If we suppose that there exists: pure potentiality, pure actuality, pure necessity, as many philosophical and spiritual theories claim, it seems that potentiality should be prior.
If there is pure and infinite potentiality, then logically it will be followed by actualization. There are missing pieces here about why all these potentialities or a branch of them should actualize instead of remaining as potentiality, but we can say this is a potential outcome, a possibility ITSELF.
Necessity might be emergent from potentiality as well, as a set of axioms that could be otherwise, but for the particular instance/branch are fixed.
Both conclusions above might be tentative or might be prone to refutation. Yet we can still raise a key question. The question is: How could potentiality exist in the first place? As the eternal prior? Why not be nothing at all? Is potentiality necessary?
Another approach is to claim that necessity is prior, but this raises greater complications: how does necessity itself exist in the first place, and why does this particular set of necessary rules exist instead of others?
If we claim that actuality is prior and all else is created out of the initial actual existence, this complicates things more, as actuality is the most complex of the three. The multiplicity inherent in actuality seems less suitable as a first premise.