<p>Hollanek and Nowaczyk-Basińska (2024) analyse the harms of AI-enabled re-creation services and offer four recommendations to providers. I accept their diagnosis but argue that their prescription shares a premise with the industry it seeks to reform: that a responsible provider remains present to carry it out. All four recommendations (retirement procedures, meaningful transparency, adult-only access, and mutual consent) are addressed to a continuing operator. Yet the paper’s own opening example, Project December, shows a service evading provider-level control by re-hosting itself elsewhere. Since publication, StoryFile has filed for bankruptcy and users have migrated companions across platforms. I draw on three concepts (orchestrator-free propagation, post-removal hunger, and the reservoir problem) to turn recognition toward the failure mode the recommendations do not reach: harm that continues to reproduce after the orchestrator is gone. I name it a requiem. Even if the digital afterlife industry tries to meet its responsibilities, the requiem can go on reverberating.</p>