Speculative decoding is a popular decode acceleration method. As such, it is particularly relevant to long-output generation, which requires an increasingly large KV cache. KV cache compression offers a way to constrain costs in long-context drafting. However, compression methods that focus on prefill information can lose relevance as the output length grows. We term this phenomenon decode staleness and show that it degrades draft model accuracy under selection-based KV cache compression. We introduce RIFT, a family of selection-based KV cache compression strategies that balance prefill information and recent generated tokens. We show that refreshing the KV cache selection during token generation significantly improves the drafter's quality at the cost of additional decode latency. To alleviate the refresh costs, we propose an adaptive KV refresh strategy that reduces the number of score calculations while retaining the drafter's quality. We further demonstrate how a compressibility-driven drafter training phase, based on sparse attention masks, can improve the drafter's quality under a compressed KV cache. Combined with compressibility training, RIFT enables Qwen3.5-4B, drafting for Qwen3.5-122B, to retain over 98% of its full-cache acceptance length on 32K-token inputs, 4K-token outputs, and an 8K-token KV cache budget.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: AL improvement of RIFT and compressibility training on a Qwen3.5-4B draft (Qwen3.5-122B target), SPEED-Bench 32K ISL low-entropy, draft length 11. (a) AL vs. generation interval at 8K cache budget. (b) AL vs. KV cache budget. AL is measured vs. the full-KV draft AL. Diagonal pattern denotes compression-aware training.
Figure 2: Fraction of full-KV attention mass retained by SW and SnapKV (with 64 token SW) in the Qwen3.5-4B draft on 32K-ISL data, with an 8K budget. SnapKV retains less attention as generation proceeds, while SW retains more.
Figure 3: Effect of the sliding-window allocation ratio. 4K OSL and 8K KV budget. Qwen3.5-4B drafts Qwen3.5-122B on SPEED-Bench 32K ISL data. ρ=0 denotes SnapKV with a fixed 64-token SW, and ρ=1 corresponds to pure SWA.
Figure 4: Effect of RIFT-dyn’s refresh interval on AL (blue) and projected rescoring overhead relative to measured draft decode time (orange). Qwen3.5-4B, 100K ISL, 8K cache budget, and 4K OSL. Appendix D.2 describes the latency projection.
Figure 5: KV rescore patterns comparison on a candidate sample from SPEED-Bench. RIFT-ada attains a higher AL and requires less KV refreshes. It can be seen that KV refreshes are not periodic and depend on generation location.
Draft (ISL)
T
SW
SnapKV
RIFT
stat
dyn
ada
Qwen3.5 (32K)
0
5.23
4.07
5.62
6.12
6.19
1
4.70
3.69
4.99
5.48
5.55
Qwen3.5 (100K)
0
6.12
4.46
6.40
7.14
7.17
Qwen3.5 (100K)
1
5.40
3.82
5.55
6.21
6.36
Llama3.1 (32K)
0
2.24
5.19
6.07
6.91
7.48
Table 1: AL on low-entropy SPEED-Bench 32K/100K ISL, with an 8K budget, 4K OSL, and draft length 11. Qwen3.5: 4B → 122B; Llama3.1: 8B → 70B; Nemotron3.5-Lightning in self-speculation and as an external draft to Nemotron3-Ultra target.
Budget
Selection score
Baseline
+ RIFT-stat
4K
CriticalKV
3.57
5.02 (+40.6%)
Expected Attention
3.59
5.03 (+40.2%)
CurDKV
3.29
4.84 (+47.1%)
8K
CriticalKV
4.13
5.62 (+36.2%)
Expected Attention
4.06
5.56 (+36.9%)
CurDKV
3.76
5.35 (+42.2%)
Table 2: Absolute AL at T=0 (relative gains in parentheses): fixed 64-token SW versus RIFT-stat ( ρ=0.5 ). Qwen3.5-4B drafts Qwen3.5-122B on SPEED-Bench 32K ISL, 4K OSL, draft length 11.
Draft
Target
SnapKV
+ RIFT-stat
+ RIFT-dyn
Qwen3.5-4B
DSV4-Flash
3.50
4.26
5.35
DSV4-Pro
3.43
4.26
5.07
Llama3.2-1B
DSV4-Flash
2.50
3.24
3.50
DSV4-Pro
2.37
3.07
3.26
Table 3: Absolute AL for adapted drafters of DeepSeek-V4-Flash/Pro on low-entropy SPEED-Bench: 32K ISL, 8K budget, 4K OSL, T=0 , draft length 11.
