A Control Architecture for Training-Free Memory Use

Prompt-injected memory can improve reasoning without updating model weights, but it also creates a control problem: retrieved content helps only when it is applied in the right state. We study this problem in a strict training-free setting and formulate it as applicability control: when to trigger a memory-assisted second pass, when to trust it, and how to maintain the memory bank over time. Our method combines uncertainty-based routing, confidence-based selective acceptance, bank selection across rule and exemplar memory, and evidence-based governance of the memory bank over time. Under a locked training-free protocol with compute-matched controls, it improves two core arithmetic benchmarks by +7.0 points on SVAMP and +7.67 points on ASDiv over baseline. The same architecture also transfers to QA and agent benchmarks with smaller positive effects and shows the same positive direction on a second checkpoint for the main arithmetic tasks. On arithmetic, the main empirical pattern is that the control architecture, rather than raw memory exposure, drives the improvements on SVAMP and ASDiv. Mechanistically, confidence separates helpful from harmful rule-bank interventions, and under fixed retrieval the repair-versus-corrupt difference localizes to rows whose retrieved set actually contains the edited entries.

State Transfer Reveals Reuse in Controlled Routing

Prompt-based interventions can change model behavior, but trained success alone does not identify where the behaviorally relevant state is represented. We study this question in controlled routing tasks using interfaces chosen on support data, held-out query evaluation, and matched necessity, sufficiency, and wrong-interface controls. On GPT-2 triop, an early interface supports exact transfer under these tests. On GPT-2 add/sub, zero-retrain compiled transfer at the fixed interface recovers most of donor routing accuracy, while trainable prompt slots can relearn the same behavior at several other positions only after additional support examples and optimization. These results distinguish fixed-interface reuse from prompt relocation in a setting where the two can be tested directly. Qwen routing provides a cross-architecture consistency check for the same matched-interface pattern at the operator token, although donor-specific identity on the local V-path remains unresolved. Generation and reasoning branches are used to map scope: they show broader transport or weaker controller identifiability once control depends on longer trajectories or harder selection. In controlled routing, fixed-interface transfer is therefore stronger evidence of reuse than trained prompt success alone.