It seems to me both strategies articulated here reflect three values.
All else equal, implementing a helpful act is better than not doing so, and what makes that act good is its outcome rather than meeting some stated desire of a consenting user.
There can be additional value to strategies where consent is obtained first.
Helping sooner is better than helping later when a time delay would not change the outcome of the help or the extent to which the help matched stated desires.
Obviously you were very clear in not explicitly judging the strategies you mentioned, but reading them did make me think about how someone who did find them wise might respond to situations where the net impact of the helpful act decreases between when it could first be implimented and when the receiver would offer explicit consent.
Supposing for whatever reason, the value of the helpful act would cease to be beneficial right shortly before the user would consent, but up until this moment the net impact would be constant. Can I conceive of a sense in which there would be benefit to waiting until the last possible moment, as close as possible in time to when the user would consent? Or is the notion of receiving consent all or nothing in this sense?