They run together. The evidence required is proof of irrevocable commitment, so the transaction must progress far enough to create real exposure before the application can succeed.
Two processes on one calendar
This category creates an ordering problem that buyers reasonably dislike: the money must already be at risk before the application can be made, and the application may not succeed. The usual response is to structure commitment in documented stages with the transaction lawyer, so that exposure is real without being total on day one. Ask the seller early whether the deal can accommodate that, because a seller who needs a fast unconditional close may not be compatible with the process.
In parallel, begin source-of-funds retrieval immediately, since banks and institutions respond slowly and that work often determines when everything else can proceed. Treat the deal and the file as one project with shared deadlines. Hypothetical example: a refrigerated-display maintenance company wants to buy a U.S.
competitor before a busy retail rollout. The first review should produce a transaction sequence showing diligence, source-document retrieval, contract conditions, transfers, and the point when capital becomes exposed. The purchase agreement and escrow instructions settle the commitment mechanism; bank histories set the documentation lead time.
Start source work immediately while negotiating commercial protections. A common error is accepting an unconditional closing deadline because the seller insists on it, then discovering that the evidence cannot be assembled or the funds have been committed without a viable operating plan. The deal schedule must leave room for documentation and a careful review of commercial risk.