Not on the strength of an intermediary's claim that a window is closing. If terms genuinely change, the official source will say so, and verifying that takes minutes. Urgency created by a third party is a reason to check rather than to act.
Speed is the technique that prevents verification
Pressure to move quickly is the common feature of arrangements that later prove to have been misdescribed, precisely because verification is what pressure is designed to prevent. The response is procedural rather than confrontational: thank the intermediary, check the official source, and proceed at your own pace. If the terms have in fact changed, you will see it in the comparison and can decide accordingly. If they have not, you have learned something about the person creating the urgency. Meanwhile the substantive work — establishing which employment-based category your record could support — proceeds on its own timetable and is the part that actually determines the outcome. Nothing is lost by letting the substantive analysis and the verification proceed at the same pace.
Hypothetical example: Nadia expects proceeds from the sale of a biotech patent portfolio and wants to use them for a Gold Card payment quickly. An opening assessment identifies the sale closing, tax and ownership records, official program availability, payment instructions, and the separate immigration filing timeline. Sale agreements, closing statements, bank transfers, and current official notices settle what can happen when. Sequence the transaction so the money's origin remains easy to trace. Trouble comes from relying on a cached announcement or moving funds before the official submission process is confirmed. A few days spent confirming the live procedure can prevent a large payment from being sent on an unsupported assumption.