LLMSwaps

Which model each app runs today, and when it last changed

A legacy window against no window at all

One entry publishes a legacy window measured in months, with a clause that can close it after a fortnight of disuse. The other has no window at all: a copy already downloaded keeps working, so there is nothing for a date to be early against. As of 2026-09-22.

What each arrangement makes possible about timing. Recorded 2026-09-22.
On this pointAmazon BedrockWan-AI
Is there a windowYes, six months or 45 daysNo; nothing is scheduled to stop
Can it end soonerAfter 15 days of inactivityNot applicable
What ends on a dateAccess, in every regionNothing you already hold
What ends without a dateNew adoption, once legacy beginsNew downloads, if the listing goes
What replaces the riskA migration you performHardware, storage and operations

Inclusion rule. Both cells on a row come from the entry's own published pages: a lifecycle page for the platform, a repository listing and model card for the publisher. Order. Whether a window exists first, then what ends and when.

1Two ways to make timing a non-issue

One entry manages timing by publishing a window and a set of states. The other removes timing from the problem by handing over the artefact. Both are defensible and they demand different work from a production.

The first demands attention on a schedule. The second demands infrastructure continuously, and never demands attention at all.

Two ways to make timing a non-issueOne entry manages timing by publishing a window and a set of states. The other removes timing from the problem by handing over the artefact. The first demands attention on a schedule; the second demands infrastructure continuously.A published windowNo windowLengthSix months or 45 daysNot applicableCan be shortenedAfter 15 days of disuseNoWhat ends on a dateAccess, in every regionNothing you already holdWhat it costs insteadAttention on a scheduleHardware and an inference stackProcurement risk replaces schedule risk, and it arrives without a date too
Fig. 1 Nothing about holding weights can be shortened by not using them, which is the one clause with no counterpart.

2The inactivity clause has no counterpart

Nothing about holding weights can be shortened by not using them. That is worth stating because the platform's clause is the one sentence in this register that punishes the normal rhythm of serial production.

A team that pauses between episode blocks is exposed on one arrangement and untouched on the other. The reading for the clause sets out why fifteen days is an ordinary gap.

3Procurement risk replaces schedule risk

If a repository listing comes down, nobody loses a running copy and anybody who has not fetched it yet loses the chance. That is a purchasing problem rather than a lifecycle one, and it arrives without a date too.

The mitigation is keeping the weights rather than the address. Nothing publishes a state that will remind a team to do it, which is the trade recorded across every reading for that entry.

  • The three states a model can be in
    Active, Legacy or End-of-Life, readable from the modelLifecycle fieldAmazon Bedrock, model lifecycle / recorded 2026-09-22
  • Models published
    Wan2.2-T2V-A14B, Wan2.2-I2V-A14B, Wan2.2-TI2V-5B, Wan2.2-S2V-14B and the Animate variantsweights rather than an endpointWan-AI, repository listing / recorded 2026-09-22

4Sources

Both readings come from the pages the entries publish themselves: Amazon Bedrock and Wan-AI, read 2026-09-22. The column being compared is Ending early. Other pairs: Hailuo AI and Pika, SceneMixer and Pika.