RCWT: Measuring Task-Budget Displacement from Coordination Content in LLM Calls

Multi-agent and memory-augmented LLM systems often place coordination content, shared state, prior discussion, tool outputs, summaries, and role instructions, inside the same finite prompt used for the current task. This creates a practical allocation problem: every token spent on coordination is unavailable to task instructions or evidence when a call is assembled under a fixed context budget. We introduce the Roundtable Context Window Test (RCWT), a controlled protocol for measuring this task-budget displacement effect. RCWT varies coordination content while controlling total budget, position order, task family, and scoring. In the main context-dependent recall task at $W=4096$, three commercial models remain near baseline through moderate overhead and then degrade sharply once residual reference evidence falls to a few hundred tokens. Window-scaling summaries are consistent with a task-specific residual-budget interpretation rather than a fixed percentage threshold, but we treat this as descriptive evidence rather than a universal law. To test whether the fixed-budget cliff persists when task evidence remains intact, we add an intact-task ablation: the full task/reference block is kept present while coordination tokens increase by expanding total prompt length. In that setting, all tested calls return every scored field correctly across GPT-4.1-mini, Claude Haiku 4.5, and Gemini 2.5 Flash up to a 95\% coordination ratio. This ablation narrows the claim: the main RCWT cliff is best read as task-budget displacement, not as proof that coordination volume alone causes semantic interference in the original open-ended task. RCWT is therefore a measurement primitive for context-allocation budgeting, not a complete theory of multi-agent benefit or session-level coordination.

Agents Don't Paginate: First-Chunk Selection for LLM Tool Responses

Coding agents built on large language models (LLMs), such as Claude Code, Cursor, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, and Aider, receive tool responses that routinely exceed the agent's per-turn token budget. The standard remedy, pagination, is available in every protocol that produced these responses; yet across the corpus of session logs from a public Model Context Protocol middleware we observed no agent-initiated requests for a second chunk. The first chunk is what the agent reads, so we ask how often the gold item (the one the agent needs) is placed first in it: the precision-at-1 rate $p_1$. In a controlled offline benchmark we treat first-chunk selection as a 0/1 knapsack and compare six value functions on 500 SWE-bench Verified tasks, then test whether $p_1$ matters with a single-turn file-localisation probe on five language models (4,800 LLM calls; not an end-to-end resolve-rate test). Two pre-registered hypotheses did not hold and are our main findings. The central one is negative: raising $p_1$ does not systematically raise downstream accuracy. Per-model deltas stay under three percentage points (p.p.), are not consistently signed, and no model is significant; the agent recovers the gold from anywhere in the chunk, so what reaches its answer is first-chunk inclusion, not the gold's rank within it. The second: adding four file-metadata signals to a keyword scorer hurts $p_1$ by 4.8 p.p. (paired significance test, $p = 0.001$). A parameter-free keyword scorer does raise $p_1$, from a 24.2% baseline to 35.0% (+10.8 p.p., far beyond chance; $p = 3.9 \times 10^{-8}$), and to 35.8% with a fallback to the tool's native ordering when no keyword matches. But by our central finding this is a rank-1 gain, and rank-1 is the part that does not reach the agent's answer: downstream accuracy does not move.

Learning What Not to Forget: Long-Horizon Agent Memory from a Few Kilobytes of Learning

Long-running language-model systems accumulate interaction history that outgrows the context window, so they must continually evict. When an eviction policy drops a task-critical detail, for example an access token issued at login or a path the next call needs, the action fails. We present LRE (Learned Relevance Eviction), a kilobyte-scale, CPU-only, language-model-free scorer that learns which units of history are task-critical and keeps them by verbatim extraction. Under a matched-budget comparison, in our experiment, no baseline dominates LRE on the accuracy-cost plane. On agents, LRE recovers 93% of the aggregate accuracy of keeping the entire history (41.1 vs. 44.0) and exceeds it by 27% on the simplest tasks, while requiring zero compressor calls and cutting the worst-case peak prompt by 52%. A controlled study trace shows LRE completes tasks where the others loop, finishing one such task in 37% fewer calls than keeping everything and solving 14 tasks where no other run policy does. On conversational memory, LRE outranks dense and token-pruning encoders at zero neural cost while being 295-1569x smaller in size. In downstream evaluation, LRE gives the best budgeted answer quality on LoCoMo reading 68% fewer tokens. Its supervision can also be annotation-free: training only on the system's own behavior recovers 95% of the supervised scorer's effectiveness. We argue that, because memory eviction in LLM agents is a fidelity problem, it requires a deployable proactive policy where the future query is unavailable and exact state is decisive, and that cheap learned relevance can be sufficient.