Figure 6: RIFT-ada AL-refresh tradeoff at T=1 for Qwen3.5-4B drafting Qwen3.5-122B on SPEED-Bench 32K low-entropy data, with an 8K budget and 4K OSL.
32K ISL
100K ISL
Method
T=0
T=1
T=0
T=1
StreamingLLM
5.34
4.73
5.60
4.98
H 2 O
5.73
5.03
6.65
5.77
TriAttention
5.43
4.77
6.10
5.11
RIFT-stat
5.62
4.99
6.40
5.55
RIFT-dyn
6.12
5.48
7.14
6.21
Table 4: Absolute AL against decode-time baselines. Qwen3.5-4B draft, low-entropy SPEED-Bench, 8K budget, 4K OSL, and draft length 11.
RIFT-stat
RIFT-dyn
Draft → target
T
2K
4K
8K
2K
4K
8K
Qwen3.5 (4B → 122B)
0
+7.70%
+6.87%
+5.70%
+7.48%
+5.50%
+3.72%
1
+16.19%
+14.88%
+12.28%
+15.51%
+12.25%
+9.21%
Lightning → Nemotron3-Ultra
0
+7.51%
+7.48%
+7.59%
+7.88%
+7.86%
+5.59%
1
+15.69%
+15.63%
+15.08%
+16.42%
+15.84%
+13.19%
Lightning self-speculation
0
+5.3%
+3.4%
+2.5%
+6.5%
+2.8%
+1.0%
Table 5: Relative AL improvement from compression-aware KD over the base model under the same KV compression policy and budget, evaluated on SPEED-Bench 32k ISL with draft length 11.
Figure 7: Compression-aware distillation. The snowflake and fire symbols denote frozen and trainable passes, respectively. The mask combines recent positions (purple) with importance-selected context (green).
Method
T
2K
4K
8K
RIFT-stat
0
+5.44%
+4.68%
+3.71%
1
+7.31%
+6.37%
+4.66%
RIFT-dyn
0
+5.34%
+3.51%
+1.82%
1
+7.25%
+4.73%
+2.37%
Table 6: Relative AL improvement from compression-aware training over a similar training recipe with no compression-driven masks. Qwen3.5-4B → Qwen3.5-122B, SPEED-Bench 32k ISL, draft length 11.
Appendix figures & tables30 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 8: Attention KV cache share of total memory in two hybrid architectures, evaluated at the end of prefill.
Figure 9: Full-attention mass shifts from prompt tokens to the generated prefix in the Qwen3.5-4B draft on 32K-ISL data.
Figure 10: Interval AL across model families, with full-KV references. Target/draft pairs (left to right): GPT-OSS-120B/20B, Nemotron-Super-120B/Nano-30B, Qwen3-235B/8B, and Llama-3.1-70B/8B. Each panel uses its own AL scale. The corresponding Qwen3.5 comparison appears in Figure 1 (a).
Figure 11: Interval AL versus generated-token position for Qwen3.5-4B drafting Qwen3.5-122B responses, with thinking enabled and disabled. Reasoning magnifies the late staleness gap, but the SnapKV-SW crossover persists even without it.
Figure 12: Additional sliding-window ratio ablations with the same base draft model, requests, and evaluation settings as Figure 3 . Panel titles specify the output-length cap and KV budget. Stars mark ρ=0.5 in the first four panels and the optimum ρ=0.6 in the 1K-output, 1K-budget panel (AL 3.648 , versus 3.597 at ρ=0.5 ); the zero-labeled endpoint denotes fixed-64 SnapKV, and ρ=1 denotes pure SWA. Broken diagonals indicate omitted AL range.
Figure 13: Effect of draft length for Qwen3.5-4B drafting for Qwen3.5-122B-A10B on low-entropy SPEED-Bench 32K prompts, with a 4K output cap. Compressed methods use an 8K KV budget and block size 128; Full-KV retains the full context. Each point is mean per-request AL.
Figure 14: Mean per-request acceptance length versus forced output sequence length for Qwen3.5-4B drafting for Qwen3.5-122B-A10B on SPEED-Bench 32K low-entropy prompts. All compressed methods use an 8K KV budget and draft length 11.
