When Is a Memory Safe Enough to Act On? Action-Conditioned Verification for Long-Lived Agents

Long-lived agents act on memory carried across sessions, and many of their actions are irreversible, so a stale memory can turn directly into harm. Existing work improves the memory itself — retrieving, refreshing, or reconciling entries — yet whether an entry must be re-checked before acting is not a property of the entry: the same remembered address can be used unchecked for a routine shipment but should be re-confirmed before a valuable one. We therefore study \emph{action-conditioned memory verification}: given a candidate action, decide which of its memory premises to re-verify and when to proceed or abstain, balancing execution risk, abstention, and verification cost. We formulate this as a sequential stopping problem, in which a verification is worth its cost only if it can change what the agent does next; under suitable verifier reliability and cost conditions, increasing action consequence can move the same memory through proceed, verify, and direct-abstention regimes. Building on this formulation, $\text{textsc}AMV-Guard$ is a practical verification gate that extracts the premises a candidate action rests on, calibrates beliefs about whether they are wrong, and selects checks by bounded value of information (VOI). On ToolSandbox, relative to a static policy given the same inputs, it lowers mean verification cost by 33.9% while keeping 100% safe-proceed recall and 0% Gate harmful, and raises Proceed coverage from 38.83% to 44.17%; in a gate-core transfer to AppWorld, which carries over the stopping/VOI core but not the full structured pipeline, it lowers verification cost by 21.3% at a small cost in safe-proceed recall and task success. These results suggest that verification effort should be set by what an agent is about to do, not only by how reliable a memory appears.