Validation study demonstrates causal cross-process memory reuse in a governed agent architecture, indicating genuine cognitive persistence beyond passive state storage.
Persistent state is often credited as memory or learning even when it never affects a later decision. This preprint introduces Persistent Cognitive Influence (PCI), an operational evaluation discipline that separates recording, durable persistence, fresh-process retrieval or reload, canonical cognitive consumption, attributable downstream influence, independent outcome verification, and comparative improvement. Applied to four EvoMind mechanisms at a pinned August 2026 evidence cut, the study reports: (1) grounded user-fact recall across a fresh process with role attribution, session/project isolation, and absent-fact abstention; (2) relational entity grounding that survives restart and resolves indirect run/node references to verified artifacts, including stale-mutation detection; (3) a cognitive performance self-model whose verified-outcome-derived aggregate bias moved from 0.30 to 0.405 and automatically reloaded as 0.405 in a fresh process; and (4) structural recovery reuse where a persisted ACTIVE principle caused treatment to make zero recovery resynthesis calls versus one in an isolated control, with both paths passing the same downstream verification/release gate. The evidence is first-party internal software validation. The paper does not claim unrestricted transfer, general semantic recall, aggregate task-performance improvement, external replication, or artificial general intelligence. The deposit includes the publication PDF and source, a supplementary evidence PDF and source, claim/evidence and reproducibility records, machine-readable results, provenance, licensing, and cryptographic hashes. Evidence cutoff: EvoMind repository state c2e4a219a7c1ff11a61e2639c112daa9008f17b6, 2026-08-27T11:23:55Z. Rights: Copyright © 2026 Gabriel Allit. All rights reserved. See LICENSE.txt included with this research object.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gabriel Allit (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: