The two most influential cognitive architecture frameworks for AI agents, CoALA [21] and JEPA [12], both lack an explicit Knowledge layer with its own persistence semantics. This gap produces a category error: systems apply cognitive decay to factual claims, or treat facts and experiences with identical update mechanics. We survey persistence semantics across existing memory systems and identify eight convergence points, from Karpathy's LLM Knowledge Base [10] to the BEAM benchmark's near-zero contradiction-resolution scores [22], all pointing to related architectural gaps. We propose a four-layer decom position (Knowledge, Memory, Wisdom, Intelligence) where each layer has fundamentally different persistence semantics: indefinite supersession, Ebbinghaus decay, evidence-gated revision, and ephemeral inference respectively. Companion implementations in Python and Rust demonstrate the architectural separation is feasible. We borrow terminology from cognitive science as a useful analogy (the Knowledge/Memory distinction echoes Tulving's trichotomy), but our layers are engineering constructs justified by persistence-semantics requirements, not by neural architecture. We argue that these distinctions demand distinct persistence semantics in engineering implementations, and that no current framework or system provides this.
Figures & tables
Layer
Definition
Persistence
Update
Scope
Knowledge
What is true
Indefinite; supersession
Append-only + provenance
Shared
Memory
What happened
Ebbinghaus decay
Bi-temporal event sourcing
Per-agent
Wisdom
What works
Durable; revision-gated
Evidence-threshold review
Multi-source
Intelligence
Capacity to reason
Ephemeral (inference-time)
N/A
Per-invocation
Table 1: Four-layer decomposition with persistence semantics. Each layer requires a different update mechanism. Treating any two identically produces the category error described in section 1 .
Figure 1: Four-layer cognitive architecture. Solid arrows (top) denote working pipelines active during inference. Dashed arrows (bottom) denote offline consolidation pipelines. The layers are co-equal substrates with distinct persistence semantics, not a strict hierarchy.
Source
What they found
What’s missing
Published / peer-reviewed
DeepMind Cognitive Framework [ 6 ]
10-faculty taxonomy; Working Memory under Executive Functions, not Memory; memory/learning distinction
Taxonomy only; no persistence semantics, no implementation
Hindsight [ 16 ]
5-level data hierarchy (entities → facts → observations → mental models), BEAM SOTA 64.1%/10M tokens
No forgetting, no decay, no bi-temporal, no supersession
BEAM [ 35 ]
Contradiction resolution <0.05 , temporal reasoning 0.12 across all systems at 10M tokens
Reveals gap, does not propose architectural solution
Table 2: Convergence points. Each source independently discovers or validates a component of the four-layer decomposition. The “What’s missing” column shows which layers or persistence semantics the source still lacks.
Category
Typed
Flat
Δ
Contradiction resolution
0.500
0.394
+0.106
Temporal reasoning
0.425
0.275
+0.150
Overall
0.463
0.334
+0.128
Table 3: BEAM pilot results (100K split, N=80 per condition). Typed routing to knowledge-base or memory-engine based on query type vs. a flat baseline.
CoALA
JEPA
Four-Layer
Knowledge
Semantic mem. (no distinct persistence)
In weights (lossy) or buffer (ephemeral)
Supersession + provenance
Memory
Episodic mem. (same persistence as semantic)
Short-Term Mem. (unstructured buffer)
Ebbinghaus + bi-temporal
Wisdom
Procedural mem.
World Model weights
Revision-gated + evidence
Intelligence
Working mem.
Configurator + Actor
Ephemeral orchestration
Persistence distinction
Named but not operationalized
Not identified
Explicit per layer
Table 4: Gap analysis: how CoALA and JEPA handle each cognitive substrate versus the four-layer decomposition.
