A stored experience may answer one future question and offer little help with another. We measure this task-conditioned utility rather than assigning each memory a single importance score. A task-blind writer stores a memory without seeing the later task; a frozen reader then answers that task with and without the memory, using identical filler. A cost ledger records the resources used to form, store and expose the memory. On single-call factual-recall tasks built from LongMemEval-V2 web-agent memories, the same memory helps more when it contains information needed for the answer. Its mean paired reward gain on these answer-bearing task pairs exceeds that on matched-control pairs by $+0.33$ (95% interval $+0.21$ to $+0.46$). The tested task-blind summaries and structured records yield smaller gains than Raw, including at fixed total context; a budget sweep is consistent with retention of answer-bearing content contributing to the difference. The bearing--control contrast remains positive in a new session with randomized memory position and under a second reader, although individual memory--task labels change. Generic retrieval performs above chance but misses most screen-defined answer-bearing memories. The factual-recall gains do not extend to the tested software-engineering and scientific-coding benchmarks, where even raw memories have no measurable effect. We provide a public, versioned Conditional Memory Utility Dataset of paired measurements and costs. The practical takeaway is to evaluate memory compression by the task utility it preserves alongside its costs. Task-conditioned measurements make this comparison possible; their stability must also be checked.

翻译：暂无翻译