Usually yes, when the governing documents, ownership and operating plan are still moving. Filing on facts that change days later creates inconsistencies that are hard to explain. Waiting until executed documents match the real arrangement often costs less time than correcting a record built on a superseded draft.
Stability matters more than a management change itself
Not every change in management requires starting over; businesses replace partners routinely, and pre-filing revisions are simply part of preparing the case. What matters is whether the picture presented is accurate on the day it is submitted. Set milestones: signed governance documents, updated banking authority, revised forecast, then review.
Delay commitments such as an equipment order or a relocation date until those milestones are actually met. Set the filing date by the last document to be executed, not the first. In practice that is usually the bank mandate or the share register update, because those depend on institutions with their own timetables.
Hypothetical example: an eyewear-supply venture plans to file at the end of a month, but the share transfer to a replacement investor is only recorded three weeks later; filing first means describing an ownership position that does not yet exist. Where a lease or an equipment order carries a deadline, ask whether the counterparty will accept a short extension — a fortnight of patience usually costs less than explaining an inconsistent record. If a deadline genuinely cannot move, say plainly in the file what has been executed and what has not.