While individual components for AI agent memory exist in prior systems, their architectural synthesis and formal grounding remain underexplored. We present Kumiho, a graph-native cognitive memory architecture grounded in formal belief revision semantics. The structural primitives required for cognitive memory -- immutable revisions, mutable tag pointers, typed dependency edges, URI-based addressing -- are identical to those required for managing agent-produced work as versionable assets, enabling a unified graph-native architecture that serves both purposes. The central formal contribution is a correspondence between the AGM belief revision framework and the operational semantics of a property graph memory system, proving satisfaction of the basic AGM postulates (K2--K6) and Hansson's belief base postulates (Relevance, Core-Retainment). The architecture implements a dual-store model (Redis working memory, Neo4j long-term graph) with hybrid fulltext and vector retrieval. On LoCoMo (token-level F1), Kumiho achieves 0.565 overall F1 (n=1,986) including 97.5% adversarial refusal accuracy. On LoCoMo-Plus, a Level-2 cognitive memory benchmark testing implicit constraint recall, Kumiho achieves 93.3% judge accuracy (n=401); independent reproduction by the benchmark authors yielded results in the mid-80% range, still substantially outperforming all published baselines (best: Gemini 2.5 Pro, 45.7%). Three architectural innovations drive the results: prospective indexing (LLM-generated future-scenario implications indexed at write time), event extraction (structured causal events preserved in summaries), and client-side LLM reranking. The architecture is model-decoupled: switching the answer model from GPT-4o-mini (~88%) to GPT-4o (93.3%) improves end-to-end accuracy without pipeline changes, at a total evaluation cost of ~$14 for 401 entries.
The most important architectural problem in AI is not the size of the model but the absence of a layer that carries forward what the model has come to understand. Sessions end. Context windows fill. Memory APIs return flat facts that the model has to reinterpret from scratch on every read. The result is intelligence that is powerful per session and amnesiac across time. This position paper argues that the layer which fixes this, the continuity layer, is the most consequential piece of infrastructure the field has not yet built, and that the engineering work to build it has begun in public. The formal evaluation framework for the property described here is the ATANT benchmark (arXiv:2604.06710), published separately with evaluation results on a 250-story corpus; a companion paper (arXiv:2604.10981) positions this framework against existing memory, long-context, and agentic-memory benchmarks. The paper defines continuity as a system property with seven required characteristics, distinct from memory and from retrieval; describes a storage primitive (Decomposed Trace Convergence Memory) whose write-time decomposition and read-time reconstruction produce that property; maps the engineering architecture to the theological pattern of kenosis and the symbolic pattern of Alpha and Omega, and argues this mapping is structural rather than metaphorical; proposes a four-layer development arc from external SDK to hardware node to long-horizon human infrastructure; examines why the physics limits now constraining the model layer make the continuity layer newly consequential; and argues that the governance architecture (privacy implemented as physics rather than policy, founder-controlled class shares on non-negotiable architectural commitments) is inseparable from the product itself.
Decomposing long-context inference across cooperating agents bounds the active KV cache per call rather than total evidence, which matters when KV-cache memory binds. Many such systems add a persistent tier storing and recalling reasoning traces, usually validated by an ablation reporting an accuracy gain. We measure both on one three-tier agent architecture. Decomposition delivers: peak KV working set of 14.3 MiB per query against 35.5 and 35.3 MiB for single-pass and retrieval-augmented baselines. The persistent tier does not: across eight controlled dataset pairs at n=100 per arm it costs +0.368 MiB [+0.167, +0.590] of peak cache and produces no detectable accuracy change (+0.015, 95% CI [-0.011, +0.046]). We argue the null is structural: single-question benchmarks supply each item with its own evidence and score it independently, and correctness requires resetting stored traces between conditions, so recall has nothing informative to retrieve. Reaching it took four measurement corrections -- three inflating the apparent benefit, the fourth making an effect that size look resolvable -- none visible in the results table. We give the conditions an agent-memory ablation must satisfy and detection procedures that need no knowledge of the specific defect.
Hochan Son, Kyungdoe Han, Jaehan Koh +3
University of California, Los Angeles · University of Wisconsin · HCLTech America