Generally not. The requirement is ten new full-time positions for qualifying United States workers created as a result of the investment. Existing employees may sometimes be preserved rather than created in a troubled business case, but that is a distinct route with its own conditions, and it cannot simply be assumed.
Created, preserved and already there are three different things
The distinction decides whether Roseline's plan works at all. In an ordinary direct investment the ten positions must be new, full-time, and filled by qualifying United States workers, and they must result from her capital. Where an established company is bought, the analysis turns on what her money actually does: if it funds an expansion that adds a warehouse, a second sales territory and the people to staff them, the new roles can be counted.
If it simply replaces the departing owner's equity while the business continues as before, no jobs have been created by the investment. A third possibility exists for a troubled business, where the statute permits preservation of existing jobs instead of creation, but that turns on the enterprise meeting the statutory definition and on maintaining the pre-existing employee level for a defined period. Indirect and induced jobs derived from economic modelling are not available to her, since those depend on investment through a designated regional centre.
The correct order is to settle the job theory first and negotiate the price second.