A file you hold against a request that fails
Both entries have nothing to say about deleting material, for opposite reasons. One publishes weights, so the capability is a file the customer already holds and a withdrawal cannot reach it. The other serves an interface, and states precisely what a request receives after the retirement date. As of 2026-09-22.
| On this point | Wan-AI | Microsoft Foundry |
|---|---|---|
| What ends | New downloads from the listing | Every inference request |
| What the customer keeps | The weights, under the stated licence | Output already returned to them |
| Can the capability continue | Yes, on hardware they already run | No, and the date cannot be moved |
| What is published about it | A licence and download commands | A specific status code |
| What replaces the risk | Hardware, storage and operations | A migration to another version |
Inclusion rule. Both cells on a row come from the entry's own published pages: a model card and repository listing for the publisher, a lifecycle policy for the platform. Order. What ends first, then what survives it.
1Two clean answers, and both are unusual
Most entries in this register leave the question open. These two close it in opposite directions: one because the artefact was never theirs to remove, the other because the page names the exact failure a caller will see.
Precision of either kind is rare here. Eleven entries publish neither a licence for a held copy nor a described behaviour after a date.
2A status code is a planning instrument
Naming the response lets software tell a retirement apart from a transient fault, so a production learns about the date from its own logs. That is the only automated warning available anywhere in this register.
It arrives on the day rather than before it. Which is why the platform's notice period matters separately, and why the two publishing platforms are worth reading against each other.
3Holding the weights moves the work rather than removing it
A copy that cannot be withdrawn still has to be stored, backed up and served on hardware somebody pays for. The uncertainty becomes overhead, which is a cost a production can budget in advance.
Neither arrangement is safer in the abstract. The reading for the publisher sets out what the licence does and does not settle about a held copy.
- Licence stated on the weightsApache 2.0
- What the endpoint does after the retirement dateAll inference requests return 410 Gone
4Sources
Both readings come from the pages the entries publish themselves: Wan-AI and Microsoft Foundry, read 2026-09-22. The column being compared is Stored work. Other pairs: Wan-AI and Sora, Pika and invideo AI.