ISL
Entropy
T
Budget
SW
SnapKV
RIFT-stat
RIFT-dyn
RIFT-ada
32K
Low
0
2K
64.8%
49.7%
70.3%
79.5%
81.5%
4K
71.3%
54.5%
77.7%
88.5%
90.2%
8K
80.9%
63.0%
86.9%
94.6%
95.8%
Low
1
2K
61.8%
47.1%
65.9%
74.7%
77.0%
4K
68.0%
52.0%
72.5%
84.1%
86.3%
8K
78.6%
61.8%
83.4%
91.7%
92.8%
Appendix
Table 7: retained AL (%) of full-KV, Qwen3.5-4B draft with, Qwen3.5-122B target across SPEED-Bench workloads (ISL and entropy category) and cache budgets. The absolute full-KV ALs for 32K low T=0/1 , 32K high T=0 , 100K low T=0 , and 100K high T=0 are 6.466/5.978 , 4.617 , 7.472 , and 4.506 , respectively. All settings use draft length 11 and maximum output length 4K.
ISL
Entropy
T
SW
SnapKV
RIFT-stat
RIFT-dyn
RIFT-ada
32K
Low
0
85.5%
67.3%
89.0%
95.9%
98.1%
Low
1
85.5%
68.2%
86.9%
94.2%
96.4%
High
0
91.5%
75.0%
95.6%
97.9%
98.6%
High
1
92.6%
77.7%
94.9%
97.1%
97.9%
100K
Low
0
82.6%
61.0%
87.5%
94.6%
97.4%
Low
1
84.6%
62.0%
86.9%
92.7%
97.1%
Appendix
Table 8: Base Qwen3.5-0.8B draft performance at an 8K cache budget, expressed as a percentage of the matching Full KV AL for Qwen3.5-122B target responses. The absolute full-KV ALs for 32K low T=0/1 and high T=0/1 are 4.807/4.148 and 3.272/2.836 ; for 100K low T=0/1 and high T=0 , they are 5.763/4.748 and 3.225 .
Draft
Target
T
Budget
SW
SnapKV
RIFT-stat
RIFT-dyn
Nano
Super
0
2K
53.0%
41.8%
52.6%
62.1%
4K
57.1%
45.1%
57.2%
73.2%
8K
63.4%
52.8%
63.9%
83.4%
Nano
Ultra
0
2K
69.1%
56.0%
69.9%
76.6%
4K
74.4%
60.5%
75.2%
85.9%
8K
81.3%
68.4%
82.8%
93.2%
Appendix
Table 9: Full-KV AL retention in Nemotron3-family, low-entropy SPEED-Bench 32K split. The absolute full-KV ALs are 6.944 (Nano → Super, T=0 ), 4.994 (Nano → Ultra, T=0 ), 6.647/5.520 (Lightning → Super, T=0/1 ), 5.394/4.859 (Lightning → Ultra, T=0/1 ), and 10.009/11.222 (Lightning self-speculation, T=0/1 ).
Draft → target
Budget
SW
SnapKV
RIFT-stat
RIFT-dyn
Llama-3.1-8B → Llama-3.1-70B
2K
26.6%
53.7%
64.3%
70.5%
4K
27.6%
58.1%
70.1%
79.7%
8K
28.6%
66.1%
77.4%
88.0%
GPT-OSS-20B → GPT-OSS-120B
2K
62.3%
32.0%
56.4%
67.7%
4K
65.5%
32.6%
64.9%
76.8%
8K
69.6%
34.0%
71.4%
87.8%
Appendix
Table 10: Llama3.1 and GPT-OSS cache-budget sweeps on the T=0 , low-entropy SPEED-Bench 32K workload. Values are AL as a percentage of the matching full-KV AL. The absolute full-KV AL is 7.849 for Llama and 5.746 for GPT-OSS. All settings use draft length 11 and maximum output length 4K.
Table 11: DeepSeek V4 Pro with trained external drafters on the T=0 , low-entropy SPEED-Bench workloads. For Qwen3.5-0.8B, Qwen3.5-4B, and Llama3.2-1B, respectively, the absolute full-KV ALs are 4.343/5.389/3.969 at 32K and 4.263/5.427/3.674 at 100K.
Table 12: DeepSeek V4 Flash with trained external drafters on the T=0 , low-entropy SPEED-Bench workloads. For Qwen3.5-0.8B, Qwen3.5-4B, and Llama3.2-1B, respectively, the absolute full-KV ALs are 4.830/5.714/4.401 at 32K and 5.308/6.338/4.896 at 100K.
