No automatic conclusion should be drawn; assess the actual changed terms and enterprise facts.
Identify the substantive effect
A new date may also change refund conditions, control or funding. Review those facts rather than treating every delay alike.
Hypothetical example: a specialty-paper restoration studio buyer receives a revised purchase agreement that permits withdrawal for any financing concern. The decision is whether the current terms leave capital sufficiently committed and exposed to loss, and whether the studio’s operating plan remains a real, nonmarginal enterprise.
For E-2, confirm treaty nationality, a treaty-national enterprise, capital committed irrevocably and exposed to commercial risk, and a real operating enterprise that is not marginal. A transaction’s label or expected closing date cannot replace those elements.
A first review should produce an element-by-element table: the legal condition, the current fact, the primary record that proves it, and any unresolved issue. Start with the governing category rather than a persuasive title. If the role, money, entity, or family situation changed, identify whether the change affects an element or only the evidence. A missing fact should be marked as unknown and investigated; it should not be supplied through optimistic wording.
Record the conclusion in a short decision note: which required element is proved, which record proves it, and what event would change the answer. That note should be reviewed before travel, filing, or a revised employment commitment is made. For E-2, compare that conclusion with the present commitment terms, enterprise control, commercial exposure, and nonmarginality evidence before choosing the next step.