No. Assess the investment and required evidence themselves. Access to reports does not prove lawful capital, qualifying jobs or management or policy participation. An investor-relations service and an evidentiary burden are not related things. A portal is supplied under a contract between the project and its investors, and what it owes is described in that contract; what the law asks of the petitioner is described somewhere else entirely, and no login shifts it onto the project.
Read what each report actually establishes
A portal may help organize communication while leaving important questions unresolved. Separate the investor’s source-of-funds evidence from enterprise reporting and the actual applicable direct or regional-center job analysis. Set out the conditions plainly, then ask which document could satisfy each.
Capital must be placed at risk in a new commercial enterprise and its lawful source and path shown; the required job creation must be attributable to the investment on the applicable methodology; the investor must be engaged at least in policy formulation rather than holding a purely passive interest; and residence begins conditionally, with a later petition to remove those conditions. Reports arriving on schedule can support the job element while touching none of the others. Where a project offers to assemble the whole record, ask which parts it can genuinely evidence and keep responsibility for the rest.