RIFT-stat
RIFT-dyn
RIFT-ada
T
2K
4K
8K
2K
4K
8K
2K
4K
8K
0
60.5%
66.0%
72.7%
84.3%
93.4%
97.1%
88.4%
94.8%
98.3%
1
56.6%
62.5%
69.3%
81.5%
91.6%
96.1%
87.2%
94.7%
98.2%
Appendix
Table 13: Post-training AL as a percentage of the matching full-KV AL for cross-tokenizer Qwen3.5-4B → Kimi-K3 drafting. The absolute full-KV AL is 4.834/5.138 at T=0/1 .
Figure 15: Effect of SnapKV block size for Qwen3.5-4B drafting for Qwen3.5-122B with a 50/50 local–remote cache split. The 32K experiments use an 8K cache budget; the 100K experiments use a 16K budget. The top and bottom rows report T=0 and T=1 , respectively. Moderate block sizes are broadly robust, whereas very coarse blocks reduce selection resolution and lower AL.
Budget
Selector
T=0
T=1
4K
CriticalKV
3.57→5.02(+40.6%)
3.15→4.33(+37.3%)
Expected Attention
3.59→5.03(+40.2%)
3.09→4.30(+39.0%)
CurDKV
3.29→4.84(+47.1%)
2.84→4.14(+45.5%)
8K
CriticalKV
4.13→5.62(+36.2%)
3.74→4.98(+33.1%)
Expected Attention
4.06→5.56(+36.9%)
3.56→4.83(+35.9%)
CurDKV
3.76→5.35(+42.2%)
3.26→4.63(+42.1%)
Appendix
Table 14: RIFT-stat extends beyond SnapKV: Qwen3.5-4B draft (Qwen3.5-122B target), 32K ISL, 4K OSL with draft length of 11. Each entry shows baseline AL → AL with RIFT-stat, followed by the relative improvement.
Figure 16: RIFT-ada AL-refresh tradeoffs for Qwen3.5-4B drafting Qwen3.5-122B on SPEED-Bench low-entropy data, with a 4K maximum OSL. Titles specify ISL, temperature, and KV cache budget.
Table 15: Full-KV score retention (%) for Qwen3.5-4B under the modified LongBench protocol described above. Absolute full-KV scores are 47.607 for LongBench-v1 and 38.569 for LongBench-v2.
Task
SnapKV
SWA
RIFT-stat
RIFT-dyn
RIFT-ada
T=0
Sorting
3.65
3.96
4.84
5.35
5.61
Creative writing
3.90
4.86
5.79
6.29
6.28
NIAH
4.30
4.86
5.50
6.16
6.18
Code debugging
3.76
5.02
5.58
6.67
6.80
Creative writing
3.03
3.91
4.18
4.39
4.42
Appendix
Table 16: Mean AL using SPEED-Bench data of ISLs 16K, 32K and 100K, at T=0 and T=1 . Draft model is Qwen3.5-4B drafting for Qwen3.5-122B. Draft length is 11 and max OSL is 4K.
Model
ISL
T
StreamingLLM
RIFT-stat
RIFT-dyn
RIFT-ada
Qwen3.5
32K
0
5.34
5.58
6.08
6.17
1
4.73
4.92
5.40
5.49
100K
0
5.60
5.77
6.61
6.73
1
4.98
5.07
5.76
5.92
Llama3.1
32K
0
5.87
5.87
6.58
7.08
1
4.20
4.41
4.89
5.41
Appendix
Table 17: Mean AL on SPEED-Bench low-entropy data. Qwen3.5-4B drafts for Qwen3.5-122B and Llama3.1-8B for Llama3.1-70B. All rows use an 8K budget, draft length 11, and a 4K maximum OSL. StreamingLLM retains an 8K window plus four sinks.
T
Budget
StreamingLLM
H 2 O
TriAttention
RIFT-stat
RIFT-dyn
RIFT-ada
ISL 32K
0
2K
4.52
4.68
4.54
4.54
5.14
5.28
4K
4.79
5.25
4.97
5.03
5.73
5.82
8K
5.34
5.73
5.43
5.62
6.12
6.17
1
2K
3.90
4.06
3.86
3.94
4.47
4.54
4K
4.17
4.53
4.27
4.34
5.03
5.10
Appendix
Table 18: Mean AL on SPEED-Bench low entropy for Qwen3.5-4B drafting Qwen3.5-122B, with draft length 11 and a 4K maximum OSL. StreamingLLM uses the stated window plus four sinks.
