The requirement of at least ten full-time positions for qualifying United States workers applies either way, but how it is satisfied and evidenced differs. Direct investments generally rely on positions at the enterprise itself; regional-center investments may rely on methodologies permitted by statute that also count jobs created indirectly.
Ask how the jobs get proved, not just how they get created
The useful question at the outset is evidentiary rather than conceptual: when the second stage arrives, what documents will show that the requirement was met, and who will produce them. In a direct investment the answer is the enterprise's own payroll and personnel records, which means the investor is responsible for creating and keeping them. In a project the answer involves the project's reporting and its economic analysis, which means the investor is relying on someone else's diligence. Neither answer is better in the abstract; they suit different people. What causes difficulty is choosing a structure without having asked the question at all, and discovering the answer at the point where the evidence is needed.
Hypothetical example: Rania is looking at a direct investment in an artisan-cheese producer and assumes the business's existing staff will satisfy the job requirement. An opening assessment identifies the relevant capital, the commercial enterprise, the job methodology, and which qualifying positions are expected to result from the investment. Business plans, payroll data, capitalization records, and hiring projections settle those points. Establish the job framework before transferring money. Difficulty follows when a plan counts contractors, family members, or vague future activity without matching the applicable rules. The capital must also remain exposed to business risk; a repayment promise that removes meaningful risk can undermine the premise of an investment.