A substitution does not automatically require a new contribution. Check whether the project is making an actual capital call under the agreement and whether additional professional review falls within an existing scope. The amount, purpose and immigration effect of any new payment need assessment; paying more is not an automatic cure for an eligibility problem.
Separating project money from case money
Two different questions sit here. The first is contractual: what the replacement arrangement does to your capital account, any escrow terms, and any repayment rights the documents give you. The second is professional: what it costs to have the substitution analysed and, if needed, evidenced.
A project's operating profits are not your personal liquidity, and an account labelled for administrative fees does not by itself qualify as invested capital. Hypothetical example: a pathology slide digitisation service issues a capital call weeks after the handover, describing it as necessary to protect the investment. Read the clause the call is made under before responding, and ask what happens under the agreement to an investor who declines.
Those consequences are contractual and they vary; they are not immigration outcomes, and a project should not be the only source of advice about either. Ask counsel separately what effect, if any, a further contribution would have on the record as it stands. Put the question to counsel before the payment date rather than after it.