T=0
T=1
Training configuration
2K
4K
8K
2K
4K
8K
Random, dynamic p
4.67
5.15
5.70
4.32
4.71
5.34
Random, p=0.1
4.31
4.76
5.20
3.99
4.37
4.87
Random, p=0.3
4.56
5.04
5.56
4.22
4.62
5.21
Random, p=0.5
4.59
5.09
5.67
4.24
4.66
5.29
Random, p=0.7
4.63
5.12
5.70
4.25
4.66
5.31
Appendix
Table 19: AL of the trained draft model (Qwen3.5-4B) under various masking strategies. ’dynamic p ’ refers to the same p allocation used in the main draft-compressibility results.
RIFT-stat
RIFT-dyn
Training configuration
2K
4K
8K
2K
4K
8K
(a) Sliding-window ratio ρ during training
ρ=0.10
4.67
5.19
5.80
5.36
5.92
6.28
ρ=0.25
4.69
5.21
5.82
5.39
5.92
6.29
ρ=0.50
4.72
5.22
5.81
5.40
5.93
6.29
ρ=0.75
4.72
5.21
5.79
5.38
5.93
6.30
Appendix
Table 20: Training-mask hyperparameter ablations for Qwen3.5-4B drafting Qwen3.5-122B on SPEED-Bench 32K low-entropy. All checkpoints are evaluated with ρ=0.5 with T=0 .
T=0
T=1
Training configuration
RIFT-stat
RIFT-dyn
RIFT-stat
RIFT-dyn
LoRA-32, constant 10−5
5.30±0.13
5.85±0.13
4.93±0.11
5.46±0.12
LoRA-128, decay from 10−5
5.29±0.13
5.85±0.13
4.93±0.12
5.45±0.13
Full FT, constant 5×10−6
5.29±0.13
5.82±0.13
4.91±0.12
5.43±0.13
Full FT, decay from 10−5
5.30±0.13
5.85±0.13
4.94±0.12
5.46±0.13
Appendix
Table 21: Training hyperparameter comparison. Results are reported in average ALs with 95% confidence intervals.
RIFT-stat
RIFT-dyn
RIFT-ada
T
2K
4K
8K
2K
4K
8K
2K
4K
8K
0
+4.05%
+2.24%
+0.97%
+4.90%
+2.54%
+0.97%
+2.57%
+0.37%
−0.34%
1
+12.50%
+9.87%
+7.03%
+12.04%
+7.95%
+5.12%
+9.80%
+5.49%
+3.79%
Appendix
Table 22: Relative AL improvement from compressibility training for Qwen3.5-4B drafting Qwen3.5-122B on SPEED-Bench 100K.
T
2K
4K
8K
0
+15.57%
+13.50%
+11.52%
1
+26.54%
+23.80%
+21.07%
Appendix
Table 23: Relative AL improvement from draft compressibility training for SnapKV: Qwen3.5-4B draft (Qwen3.5-122B target), 100K low-entropy split.
ISL
Entropy
T
Full KV
SW
RIFT-stat
RIFT-dyn
32K
Low
0
+0.55%
+0.90%
+0.84%
+0.81%
Low
1
+7.77%
+6.43%
+9.71%
+8.87%
High
0
+0.82%
+0.80%
+0.98%
+0.84%
High
1
+8.95%
+7.30%
+9.33%
+9.32%
100K
Low
0
+0.00%
+1.73%
+0.90%
+0.77%
Low
1
+5.90%
+5.70%
+8.24%
+7.68%
Appendix
Table 24: Relative AL improvement from training the Qwen3.5-0.8B draft, measured on SPEED-Bench at an 8K cache budget against the corresponding untrained draft.
T=0
T=1
Inference method
Budget
Base
Trained
Base
Trained
Full KV
–
5.39
5.75
4.86
5.49
Sliding window
2K
3.62
3.87
3.21
3.73
4K
3.92
4.19
3.49
4.02
8K
4.31
4.60
3.86
4.43
RIFT-stat
2K
3.75
4.04
3.39
3.92
Appendix
Table 25: Average accepted length before and after compressibility training of Nemotron3.5-Lightning drafting Nemotron-3-Ultra on SPEED-Bench 32K low-entropy. The trained checkpoint uses skewed KL with α=0.5 . Static and Dynamic SnapKV use a sliding-window ratio of ρ=0.5 .
