Two separate clocks run, and they work differently. The first applies during the evaluation: historically, a participant had to reach the profit target inside a fixed window, and failing to do so ended the attempt even with no rule broken. Many offers have since removed that window, so the evaluation stays open until the target is met or a rule is breached. Because both structures exist side by side, the presence or absence of a deadline is a real point of difference between offers rather than a settled market convention, and it is stated per offer rather than assumed.
The second clock applies after the evaluation is passed. Simulated funded arrangements rarely carry an outright expiry date. They more often end through an inactivity condition, which requires at least some trading within a defined period and closes the account when none occurs, or through the firm ending the agreement under a notice provision. That second route is worth separating from a breach. A breach is something the participant does: exceeding a drawdown limit, holding through a prohibited event, using a banned technique. Termination on notice is something the firm does under a clause it wrote, and the clause typically permits ending the arrangement, and sometimes varying its terms, either on notice or immediately in circumstances the agreement lists. Some agreements also allow terms to change for existing participants, not only for new ones.
Identity verification sits on top of both clocks. Most firms allow signup and trading with minimal checks and require documentary identity verification only before a payout is processed. The practical effect is that the verification requirement surfaces at the moment a payout is requested, not at the moment the account is opened, so a name mismatch, an unsupported country of residence or an unaccepted document type becomes visible late rather than early. Residency restrictions are often enforced at the same stage.
All of this lives in the participant agreement, the terms of service or the equivalent contract accepted at checkout. That document is not the same as the rule summary shown on a pricing or comparison page, which condenses drawdown and target mechanics and generally omits notice, variation, inactivity and verification clauses. Where the two disagree, the agreement governs.