When Old Facts Return: Re-Reads, Reverts, and the Limits of Temporal Memory

A memory can answer a current query correctly while discarding distinctions required by a later update. We investigate this failure with a paired-history audit: two histories have the same current answer, receive a shared future update, and require different subsequent answers. A pilot evaluates 24 history pairs across six synthetic mechanisms, 12 memory conditions, two repeats, and two model backends. A deterministic frontier selector obtains strict reveal accuracy of 96/96 on DeepSeek and 82/96 on GLM; a structured writer obtains 62 successes with one unresolved outcome and 56/96. The configured four-outcome joint contrast has finite-sample identification intervals of [0.521, 0.542] and [0.292, 0.313], not confidence intervals. A record-level audit distinguishes retained-state adequacy, response delivery, and answer-schema compliance without changing those original scores. It finds 26 and 25 well-formed but semantically wrong structured reveal memories, while all 14 GLM frontier reveal failures contain correct values in the wrong wrapper. Tombstone removal produces 16/16 exact replay failures in the targeted mechanism. Identifier renaming then exposes a separate flaw: original frontier late-reference adequacy falls from 8/8 to 94/320 transformed instances. We provide and test a label-equivariant repair, but it preserves only 2/8 original late-reference answers: eliminating a naming shortcut does not solve unknown future relevance. These results support a scoped evaluation methodology and reproducible failure analysis, not general superiority of the repaired algorithm. Paid pilot evidence, retrospective diagnostics, and new offline tests are reported separately; no independent held-out or natural-task validation is claimed.

AI systems increasingly retrieve from records that revise themselves: issue threads, encyclopedic histories, policy logs, and long conversations. The challenge is not only finding relevant evidence, but deciding which claims remain in force, which were superseded, and when to abstain. Structured memories promise to solve this with typed edges, temporal updates, and conflict status, yet evaluations often change mechanism and prompt presentation together. We study this as Evidence-State Revision, comparing flat retrieval, coarse edge invalidation, and fine-grained RevisionLedger on 2,907 high-agreement questions from GitHub, multi-repo issue histories, Wikipedia, and DyKnow-style temporal streams. A render-matched control (same layout, deprecation disabled) reveals the central confound: when a value is changed and later restored, RevisionLedger appears to beat a flat baseline by +0.182, but almost all the gain comes from easier presentation; the fine-grained mechanism residual is indistinguishable from zero (+0.021 to +0.025 across two judge families). After presentation is controlled, coarse invalidation is the only mechanism that pays for current-state queries, beating the fine ledger by 0.084; the same query-sufficiency principle says provenance mainly needs retained invalidated evidence, not richer typing. Memory evaluations should hold render fixed, and deprecation-aware systems should deploy the coarsest retained state that covers their queries.

Agent memory systems must discard stored information when their history exceeds a fixed token budget. Existing budget-accuracy frontiers quantify the resulting loss in accuracy, but do not distinguish irreversible losses caused by eviction from recoverable retrieval failures. We introduce the restore counterfactual, a per-question paired intervention that reinstates the question's gold evidence in the read-time context and reruns the same reader. Combining the change in correctness with whether the evidence was retained after eviction classifies each oracle-answerable error as recoverable, irreversible, or residual; in the residual case, the answer remains incorrect after restoration. We evaluate FIFO, random, redundancy-aware, and LLM-importance eviction on LongMemEval-S at three budgets and under two retrieval regimes, using GPT-4o-mini as the primary reader and judge and GPT-5.4-mini as a robustness reader. Under top-k retrieval at an 80k-token budget, the irreversible share among errors corrected by restoration is 0.67-0.73 for FIFO, random, and redundancy-aware eviction, compared with 0.60 for LLM-importance. At 8k tokens, it reaches 1.00 for all four policies. Recoverable errors occur under top-k retrieval at 80k tokens but are absent under forced-gold injection by construction, so budget-accuracy results are not directly comparable unless the retrieval regime is reported. An exploratory matched-accuracy analysis detects no difference in irreversible rate among accuracy-matched policy pairs at a resolution of 1.2-6 percentage points. The same analysis detects the deliberately destructive control. To our knowledge, this is the first per-item, per-question restore-counterfactual audit of eviction for external agent-memory stores on a standard conversational benchmark.