LLM-based memory systems can retrieve relevant evidence yet still fail when answer generation entangles semantic filtering, conflict resolution, prior suppression, and output generation in one step. We study this failure as a problem of post-retrieval assembly. In the MemoryAgentBench (MAB) release used here, FactConsolidation explicitly states that newer facts have larger serial numbers, yet the best reported retrieval/memory result is 54% single-hop and all 22 reported systems score at most 7% multi-hop. We evaluate a structured assembly interface in which an LLM first extracts semantically matching evidence into a candidate representation and a separate stage executes the required answer policy. At 262K, this pipeline reaches 82%/93% single-hop and 27%/41% multi-hop with gpt-4o-mini/gpt-4o, exceeding every result reported in the MAB v3 FactConsolidation comparison. This is a task-level result, not a claim that the evaluated memory architectures are broadly inferior. A controlled whole-pipeline comparison, with identical backbone, retrieved top-10 evidence, chunking, and n=100 per cell, improves single-hop accuracy by 10.8 percentage points (pp) on average and 21 pp at 262K. A targeted comparison using the same extraction setup shows that changing only the final policy executor contributes 2.0 pp on average and 0 pp at 262K. Most of the gain therefore comes from separating evidence identification from final policy execution rather than from the freshness operator itself. A LongMemEval check finds no significant overall advantage (26/45 versus 29/45; paired exact McNemar p=0.45), bounding the result to current-value questions with explicit version metadata. The evidence identifies post-retrieval assembly as a distinct reliability boundary between retrieval and answer generation.

翻译：暂无翻译