The danger is not only forgetting. Repeating an obsolete instruction more forcefully can make the system less correct.
Across 875 core outputs from seven model snapshots, a forked recall/compliance audit attributes 88.6% of observed failures to behavioral drift, or 84.4% excluding a brittle model. In a smaller 35-case update/revocation test, deliberately stale anchoring enforced obsolete rules in 74.3% of cases, versus 2.9% with ordinary history. Updating the ledger reduced stale enforcement to 0%.
Evidence & limits. Mostly single-constraint tasks; the retention score also requires immediate-task success. The dynamic audit is small. Full anchoring, verification and retry at depth 12 cost 1.18–1.47× tokens and 1.34–2.12× latency across four tested models.
Evaluate recall and behavior separately. Maintain a revisable active-constraint ledger, apply updates and revocations before re-anchoring, and test obsolete-rule rejection explicitly.