Sandbox

The Sixty Working Day Sandbox Evaluation Timeline

The sixty-working-day clock on PVARA sandbox evaluations, when it starts, the Authority's extension power, and how it differs from the NOC's own deadline.

Malik Abbas · · 6 min read

Once a sandbox application clears initial screening, the PVARA Sandbox Guidelines 2026 attach a specific clock to what happens next. It is measured in working days, not calendar days, and it comes with an extension power that has no stated limit. Both details matter for a firm trying to plan around it.

This piece sets out exactly what the Timeline section of the Guidelines commits PVARA to, and where it does not.

How long does PVARA have to evaluate a sandbox application?

Sixty working days from a fixed starting point. The Guidelines’ Timeline section states: “The comprehensive evaluation must be completed within sixty (60) working days from the conclusion of the initial screening unless the Authority determines that there is reasonable cause to extend timeline.” That single sentence carries three separate commitments — a fixed period, a defined starting point, and a named exception — each of which is worth unpacking on its own.

When does the sixty-working-day clock start running?

At the conclusion of initial screening, not at the date the application was originally filed. This distinction is significant because screening itself has no fixed duration in the Guidelines, and an application that needs one or both of its two permitted resubmissions — described in the Application submission process section — will take longer to clear screening than one that is complete on first filing. A firm that files a complete application on day one starts its sixty-working-day clock sooner than a firm that files an incomplete application and uses both resubmissions, even though both may eventually reach the same Assessment Phase.

What counts as a “working day” versus a calendar day?

The Guidelines use the term “working day” without defining it further in the published text — no statement on whether Pakistani public holidays, weekends, or PVARA’s own office closures are excluded from the count. What can be said with confidence is that working days and calendar days are not the same measure, and sixty working days will always run longer in real time than sixty calendar days, since it excludes non-working days by definition. An applicant estimating a completion date should build in this gap rather than counting sixty days directly off a calendar.

Can PVARA extend the sixty-working-day period?

Yes, and the Guidelines set no outer limit on how long an extension can run. The exception clause — “unless the Authority determines that there is reasonable cause to extend timeline” — gives PVARA a standing power to extend the evaluation period whenever it determines reasonable cause exists. The Guidelines do not define “reasonable cause,” do not require the Authority to notify the applicant of an extension in any particular form, and do not cap how many times or for how long the period can be extended. In practice, this means the sixty-working-day figure functions as a target the Authority is expected to meet absent a reason to extend, rather than a hard deadline an applicant can rely on as an outer boundary.

Is this the same sixty-day window that applies to NOC applications?

No — and the two are easy to conflate because both use the figure sixty. They come from different provisions with different units and different starting points. The sandbox Timeline runs for sixty working days from the conclusion of initial screening, under the Sandbox Guidelines 2026. The separate no-objection certificate process, covered on this site’s general guide to the PVARA no-objection certificate, runs on its own decision window measured in calendar days from a different trigger, under the PVARA No Objection Certificate Regulations. A firm weighing the sandbox route against a direct no-objection certificate application should not assume the two timelines are interchangeable or additive — they govern different application types entirely, and each firm should track its own applicable clock against the process it is actually pursuing.

What happens once the evaluation period ends?

The Guidelines describe the outcome in the Key Evaluation Criteria section, immediately following the assessment factors: “After the detailed assessment and evaluation, the Authority shall issue a Letter of Approval (LoA) to the successful applicants subject to the terms and conditions as may be approved by the Authority.” Two things follow from this. First, the Letter of Approval is conditional — it comes with terms and conditions the Authority sets, not an unconditional pass. Second, the Guidelines describe the outcome only for successful applicants; they do not set out a parallel notice-and-reasons process for an unsuccessful one in the same section, and this analysis does not assume a rejection procedure the text does not state.

What should an applicant do with this timeline in practice?

Two practical points follow directly from the text. First, treat the sixty-working-day figure as the expected duration once screening is complete, not as a contractual deadline PVARA is bound to regardless of circumstance — the extension power is broad and largely undefined, so a firm building a launch plan around the sandbox should build in contingency past the sixty-working-day mark rather than treating it as fixed. Second, since the clock only starts once screening is cleared, the fastest route to a shorter overall timeline is a complete, well-documented first submission — the same conclusion a companion piece on this site reaches when looking at what makes a sandbox application fail on completeness grounds, because time lost to resubmissions sits entirely outside the sixty-working-day window and adds to it rather than being absorbed within it.

How to plan around a timeline you do not control

Two habits help, and both are about what you do while waiting rather than how you count the days.

Do not leave the entity and banking work until the outcome is known. The evaluation period is dead time only if you treat it as such. Work that has to happen regardless of the result — corporate structure, officer recruitment, banking conversations — can run in parallel, and running it in parallel is the difference between launching shortly after a decision and launching months later.

Keep the file current. Where facts stated in an application change while it is under evaluation — a director departs, a funding round closes, a technical design shifts — the position you filed is no longer the position you are in. Our view is that telling the Authority promptly is better than being asked about it later, though the Guidelines as supplied do not set out a formal mechanism for doing so.

Neither habit shortens the period. Both shorten the time between a decision and being able to act on it.

About this analysis

This analysis was prepared by the CoinConnect research desk from the Timeline section and the Key Evaluation Criteria section of the PVARA Sandbox Guidelines 2026, and, for the contrast with the NOC process, the decision-timeline provision of the PVARA No Objection Certificate Regulations, both read as published. Where a term such as “working day” or “reasonable cause” is not defined in the published text, that is stated above rather than assumed.

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

More analysis