Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Conceptual framework introduces reconnectable forgetting to enhance memory governance for AI agents, reducing context burden.
Long-horizon AI agents increasingly depend on persistent memory, context management, retrieval, summarization, and handoff across sessions. However, more memory does not automatically produce better judgment: long histories can create context burden, premise drift, stale assumptions, and unsafe reuse of compressed summaries. Decision-OS V11 introduces Reconnectable Forgetting as a memory-governance framework for this problem. It addresses a current operational pain in long-running AI agents: as histories accumulate across conversations, files, tool calls, summaries, code changes, and handoffs, memory becomes both a capability and a burden. The paper argues that self-evolving systems do not require perfect memory. They require the ability to forget in a way that remains reconnectable. Reconnectable Forgetting treats forgetting not as deletion, loss, or ordinary summarization, but as controlled compression that preserves future re-entry through evidence anchors, As-of conditions, stop/recheck conditions, unresolved deltas, provenance keys, and re-entry paths. The framework defines a three-layer memory architecture: Active Context, Compressed Residue, and Provenance-Key Layer. It further introduces Decision-Equivalent Compression, Judgment Fidelity, an Outcome-Masked Replay Test, and a Reconnectability Gate with PASS/DELAY/BLOCK outputs. V11 also defines practical controls for adaptive context handoff, impact-scaled fidelity, recompression stopping, evaluation budgeting, and Discovery Lane handling for low-impact residues. The goal is to reduce context burden without allowing compressed memory to gain false judgment authority. This work should be read as a conceptual and operational framework, not as a complete memory implementation or empirical validation report.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shinichi Nagata (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: