Retrieval can identify a past trajectory that may matter, yet it does not specify how an acting agent should use that trajectory after users, entities, constraints, or environment state have changed. We identify this post-retrieval reuse step as a distinct bottleneck for long-horizon trajectory memory and formulate an evaluation framework that holds candidate retrieval, target state, model, decoding, and tool budget fixed while varying the support delivered to the agent. We instantiate the framework with query-conditioned reuse (QCR), a deliberately simple target-bound note that records a reusable procedure, bindings to recover, applicability conditions, and verification requirements. QCR serves to test the reuse hypothesis rather than to claim a universally preferred memory format. Across 2,391 target instances in WebArena, WorkArena, and AppWorld, QCR reaches 62.3% average Success, 10.7 points above Full Trajectory, while using 48.9% fewer online tokens. Summary reranking selects a reusable memory for 94.8% of targets, placing end-task Success within 1.8 points of an oracle reusable selector. Analyses by trajectory length and source--target binding shift show that direct trajectory injection loses much of its utility as traces grow longer or source-specific values change, whereas target-bound support preserves a larger share of the measured gain. The resulting framework separates retrieval quality from the problem of turning retrieved experience into safe, useful support for a new task.
Long-horizon large language model (LLM) agents accumulate interaction trajectories that quickly exceed any practical prompt budget, and existing memory methods either truncate aggressively and lose non-local evidence or retain boilerplate that degrades decision quality. We ask a mechanism question rather than claiming a better general-purpose memory system: when does organizing trajectory memory into overlapping semantic units (OSUs) -- groups of related steps in which one step may belong to several units -- help retrieval over flat or disjoint alternatives? We instantiate this in OSU-Mem, which retrieves from an overlapping OSU pool via budgeted coarse-to-fine expansion, and show its benefit is conditional: overlapping memory helps when the evidence steps a query needs share tool calls or entities, but hurts when those steps are fully heterogeneous and share neither. On a synthetic benchmark where evidence carries such shared structure by construction, OSU-Mem improves over the strongest baseline as the theory predicts; yet on a concatenated, constructed unaugmented $τ$-bench setting its aggregate advantage over flat retrieval vanishes. Splitting queries by whether their evidence shares tools and entities shows this near-tie to be an artifact of mixing query types rather than a property of either method, and ToolBench, a controlled probe built to carry shared structure by design, corroborates the same mechanism via an overlap-vs.-disjoint construction contrast (under a coverage-guided variant), isolating the construction principle rather than validating the full default system. Because the relevant sharing is cheaply estimable from metadata, the analysis yields a metadata-based heuristic for predicting when overlap is likely to improve retrieval. We deliberately isolate the retrieval layer, assessed by retrieval quality and an LLM-mediated evidence-selection stage.