a big guy who could punch. He wasn't Liston level but more like Williams level.

 

It was in February 54 that he gave this interview, but any serious discussion & possibility of a Charles rematch had already come & gone by then. By February 4 (3 days before this article was published), "Ex-champion Ezzard Charles seemed destined today to get a third shot at the heavyweight crown in June," after he'd bodied Satterfield on nationwide TV the previous month. Gleason even admits in the article you cited that "They are getting Charles ready as the next old man for Marciano this Summer outdoors."

Also in the article, Gleason admits that he took his fighter overseas expressly for the $, which again means he prioritized $ &/or pride over fights that would actually do the most to raise his profile & visibility in the US & increase his likelihood of a title shot. This is a case of a manager trying to have his cake & eat it too.

 

Charles didn't sign for Marciano until weeks later, and the view of a writer that he "seemed destined" for a title shot isn't the same as it actually happening. A few months later you could see headlines confidently proclaiming that "Nino Valdes wins Marciano match beating Jackson", it didn't make it true.

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-independent-record-valdes-jackson/205549910/

But yes, Charles evidently lost whatever interest he ever had in rematching Valdes once it looked like he could get a title shot without it. That's only natural. He was, as you put it, being selective about what risks he took. Just like Roland LaStarza feeling no need to accept a fight with Charles because the road to a shot at Marciano was already open to him. You still give Charles credit for being willing to take that LaStarza fight.

 

The formal announcement wasn't made until after everything was finalized weeks later, but the contract negotiations, venue arrangements, & distribution rights had already commenced well ahead of then, as is typical of any title fight. Gleason himself even acknowledged negotiations were already underway in the article you linked to.

It wasn't simply "the view of a writer," he specifically referenced an inside scoop that "Promoter Jim Norris is expected to announce next week a June match between champion Rocky Marciano and Charles at Yankee Stadium, now that a March title defense has been rejected."

On the contrary, I already quoted an article printed in the April 54 issue of the Ring in which Charles expressly states, "Nino Valdes caught me on the worst night of my entire career and gave me a licking. I deserved it for taking too much for granted. But that's all in the past. I won't take any credit from the Cuban. He beat me fairly. I know I lost that one, but blame myself. I'd like a return bout. I've tried to get it but without success. His manager demanded too much."

Every indication from both parties involved (including the very article you linked to) points directly to Gleason & his demand for a bunch of guarantees that weren't even entirely within Charles' power to give as the sole obstacle to a rematch happening.