Agents are increasingly expected to act not only as task executors, but also as decision-makers on behalf of human users. This shift requires agents to accumulate evidence over long horizons, interpret implicit user preferences, and compare multiple candidates under partial observations. In this work, we propose DunphyBench, a new benchmark for evaluating agents on long-horizon human-centered embodied decision-making, where the agent must navigate through multiple embodied housing environments and make decisions that align with multi-dimensional human preferences. Unlike standard embodied reasoning tasks that often focus on procedural planning or immediate goal completion, our setting requires agents to integrate multimodal, multi-source input into coherent knowledge that supports complex reasoning across long horizon. The evaluation results reveal that there is a substantial gap between current agents and human performance. Furthermore, our diagnosis of state-of-the-art VLM-driven agents reveals that memory management is one of the bottlenecks, where raw multimodal history introduces noise that hinders decision quality. Motivated by this finding, we design MeMento, a preference-conditioned multimodal memory compressor that selectively compresses decision-relevant information from long-horizon history based on user preferences with a fixed set of memory tokens. Experiments show that MeMento helps VLM-driven agents improve accuracy by 7.18%, while reducing memory usage by 85.38% compared to the strongest baseline.
World models have become a central abstraction in modern AI. The term now refers to several different objects: action-conditioned environment models, latent imagination models, future-video predictors, interactive neural simulators, latent predictive representations, and synthetic-data engines. Evaluation has broadened along with the term. Recent papers measure video realism, perceptual similarity, instruction following, physical plausibility, policy ranking, executability, planning success, and downstream policy improvement. This produces both metric diversity and a recurring problem of claim/evidence mismatch: papers sometimes make a stronger claim about what their model is useful for than their evaluation can establish. This paper surveys the recent literature and argues that, for models presented as world models for embodied decision-making, the more decisive issue is not whether the model generates visually convincing videos, but whether it supports reliable interventional reasoning, policy evaluation, planning, and policy optimization under intervention, policy-induced distribution shift, and long-horizon rollout. We organize the survey using an L0--L7 ladder spanning visual plausibility to policy optimization utility, noting that the levels cut across several orthogonal axes and so form an evidential hierarchy rather than a single scalar. The framework foregrounds interventional action fidelity, closed-loop rollout validity, reward/value prediction, policy-ranking agreement, optimization lift, model exploitability, and uncertainty calibration, with a minimal feasible reporting set for real-robot settings.