Very little, unless the official material commits to it. A recently created programme has limited processing history, so confident timelines from other sources are not evidence.
Ask what is actually committed
Ask what the official material actually commits to, and separate a stated intention from anything that behaves like a guarantee. Descriptions of rapid handling circulate widely and rest on very little, since an administrative process that has been operating for a short period has produced no meaningful record to reason from. Put the practical version of the question instead: if this ran twice as long as expected, what would the household have to absorb, and would the transferred funds still be committed throughout?
Get that answer in writing. If a particular date genuinely drives the decision, that argues for a route whose history can be inspected, imperfect though any such record is, rather than for one whose speed is currently a matter of expectation. Hypothetical example: a forensic-accounting firm partner needs certainty about a move before concluding a multi-year client engagement.
The first review should produce an official-terms timeline, a date-stamped list of processing statements, and a household contingency plan for a substantially longer wait. Only a published commitment or written official response can settle a claimed deadline; an informal expectation cannot. Complete that review before ending employment or making the gift payment.
What often goes wrong is treating a newly announced process as though a stable processing history exists. If the household cannot absorb uncertainty, the responsible decision may be to defer the transfer or compare a route whose process and conditions can be independently verified.