Probably not, if the underlying documents still disagree. A second plan written from the same conflicting inputs repeats the problem at a higher price. Money spent reconciling contracts, obtaining clean payment records and correcting the ownership chain does more, because it changes the evidence rather than the wording. Budget the plan rewrite after that work, not before.
Separate what is invested from what is spent on the case
Rent deposits, equipment and inventory are business capital; drafting, translations, accounting and government charges are costs of pursuing the application. Keeping them in different columns prevents a fee from being counted as investment. Ask any adviser to itemize the work — reconciliation, document review, preparation, later questions — and to say what happens if the review finds a problem before filing.
Confirm current official charges for the route at the time each step is taken. Hypothetical example: an investor acquiring a pet grooming and boarding facility commissions a third business plan while the lease, the equipment invoices and the incorporation documents still name two different entities. A first review would spend that money on the reconciliation instead: an assignment of the lease to the operating company, a corrected share register, and clean payment records tracing each transfer.
Those steps change the evidence rather than the wording, and the plan written afterwards then describes a business that actually exists on paper as well as in practice.