It's always interesting when well respected works by different authors disagree. One such disagreement is over the original intended size and position of Khafre's pyramid. The earliest mention I've found is in Edwards but the idea certainly predates his book (first edition 1947).
When talking of the two entrances of Khafre's pyramid he comments:
"...If, however, it be supposed that, when the chamber and corridor were constructed, it was planned to build the pyramid some 200 feet further north, both the chamber and the entrance would have occupied their customary positions. "("The Pyramids of Egypt" IES Edwards p.113)
Verner has no doubt:
Khafre's pyramid was originally intended to be larger and to stand farther north. However, that plan was quickly abandoned, as the two entrances into the interior of the pyramid show. ("The Pyramids" M Verner p.226)
Maragioglio & Rinaldi seem to agree that the pyramid was reduced in size after having been started and write about the evidence for this at length. But they stop short of saying that it definitely happened. (Maragioglio & Rinaldi Vol. V p.116-117)
However others are less keen on the idea:
It has been suggested that the pyramid was originally intended to be larger, or that its north base line was first planned to be 30m (98 feet) further north, so that the lower passage, like the upper one, would have been entirely within the body of the masonry. But it is very hard to imagine that there was an earlier plan for a larger pyramid, such is the sculpted unity of the pyramid terrace, enclosure wall and pyramid base. What we are seeing is more likely evidence of a vacillation between two different passage systems in the course of building. ("The Complete Pyramids" M Lehner p.123)
The existence of two entrances has generally been thought to be the result of a change of plan during construction. Such an explanation is not convincing. ("The Pyramids" A Fakhry p.138).
Actually two ideas are being discussed which seem to get confused in some books. Edwards suggests a pyramid of the same size as eventually built but moved some 200 feet north. This would centre the first underground chamber under the centre of the Pyramid.
Here's Khafre's Pyramid as built:
And here's Edwards's suggestion though the exact finished form and size of the chambers and passages isn't described by him so this is my interpretation:
Whereas Verner is suggesting a bigger pyramid with extended Northern and Eastern sides that would have been bigger than Khufu's.
This is the area that both suggestions would be occupying with part of the revised plan. The arrow shows the small open hut over the entrance to the pyramid:
The most recent article I'm aware of that deals with this subject is in the 2004 issue of "Sokar" a German language Journal that deals with Pyramid studies. In an article Jürgen Becker goes into considerable depth with photos and diagrams and come to the conclusion that:
"... it is possible to recognise the design of corridors and chambers for the initially bigger planned pyramid of 240.50m (458 cubits) length and 160.33m (305.33 cubits) height." (Sokar Nr 9 2004 Jürgen Becker p.18).
This seems to be the same or very similar larger pyramid as mentioned by Verner.
It occured to me that IF Becker is right there's a rather interesting repercusion for all those carefully plotted "Giza Plans" with lots of circles and square roots etc which are so popular. Most seem to rely on a mathematical relationship between either the coners or the centres of the Pyramids or both.
If there was an earlier intention to build Khafre's pyramid with both the centre and the corners in a different position then there had to have been at least two such "Overall Plans" and perhaps more as some people have suggested that Menkaure's Pyramid was also changed in size after it was started. Either that or you would have to claim that Khafre's pyramid was first laid out with no mathematical relation to Khufu's but when it's size was changed all those relationships with arcs and square roots and diagonals were then implimented. I don't find either scenario very convincing.
I've never looked at the Orion belt star's alignment with the position of the pyramids on the ground so I can't comment if it would also have meant a change of plan if any such arrangement had been the intention. ie I don't know how close the ground position and the size of the Giza pyramids is meant to correlate with the Orion belt stars in Robert Bauval's proposal as I've not studied it. However if the "larger" pyramid doesn't work then you would presumably have to argue that the Orion correlation was instituted after Khafre's Pyramid was started.
OK all of that is highly speculative as it all depends on if Becker is right about the original larger size for Khafre's pyramid but I thought it was interesting and his article is well argued.
One last thing that occurred to me is that the famous "Giza Diagonal" is actually a better fit with the proposed larger central pyramid (assuming Menkhare's was always meant to be the size it ended up).