The Orthogonalized Read Is a Removable Training Scaffold for Recurrent Memory

Fixed-state recurrences--linear attention and state-space models--are reported to lag behind attention on associative recall, but whole-architecture comparisons cannot say which ingredient is responsible. We decompose masked multi-query recall at a fixed state budget along three single-knob axes: a short causal convolution, the transition structure (rank-1 delta rule vs. diagonal), and decay. The convolution dominates (~+0.5 recall in both families under matched training): comparisons that pit convolution-free cells against a convolution-equipped Mamba measure the missing convolution, not the recurrence. The rank-1 transition beats its diagonal ablation by +0.19/+0.32 at 16/32 pairs, but the margin shrinks to +0.03 once both cells carry the convolution, and a state-matched Mamba-2 ties the unarmed rank-1 cell: no class claim survives. Cells that solve 32-pair recall degrade gracefully with load yet fall to chance retrieving 4 pairs from a distractor haystack--flat across lengths and transitions. Interference under sparse supervision, not capacity: a distance curriculum takes the unchanged architecture from 0.021 to 1.000. Training is a lock-in lottery--a seed either locks in or does not--and the curriculum is the lever. Lock-in rises from 1/10 to 7/10 (p=0.02); dense supervision adds nothing; at L=256 a shaped ramp reopens a boundary the uniform curriculum cannot (4/5 vs. 0/9); and at L=512, where the ramp collapses (0/6), gating it on measured accuracy locks in 6/6 (p=0.001). Bidirectional denoiser cells, reading the query before the haystack, show no measurable advantage over causal training (ten seeds), and collision-key retrieval needs two layers. Arming for recall is free on an S_5 state-tracking guardrail--the armed cell is significantly better at every depth (p<=0.0044). These replace "recurrent models are bad at recall" with a measured decomposition and two cheap interventions.

Memoir combines per-sample fast memory, shared slow parameters, variable-depth latent recurrence, and a future-latent energy objective. We test its riskiest coupling: each pondering iteration may rewrite the fast tier that the same iteration reads. On procedural associative recall with key interference, we compare a coupled arm against an otherwise identical read-only pondering arm. Both arms contain 81,738 parameters, including 76,362 trainable parameters, and use matched declared forward multiply-accumulate counts, data, optimizer, schedule, and seeds. After 240 training steps across 12 seeds, coupled recall is 0.5203 with a 95 percent interval of [0.4522, 0.5883], while read-only recall is 0.6557 with [0.5953, 0.7160]. The arms are paired per seed, and the read-only lead of 0.1354 gives a paired t of 3.23 on 11 degrees of freedom with a 95 percent interval of [0.0431, 0.2277] on the difference, winning on 10 of 12 seeds. After 960 steps across 8 seeds, both arms reach 1.0000, so the measured effect is a learning-speed penalty at a fixed budget, not a demonstrated capability penalty. That longer control is ceiling limited, leaving convergence on a non-saturating task unmeasured. A predicted failure in which memory rewriting corrupts the energy signal did not occur: the energy margin grew and held. Kernel restructuring also reduced delta-rule forward time from 0.907 ms to 0.351 ms on the stated device. Code and evidence are available at https://github.com/RightNow-AI/Memoir

A language model with a bounded working memory must repeatedly decide which stored items to keep. Every deployed method decides the moment an item arrives, from the past (StreamingLLM, H2O) or from a guess about the future (SnapKV). We recast the choice as an estimation problem on a hidden signal, whether an item will be reused, placing existing methods on one axis, the commit lag $H$: online filters and learned predictors commit at $H=0$, while Belady's offline optimum sits where the whole future is known. The missing regime in between, fixed-lag smoothing, waits a bounded number of steps, observes which items a correct near-future prediction attended to, and only then commits. This measurement, demonstrated utility, turns Belady's unobservable future request into something we read off the model itself. We instantiate it as a training-free policy, RMM, a strict generalization of H2O that reduces to it exactly when the measurement is uniform. In controlled settings where reuse is endogenous and separated in time, demonstrated utility identifies used memory far better than accumulated attention, and a small bounded memory behaves like a much larger one. But on independent third-party benchmarks, run inside NVIDIA's KVPress harness against its own SnapKV, H2O, and StreamingLLM implementations, the advantage mostly disappears: RMM is on par with H2O for single-turn question answering and loses to both H2O and SnapKV in a streaming multi-turn setting. The cause is simple: on natural text the model is correct about most tokens, so weighting attention by correctness barely changes it, and demonstrated utility collapses onto accumulated attention unless reuse is sharp and endogenous, which standard benchmarks do not exercise. Our contribution is the framework and an honest map of when measuring beats accumulating, not a new state of the art.