# VisitRecall: CAIHL reassessment

September 8, 2026. Published AI-assisted draft.

VisitRecall is winding down. Recording ends September 30, 2026. Users can download or delete records through December 31, 2026, after which the service says remaining data will be permanently deleted. Its published restriction on using outputs against providers remains relevant to the exported record.

## Scope and agency posture

Consumer visit companion now winding down, with record export and deletion as the immediate patient-agency pathway. Preserve Hugo's August-directed Mixed posture at 78 and the earlier 83 history.

Posture: **Mixed**.

Axis: Unscored in current comparisons. Historical axis: 78/100. Recording ends September 30, 2026. Export access ends December 31, 2026. This is a scope change, not a numerical downgrade.

## Sources and documented findings

- The [homepage](https://visitrecall.com/) redirected to the public [closure/data-management notice](https://visitrecall.com/manage-my-data/): recording stops September 30, 2026, download/deletion access lasts through December 31, 2026, and remaining data is permanently deleted afterward. It describes a readable visit-record file and a full JSON export including transcripts. Managed profiles are included, while records shared by another family member remain that person's responsibility. These are page descriptions, not completed exports.

- The direct repeat request to the closure URL returned a cache miss, but the initial homepage response contained the full notice. No phone number, code or other data was entered. The public page's embedded signed-in and success-state text is not evidence that any account was accessed or deleted.

- Current [terms section 5](https://visitrecall.com/terms) retain the prohibition on using generated material in legal claims or regulatory complaints against providers, with billing and insurance disputes excepted. Ownership and export rights do not remove that restriction.

- The current [privacy policy](https://visitrecall.com/privacy) still names on-device transcription, deletion of audio after transcription, consent before sending text to Anthropic, contractual no-training, data correction/export rights and server-deletion periods. The closure notice adds a specific service-end timeline.

## Patient authority

Inference from the documented workflow: The patient's immediate task is preserving a usable independent record before the service ends. Export may extend authority beyond the vendor, but the surviving published restriction on evidence use constrains what users are told they may do with it. Managed-profile authority and family-shared records are explicitly different.

## Critical capacity

Editorial assessment: Readable records and raw transcript data can preserve the basis for later checking and advocacy. Missing audio and untested export completeness limit reconstruction. Future visit prompts and booking should no longer lead a description of a closing product.

## Informed control

Editorial assessment: The dated closure notice makes continuity and exit conditions concrete. The general claim that everything is yours to take does not expressly repeal the legal-use clause. Whether that clause is enforceable is not determined here.

## Assessment and limits

Move the entry from an ordinary active-product comparison to a winding-down service with a prominent export deadline. Keep the prior mixed judgment and numeric history as historical context. Closure is a scope change, not a reason to invent a lower agency score.

Confidence: High for the retrieved dated closure announcement and published clause, limited for export implementation.

Remaining uncertainty: Export completeness, family permissions, actual deletion, subscription handling and the continuing legal effect of the restriction were not tested or adjudicated.

Published documentation is evidence of stated conditions, not proof of actual implementation. Unknowns did not receive automatic negative points. Funding, sponsorship, and public code do not determine agency by themselves.

## Review provenance

- Reviewer/model: OpenAI Codex / GPT-6.
- Method: Focused public-source reassessment using CAIHL: patient authority, critical capacity, and informed control. Existing evidence plus one focused primary-source pass and at most one targeted follow-up. No live product testing. Numerical scores remain provisional editorial placements, not a new calculation.
- Human review: Hugo Campos authorized publication of these AI-assisted draft reassessments on September 8, 2026. This does not claim comprehensive human verification of every finding.
- Earlier review: 2026-08-18. [Historical assessment](https://github.com/hugooc/HugoScore/blob/7e0ba68fae543832fe5f19009448e473983f48a9/site/reports/visitrecall-caihl-report.md). Earlier claims are not automatically reverified by this publication.