Infrastructure Funding Gap - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Does anybody know whether one is required to depict the 'infrastructure funding gap' as purely the infrastructure intended to be funded through a CIL once other potential sources have been taken into account (including anticipated s106 obligations income, LA corporate borrowing, grant funding etc), or whether the gap includes infrastructure potentially to be funded through s106, LA corporate borrowing and/or grant funding etc? I have seen some cases where the gap is depicted purely as what is intended to be funded through a CIL, others where the gap is everything requiring funding through a s106 or CIL, and yet others which appear to ignore existing public sector sources of infrastructure funding where it seems the gap is the infrastructure cost total? In terms of 3rd party funding (grants) etc. it is my understanding that it should be subtracted from the infrastructure funding gap total but only if the funding total is known i.e. is confirmed? Are LAs expected to provide an estimate of anticipated 3rd part/grant income and subtract this from the infrastructure funding gap total?