The projection supports the petition, but the outcome is examined much later, at the removal-of-conditions stage, which is ordinarily filed in the ninety days before the second anniversary of conditional residence. Construction schedules slip, and no immigration timetable follows a developer's calendar. Ask when the job-creating expenditure is expected and what evidence will exist then.
Map the project schedule against the immigration stages
Draw the two timelines side by side: expected construction phases and expenditure on one, petition, visa availability, conditional residence and the final filing on the other. Where the job-creating spend falls after the point proof is needed, raise it now rather than later. Ask what the sponsor does if the project stalls, and whether reporting continues.
Treat any promised date as an estimate, including those given for government decisions. Add one further entry to that pair of timelines: the point at which the investor's own evidence obligations begin, which is earlier than most schedules show. Evidence of job creation counts only if it was generated as the jobs appeared rather than gathered up at the close, which is why the reporting mechanism and the investor's right to be given the underlying information belong in the subscription terms instead of in a request made once the filing window is in sight.
Write the removal-of-conditions window into the calendar on the day the capital is committed, years ahead, with an annual reminder against the sponsor's obligation. Hypothetical example: an investor in a semiconductor packaging project diarises the window at subscription and sets a yearly check that the promised reporting has actually arrived, which turns a silent third year into a question asked at the time rather than a gap discovered when it can no longer be filled.