You're right that retrieval accuracy is only half the picture. We audited the LoCoMo benchmark specifically and found serious methodological issues that affect the validity of these scores and how they should be interpreted: github.com/dial481/locomo-audit
The deeper gap you're describing - contradiction resolution, confidence tracking, whether agents should trust retrieved memories - maps to what we think of as typed relationships at the storage layer. If a memory can explicitly supersede, contradict, or mark itself as an evolution_of a previous memory, the agent has the primitives to do epistemic governance without needing a separate system for it.
You're right that retrieval accuracy is only half the picture. We audited the LoCoMo benchmark specifically and found serious methodological issues that affect the validity of these scores and how they should be interpreted: github.com/dial481/locomo-audit
The deeper gap you're describing - contradiction resolution, confidence tracking, whether agents should trust retrieved memories - maps to what we think of as typed relationships at the storage layer. If a memory can explicitly supersede, contradict, or mark itself as an evolution_of a previous memory, the agent has the primitives to do epistemic governance without needing a separate system for it.
We wrote about this more broadly here: dev.to/penfieldlabs/we-audited-loc...