That the capital was lawfully obtained, that it is invested at risk in a new commercial enterprise, that ten full-time U.S. jobs will be created under the applicable counting rules, and that the investor is engaged in management or policy. The amount is the entry price, not the case.
The sale proceeds prove capacity, not eligibility
Hypothetical example: an East Hants couple have a signed sale of their aggregate business well above the required amount. That establishes they can fund an investment. It does not establish that the money is lawful in the sense the regulations require — the reviewer wants tax returns and business records showing the enterprise generated it — nor that the specific project will create ten jobs attributable to their investment, nor that the couple will hold a real role.
If they choose a direct investment in a U.S. business they will manage, their engagement is easy to show but the ten jobs must be actual employees on the enterprise's payroll. If they choose a regional-center project, engagement is satisfied through the partnership's rights, but the job count depends on an economic model they must read and understand.
The decision between structures should be made on those two differences, not on the sales presentation.