They are evidence but they are completly dismissed here. At least the funding explosion is something written on the wall. But even this is challenged here...
The funding is a number on a web page, but do you know the source? You assume it is an accurate figure and therefore a sign of the projects health improving, but is it?
Assuming you are right that the funding goes up, I also observe the claimed number of Dev's in the project is going up. If the number of dev's goes up the funding needs to go up to cover that.
I could also argue that the funding increase is proportional to the increase in the number of devs and draw an inference that the dev's are contributing to the funding. Complete speculation of course, but so is the validity of the funding number.
What we know for a fact is that CIG had to seek external funding around three years ago. We therefore know that their funding prior to that could not sustain the number of devs on the project at that point and therefore all funding up to that point had been used. I also find it concerning there is a note in the UK accounts indicating that they were not prepared to indicate their funding sources which to me asks obvious questions.
The only other thing we know is factual is what you are able to play now. Now, I know you really like what is there and I am really happy for you that you do, but does what you play reflect the funding that you believe CIG have received and we know has been consumed? Your answer will likely be no, but CIG are working on X,Y,Z,SQ42 etc and it will scale up speed of development. The problem is we have seen no evidence in 10 years of any of that scaling up other than in ship production. You may be right of course, but there is no factual evidence currently available to support it, just as there is no factual evidence to support the funding being a real figure.