It depends on the terms, not on the signature. A lease with a financing contingency, a landlord approval condition, or a refundable deposit may or may not represent capital genuinely committed and at risk. There is no universal signed-versus-unsigned rule; the escrow and revocation language needs fact-specific review against your actual documents.
Read the conditions, not the signature line
In a hypothetical plan, the pilot's lease, fit-out, and inventory already represent capital at risk, while the second site's deposit sits in escrow pending a permit. Present the first as committed and the second as conditional, with the condition named. Substantial capital is judged relative to the cost of this enterprise rather than a fixed dollar figure, so an honest split is more persuasive than an inflated total.
Read the document for three things before deciding anything: what triggers the obligation, who may cancel it and on what notice, and what happens to the money if the condition fails. A lease that commences on possession and a lease that commences on the issuance of a permit describe two different positions even where the signature page looks identical. Where a deposit is refundable at the depositor's election, the capital has not left the depositor's control in the way the category contemplates; where it is forfeited on withdrawal, it generally has.
Hypothetical example: an escrow agreement releases funds to the landlord only when a municipal permit issues, and returns them in full if it does not. Presenting that sum in the committed column invites a comparison with the escrow terms, which are in the file already. State the split honestly, name the condition, and let the pilot's demonstrated operations carry the weight they can genuinely carry.