Inactivity clause: losing access by not using it
An inactivity clause allows access to end after a period of disuse rather than on a date. One platform in this register states that once a legacy period begins, an existing customer may lose access after fifteen days of inactivity, which can close a window measured in months in a fortnight. As of 2026-09-22.
| The rhythm of a series | What the clause does to it |
|---|---|
| Heavy generation while a block is in flight | Nothing; the model is being called daily |
| Weeks of writing, review and edit | The window can close during them |
| A pause between seasons | Access may be gone on return |
| A model kept as a fallback, rarely called | The fallback is the first thing lost |
Inclusion rule. Read from the lifecycle page of the one platform in this register that publishes such a clause. Activity is not defined there. Order. From continuous use to no use at all.
1Undefined is worse than short
The clause does not say what counts as activity: one request, a volume, a particular kind of call. Without a threshold a team cannot design a keep-alive with any confidence that it qualifies.
A defined minimum would be a mild inconvenience. An undefined one converts a published window into a risk nobody can quantify, which is a separate problem from the fifteen days.
2The clause targets exactly the wrong pattern
A production alternates between bursts of generation and weeks of other work. A fortnight of no calls is an ordinary gap in that rhythm rather than a sign that anybody has abandoned anything.
So the arrangement penalises intermittent use, which is what creative work looks like, and rewards continuous use, which is what software workloads look like.
3It applies only inside the window
The clause is stated for the legacy period, so a model still in the first state is not exposed to it. That makes reading the lifecycle state a genuinely protective habit rather than bookkeeping.
On that platform the state is readable through the interface, so the check can be automated. It is the one entry here where this risk could be caught before it bites.
A definition rather than a dated entry: no line above is a vendor statement. Where this word turns up in a real notice, the wording and the date are on the reading on that clause. Nearby terms: Active deployment, Export window, House model.