They can. E-2 requires qualifying treaty nationality, a substantial investment irrevocably committed and at risk in a real operating enterprise, an investor able to develop and direct it, and an enterprise that is more than marginal. Documents naming different buyers, premises or amounts make the committed investment hard to prove, whatever the plan claims.
Test each conflict against a specific requirement
Take the mismatches one at a time and ask which element each one touches. A lease in a personal name affects ownership and control; an unpaid supplier order affects whether capital is genuinely committed; a revenue forecast built on the old premises affects marginality. Some differences are harmless and easily explained.
Others show the enterprise is not yet what the plan describes, which is a reason to finish the transaction before applying rather than to redraft the narrative. There is a useful discipline for sorting the mismatches quickly. Ask of each one whether it concerns who invested, what was invested, or what the enterprise will do, since those three questions map onto different requirements and carry different weight.
A discrepancy about the tenant's name goes to ownership and control; one about the amount paid goes to whether capital is genuinely committed; one about projected revenue goes to marginality. Sorted that way, a long list of inconsistencies usually reduces to two or three that actually matter, and the rest can be corrected as ordinary housekeeping rather than treated as evidence of a problem.