Keep the original plan, the revised proposal and the evidence showing affected amounts, activities, entities and job assumptions. Document the reason and the actual approval or implementation status.
Preserve the before-and-after comparison
A revised summary without the underlying changes may obscure the case. Do not rewrite historical reports as though the new phase had always been the funded plan, or describe a proposed reallocation as already completed. Identify who actually had authority to approve the proposed reallocation under the enterprise's own governing documents, whether that meant a manager's decision, a vote among the investors, or a filing with the entity administering the program, and keep the record showing that approval was obtained through that specific channel.
Sequence matters: establish whether the funds actually moved before or after the approval was granted, since a reallocation implemented first and ratified only later is a different fact pattern from one approved well in advance. Where the subscription agreement gives investors a consent or notice right over a material change in the use of proceeds, confirm whether that right was actually triggered and how it was satisfied, rather than assuming a manager-level decision alone was sufficient. A job-creation methodology built around the original planned activity may no longer fit once that activity changes in a material way, so have the economic analysis reassessed against the actual reallocated activity rather than carrying the original figures forward unchanged.