Those are separate decisions with different timelines. A work route addresses employment that is available now; a residence route addresses something else and should not be used to postpone the first question.
Do not let one route block the other
Hypothetical example: Applicants sometimes hold off on a straightforward employment route because a residence route sounds more permanent, and then find that the job offer has expired while nothing was filed. The two are not alternatives in any practical sense. A route that authorizes the intended work can proceed on its own timetable, and pursuing it does not foreclose a later residence application, though the interaction between any two filings should be reviewed rather than assumed to be neutral. Given that the Gold Card framework is recent and the published experience of processing it is limited, planning a career move around an expected date is not reasonable. Decide the work question on the work facts, and treat the residence question as a separate decision with its own evidence and its own timetable.
Do not postpone a workable, independently authorized plan merely because a future framework is being considered. Hypothetical example: A digital-archival firm receives a U.S. client contract beginning next quarter. Its owner must decide whether another current classification supports the work, because a Gold Card inquiry is not work permission. Any applicable gift payment is made by the applicant, yet it does not accelerate separate authorization for the contract.
Keep confirmations dated.