Draft → target
ISL
Entropy
T
2K
4K
8K
Qwen3.5-4B → Qwen3.5-122B
32K
Low
0
+3.88%
+2.38%
+1.69%
1
+10.03%
+7.88%
+6.70%
Appendix
Table 26: Relative AL improvement from compressibility training on RIFT-ada.
Long-context large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities across a wide range of tasks, but the growing KV cache introduces substantial memory and inference overhead. Existing one-shot KV cache compression methods typically commit to irreversible eviction immediately after prefill, before any signal from actual generation becomes available. Our quantitative analysis shows that early queries from the actual generation stage provide attention signals that are more consistent with subsequent decode attention, with the largest single-step gain occurring at the prefill-decode boundary. Based on this observation, we propose DeferKV, which moves the eviction decision from the end of prefill to the first real decoding step and temporally combines prompt-side and decode-side observations, thereby better aligning KV importance estimation with subsequent generation requirements. DeferKV requires no additional training, draft model, or future-query prediction module, making it simple and easy to deploy. Experiments on LongBench, RULER, and Needle-in-a-Haystack demonstrate that DeferKV consistently improves model performance under KV cache compression while maintaining low inference latency.
Zhe Wang, Jiakai Li, Yujia Sun +2
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China · Ubiquitous Intelligence and Trusted Services Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu, China
Speculative decoding accelerates LLM inference, but SOTA hidden-state-based drafters suffer from long-range decay: draft accuracy degrades as the speculative step increases. Existing work attributes this decay to train-inference mismatch and proposes test-time training (TTT) as a remedy, yet we observe that long-range decay persists even in TTT-trained drafters. We revisit long-range decay from the perspective of context information preservation. In hidden-state reuse, we argue the target hidden state acts as a biased context compression: it aggregates historical token information according to the attention query at the current position, yielding a compact representation optimized for immediate next-token prediction. This compression can suppress information less relevant to the current query but important for later speculative steps. In contrast, the target model's KV cache serves as an explicit context, retaining the complete set of token-wise KV representations. We therefore posit the KV-Reuse Hypothesis: allowing the draft model to reuse the target KV cache can provide richer signals for long-horizon drafting. To test this hypothesis, we introduce KVShot, a diagnostic framework that compares three reuse paradigms: hidden-only, KV-only, and hybrid. Extensive evaluations on Qwen3-8B show that KV-Reuse improves long-range acceptance, although end-to-end speedups remain marginal under current training pipelines. Our analysis identifies two key structural bottlenecks: shallow drafters struggle to estimate target queries accurately, and draft-side KV projections receive sparse gradient signals. These findings suggest that realizing the full potential of KV-aware decoding requires moving beyond TTT toward block-wise training paradigms. By exposing these bottlenecks, KVShot provides a foundational diagnostic testbed and a clear roadmap for designing next-generation inference architectures.
Tianyu Liu, Yuhao Shen, Xinyi Hu +8
1Qwen Applications Business Group of Alibaba · University of Science and Technology of China · 3Zhejiang University
As context windows scale to tens or hundreds of thousands of tokens, KV cache compression has become essential for efficient LLM inference. Existing methods fall into three families: score-based eviction, summary compensation, and offload-and-recall. Yet all three decide what to keep or recall by content relevance to the current query. We show this shared design is structurally incomplete. A cache supports two access modes: associative lookup by content and sequential traversal by position; current compressors implement only the first. The gap matters in practice: retrieval-augmented generation, code completion, and structured-data extraction all require the model to reproduce identifiers, field values, or code tokens verbatim from the context. Under compression, content-based eviction retains the head of such a sequence but discards its continuation, causing verbatim copying to break irreversibly midway, a failure we call sequential forgetting. This failure resists better scoring, larger budgets, summary compensation, and dynamic re-scoring; it is the dominant source of remaining quality loss under compression. We propose KVFetch, a training-free, drop-in framework that opens a temporal recall channel for any score-based compressor. It demotes evicted candidates to a quantized cold tier, detects active copying through a monotone read pointer, and prefetches positional successors into fixed-size hot-tier slots without increasing attention cost. On RULER-16K under an iso-budget control, KVFetch recovers verbatim copying from 0.8 to 78.4 and raises the 13-task average by +8.4, with gains concentrating on tasks that require sequential access. On LongBench, where no task requires sequential access, the channel remains dormant and imposes no cost.