A side-by-side comparison of Recall of An AI System and Withdrawal of An AI System. It explains the difference between removing a system from use after availability and stopping a system already in the supply chain from being made available on the market.
Quick Verdict: Use recall when the corrective action targets systems already made available to deployers; use withdrawal when the action prevents further market availability in the supply chain.
Recall Of An AI System defines regulatory measure requiring return, withdrawal, disabling, or removal of an AI system from use after it has been made.
Context: Most relevant when an AI system must be removed, disabled, or returned after deployers already had access to it.
Withdrawal Of An AI System defines measure intended to prevent an AI system already in the supply chain from being made available on the market.
Context: Most relevant when distribution or market availability must be halted before further supply or use.
| Aspect | Recall Of An AI System | Withdrawal Of An AI System |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory purpose | Recall aims to remove, disable, or recover an AI system after it has been made available to deployers. | Withdrawal aims to prevent an AI system already in the supply chain from being made available on the market. |
| Trigger point | Recall is triggered after availability to deployers or after use has become a concern. | Withdrawal is triggered while the system is in the supply chain or market-availability process. |
| Required evidence | Evidence should show affected systems, deployer notifications, removal or disablement steps, and completion tracking. | Evidence should show distribution stoppage, market-availability controls, supply-chain communications, and corrective decisions. |
| Responsible actor | Providers and relevant operators may need to coordinate with deployers to remove or disable the system. | Providers, importers, or distributors may be involved depending on who controls supply-chain availability. |
| Audit implication | Auditors will look for proof that deployed or available systems were actually removed, disabled, or returned. | Auditors will look for proof that further market availability was stopped and that supply-chain actors were informed. |
In practice, a serious conformity issue may require both withdrawal and recall actions. Teams should map where the system is in the supply chain before choosing the corrective-action label.
Using recall to describe a model-performance metric in a regulatory corrective-action record
Calling an action a withdrawal when systems already in use also need removal or disablement
Failing to keep evidence that affected deployers, distributors, or importers were notified
Use Recall of An AI System when the issue concerns a system already made available to deployers and the corrective action is return, removal, disabling, or withdrawal from use. It is the better term for post-availability remediation planning.
Use Withdrawal of An AI System when the corrective action is to stop a system in the supply chain from being made available on the market. It is the better term for market-control, distribution, and conformity-remediation documentation.
No. Recall concerns removing, disabling, or recovering a system after it has been made available to deployers. Withdrawal concerns preventing a system in the supply chain from being made available on the market.
Yes. If some systems are already with deployers and others remain in the supply chain, recall and withdrawal may both be appropriate. The action plan should separate the two tracks.
The terminology determines the evidence, responsible actors, and notification path. Using the wrong term can obscure whether the system was merely stopped from further distribution or actually removed from use.
No recently viewed comparisons yet.