Retrieval quality
Does recall find the right memory? Measured with reproducible
benchmarks - LoCoMo recall@10 ≈ 94.5%, multilingual top-10 ≈ 99.2%.
Outcome impact
Does using memory change outcomes? Measured by Earned Memory, joining
each surfaced lesson to the outcome of the turn it was active in.
Earned Memory - three honest layers
PMB joins each surfaced lesson to the turn’s outcome (tests pass/fail, red→green, build, deploy - no LLM) and reports effectiveness at three levels of rigor, refusing to overclaim at each one.Associational lift (weakest)
success_rate(lesson active) minus success_rate(no lesson). Useful first
look, but confounded: lessons surface on harder turns, so a helpful
lesson can show negative lift. A flag for review, never ground truth.Statistical honesty
Each lesson carries a 95% Wilson confidence interval and a conservative
verdict -
useful/harmful only when the CI clears the baseline and
n ≥ min_n; otherwise unverified or insufficient. An n=1 fluke can
never read as a real effect.Within-lesson causal read (strongest)
The cleanest control without randomization: compare the same lesson when
followed vs ignored. Both arms share the same trigger population, so
it holds the surfacing trigger fixed.
What PMB will not do
Run it on your own data
Seeing
signal: insufficient early is the honest answer, not a bug -
outcome turns are rare, so a young workspace simply hasn’t earned a verdict
yet. A lesson only earns “useful”/“helps” once the statistics back it.