Every sandbox test the PVARA Sandbox Guidelines 2026 describe ends the same way: with a written completion report, filed on a fixed deadline, that becomes the document the Authority actually weighs when deciding what happens next. It is short in the text of the Guidelines — a single section — but it is where months of testing get converted into the record the Authority uses at the exit stage.
This piece sets out the deadline, the required content, and how the completion report relates to the exit plan the participant filed at the start of the process.
What is the deadline for filing a sandbox completion report?
Two weeks from the close of the testing period, with no extension mechanism stated for this specific deadline. The Guidelines state that “at the end of the testing period, the participant shall submit a completion report to the Authority within two weeks of close of testing period.” This is distinct from the earlier extension-request rule, which applies to delaying the commencement of testing on notice of an unexpected difficulty — the Guidelines do not describe an equivalent mechanism for extending the two-week completion-report deadline itself.
What must the completion report actually contain?
Two main elements, with the second broken into three specific parts. The Guidelines require the report to include “the overall results and statistics of the testing” and “an objective assessment of the potential impact of the solution to be scaled out.” That impact assessment must in turn cover three things:
| Required element of the impact assessment | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Comparison of results with objectives | A direct comparison against the objectives defined at inception, before testing started |
| Scope of scaling out | How the solution could reach a larger audience if the test succeeded |
| Compliance pathway | How the participant will fully comply with relevant legal and regulatory requirements going forward |
Together, the results-and-statistics element and the three-part impact assessment form the substance of the report — a factual account of what happened, plus an honest, forward-looking assessment of what it would mean to scale.
Why does the report have to compare results against objectives “defined at inception”?
Because the objectives the report measures against are fixed before testing begins, not written retrospectively to match whatever the results turned out to be. The Guidelines’ Eligibility Criteria section already requires applicants to demonstrate “a clearly defined testing plan (objectives, duration, KPIs, and target users)” before approval — this is the same set of objectives the completion report must later compare its results against. Our reading is that a participant whose original testing plan lacked specific, measurable objectives will struggle to produce a meaningful comparison at completion, since there is nothing concrete to compare the results to.
Does the completion report have to address compliance even if the test was unsuccessful?
The Guidelines do not distinguish between a successful and an unsuccessful test for this requirement — the compliance element (“how the Participant will fully comply with relevant legal and regulatory requirements”) sits inside the impact assessment on scaling out, which by its own terms concerns “the potential impact of the solution to be scaled out.” Where a test is not scaled out because it was unsuccessful, the practical relevance of this specific element may be limited, though the Guidelines do not say the completion report itself becomes optional in that scenario — only that its impact-assessment content is framed around the scaling case.
How does the completion report relate to the exit plan filed with the original application?
The exit plan is the applicant’s proposed direction, filed months earlier; the completion report is where actual testing results either support or undercut that direction. The Feasibility and Exit Strategy heading in the Key Evaluation Criteria required an exit plan covering both “winding down if unsuccessful or transitioning to licensing if successful” at application stage. The completion report is where the participant reports which of those two paths the actual results point toward — supported, this time, by results and statistics rather than a proposal.
What does the Authority do with the completion report once it is filed?
Analyses it alongside the testing-phase results to determine what happens next. The Guidelines state that “the Authority will analyse the testing phase results along with the completion report submitted by the participant at the exit stage and will determine the future course of action.” The completion report is not simply filed and archived — it is one of two inputs, alongside the underlying testing-phase results themselves, that the Authority weighs when deciding the participant’s exit outcome.
Is there a standard template for the completion report?
The Guidelines do not publish one. Unlike Form I, which sets out a detailed structure for the original sandbox application, the completion-report section of the Guidelines states only what the report must include in substance — overall results and statistics, and the three-part impact assessment — without prescribing headings, length or a submission format. A participant should expect to structure the report to satisfy those content requirements clearly, in the absence of a published template, and may reasonably confirm expected format with the Authority given the reporting-format flexibility already built into the testing period generally.
What should a sandbox participant do to prepare a strong completion report?
- Track results and statistics throughout testing, not only at the end — the two-week deadline leaves limited time to reconstruct data after the fact.
- Keep the original testing plan’s objectives, duration, KPIs and target users on file and unchanged, so the completion report’s comparison is against the genuine inception baseline.
- Draft the compliance-pathway element concretely: name the specific legal and regulatory requirements the participant would need to satisfy to move from sandbox testing to full compliance, rather than a general assurance.
- Treat the two-week deadline as fixed, since the Guidelines describe no extension mechanism for it comparable to the one available for delaying the start of testing.
- Align the completion report’s conclusion with the exit plan filed at application stage where the results support it, and be explicit where the results point somewhere different.
Related reading
- PVARA Exchange License: Capital, Rules & Obligations 2026
- PVARA Transfer & Settlement License: Crypto Payments 2026
- PVARA Licensing Process: NOC to Full Licence, Step by Step
- The PVARA Licensing Gold Rush: Pakistan’s Crypto Frontier
- PVARA Custody License: Safeguard Customer Crypto 2026
- goAML Registration for VASPs: Who Registers, and When
- PVARA Management & Investment License: Crypto Funds 2026
- The Virtual Assets Act 2026, Section by Section
About this analysis
This analysis was prepared by the CoinConnect research desk from the Completion Report and Exit Stage sections, and the Eligibility Criteria and Feasibility and Exit Strategy sections, of the PVARA Sandbox Guidelines 2026, read as published. Where the Guidelines do not prescribe a report template or an extension mechanism for this specific deadline, that is stated in the text above.
Regulatory positions change and specific requirements should be verified against the current position published by the relevant authority before you act on them. This is information and analysis, not legal advice, and it does not create an advisory relationship. Take professional advice on your own circumstances.
Entering Pakistan's crypto market?
CoinConnect handles market entry, partnerships, PR and launch for exchanges and Web3 companies moving into Pakistan and South Asia.
Visit CoinConnect