Memory-augmented VLM agents act on persistent spatial knowledge, yet that knowledge silently goes stale as the environment changes. We ask what happens when an agent must reconcile a confident memory claim with a contradicting observation, and whether current models can catch the conflict before it becomes a safety-relevant mistake. Using a dynamic FrozenLake testbed, we pair a staleness-detection task with a downstream navigation task across three closed-source models and three open-weight VLMs under both text and image inputs (1,800 detection runs, and 12,000 text-mode navigation episodes over four LLM navigators at a shared 50-seed scale). Three findings emerge. First, text solvability does not imply visual grounding: models that flag stale entries reliably from text nonetheless span vision F1 from 0.887 down to 0.067 on the identical grids, and the weakest keeps making fluent, confident decisions that ignore the image. Second, consuming stale memory without an audit is a safety liability: in our primary GPT-4o setting, an agent that trusts raw memory dies more than twice as often as the same agent given no memory at all. Third, auditing helps but does not close the gap: a transparent read-time filter removes much of the safety cost in text mode, yet even oracle stale labels bring no further significant gain on the current grid size, and when visual auditing is unreliable, filtering yields no consistent benefit. Together these results frame spatial-memory staleness as a safety failure mode and isolate reliable visual grounding and action selection under memory--observation conflict as the central open challenges for memory-augmented agents.
Language-agent "memory palace" systems anchor each memory to a world coordinate, on the intuition that geometry adds something text cannot. We make that intuition testable and report three results. First, the memory-palace default of folding spatial proximity into a linear blend beside recency and importance does not help and can hurt: in a pre-registered recall experiment the shipped blend fails its own frozen test (mean Delta-Hit@5 -0.0375, Wilcoxon p=0.306), sitting at a position-blind baseline, while a geometry-led weighting wins decisively (+0.3208, p<10^-15): geometry must lead recall when the query regime is spatial. Second, memory recall and visibility must be separated: recall is occlusion-blind by design (you correctly remember the next room behind a wall), while visibility is a perception predicate over stored geometry that the live system never computed. A one-line ray-versus-voxel digital differential analyzer (DDA), re-pointed from the gaze ray the agent already casts, supplies it: text and the live FoV cone both score 0.000 on 849 behind-wall targets while cone-plus-DDA reaches 0.982 (exact McNemar p<10^-6); coordinate recall separately resolves near-duplicate locations a cosine null cannot (1.000 vs 0.533, n=150). Third, the visibility predicate is confirmed live under a git-committed pre-registration (SPMEM-OCC-LIVE-v1: eight scripted worlds, automated oracle scoring, 96 behind-wall targets, false-visible 1.000->0.000, pooled exact McNemar p=2.5x10^-29), a run that surfaced and fixed a real relay anchor defect. We concede that occlusion-needs-geometry is near-tautological; the contribution is the measurement and isolation, separating what spatial memory must store from how it is read. These pilots power a frozen confirmatory study (SPMEM-ZERO-REAL-PREREG-v1); the full human-authored multi-world study with blind raters remains future work.