The investment can be made, but the immigration outcome is permanent residence, which is a status for people who live in the United States. Extended absences can put it at risk. If the goal is an investment return rather than relocation, this category is the wrong instrument and the decision should be made on that basis.
Separate the investment goal from the residence goal
Write down what the owner actually wants. If the objective is to place capital in an American business, that is an investment decision that can be made without any immigration category, and it should be evaluated on its commercial merits with independent advice. If the objective is for the family to live in the United States, this category is designed for that and the capital is the means. Problems arise when the two are mixed, because the money is committed for an immigration purpose and then the family does not move, leaving an investment nobody would have chosen commercially and a status that becomes difficult to maintain. Decide which goal is real, and if both are, decide which one governs when they conflict.
Hypothetical example: a Tyendinaga founder plans to invest in a U.S. facility making algae-based packaging materials. The first review identifies the new commercial enterprise, the qualifying capital, the full-time jobs, and the business evidence that will support each element. A job forecast is not enough by itself. The investor must decide whether the operating model can create and document the required jobs while the capital remains subject to business risk. Keep the business plan linked to measurable hiring milestones, because later evidence must demonstrate actual progress rather than just original ambition.