[Discussion] How should Dream memories decay, be archived, or be used by agents?

[CaralHsi]

Dream CE can produce new memory artifacts, but we need to discuss how these Dream-produced memories should live over time and how agents should use them.

Unlike raw memories, Dream memories are derived. They may be useful insights, but they may also become outdated, contradicted, or less useful over time.

Questions about lifecycle

• Should Dream-produced memories be permanent?
• When should they decay?
• When should they be archived?
• Should they ever be deleted?
• How do we define usefulness?
• Should low-hit memories decay automatically?
• Should user feedback invalidate Dream memories?
• Should contradictions from later memories archive older Dream memories?
• Should archived Dream memories still be visible to users?

Questions about agent usage

• How are Dream memories currently used in your agents?
• Are they injected into prompts?
• Are they searched like normal memories?
• Are they used only for reflection or also for action planning?
• Should agents treat Dream memories differently from user-provided memories?
• Should Dream memory always carry confidence and rationale?
• Should agents expose when an answer is influenced by Dream memory?

Current code direction

Dream CE already has lifecycle metadata fields such as:

• last_hit_at
• hit_count
• usefulness_score
• invalidated_by_feedback
• status

The maintenance.py file also sketches possible cleanup rules:

• stale memories decay or archive,
• low-usefulness memories archive,
• invalidated memories archive immediately.

Desired outcome

We want to gather real agent usage patterns and lifecycle expectations before finalizing maintenance behavior. Follow-up issues may include:

• implement Dream memory lifecycle maintenance,
• add usefulness scoring,
• add feedback-based invalidation,
• add archive/recovery semantics,
• document how agents should use Dream memory.