In long-term collaboration spanning multiple meetings, factual states such as decisions and risks are continually revised, overturned, and replaced. Existing long-context methods typically stack the entire history, while many RAG and structured-memory methods organize knowledge as static or append-only facts and rely on semantic relevance at read time. Without explicit modeling of knowledge lifecycles, these approaches may retain conflicting old and new states simultaneously or discard history, leading to stale retrieval and answers that are difficult to verify. We present EvoWiki, an incremental question-answering architecture for dynamic long-form text. EvoWiki decouples offline incremental construction (BUILD) from online structured reading (READ). BUILD captures the intra-meeting micro-evolution from proposal to decision and uses entity version chains and a fine-grained State-Overwrite Protocol to explicitly distinguish current valid states from superseded history while preserving meeting-level provenance anchors. READ bypasses relevance-based Top-k retrieval and performs deterministic entity addressing, temporal resolution, and cross-entity multi-hop aggregation over the complete Wiki to produce grounded and traceable answers. We further introduce CrossMeet, a high-fidelity bilingual benchmark designed to simulate long-term state evolution, covering factual consistency, temporal reasoning, and cross-meeting multi-hop reasoning. Across six datasets and two reader models, EvoWiki improves macro-average Judge Accuracy over the strongest baselines by 9.72 and 10.00 percentage points, respectively. Human evaluation shows that EvoWiki is more robust and factually faithful under frequent state flips, validating valid-state-oriented reading as a reliable approach to cross-meeting knowledge evolution.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) improves the factuality of large language models with external knowledge, yet conflicting evidence remains a fundamental challenge in dynamic and adversarial environments. Existing approaches often treat conflicts as static inconsistencies and select more reliable knowledge, overlooking that the same conflict may arise from legitimate knowledge evolution, malicious manipulation, or unresolved uncertainty. We formulate conflict origin attribution as a new problem in RAG: identifying which explanation of conflicting evidence is supported by observable context rather than simply which fact should be trusted. We propose EvoTrustRAG, a training-free framework for evolution-aware conflict attribution and evidence handling before answer generation. EvoTrustRAG represents span-grounded retrieved facts as a conflict evidence graph, evaluates grounded evolution and directional intervention hypotheses using temporal relations, support structure, and auxiliary consistency, and projects local decisions onto a globally consistent explanation of each conflict group. The attribution determines whether earlier and later states are preserved as temporal knowledge, an intervention candidate is separated from the primary context, or an unresolved conflict remains visible to the generator. Unlike provenance-based approaches focused on post-hoc analysis, EvoTrustRAG determines during inference whether conflicting evidence follows plausible knowledge evolution, exhibits intervention-like support, or cannot be reliably attributed. Experiments show that EvoTrustRAG achieves 81.4% average accuracy on benchmark-native conflict settings, improves attribution macro-F1 from 72.2% to 79.1% over the strongest baseline, and reduces the error rate under the strongest coordinated attack from 31.2% to 16.0%.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) gives agents access to accumulated knowledge, but has no model of time. When a fact changes (e.g., a function is renamed or API restructured), RAG retrieves both the stale and current value with near-identical embedding similarity. The agent then either abstains or serves the superseded fact. We show this is a structural problem: on a calibrated dataset, cosine similarity distinguishes a contradicted fact from a duplicated one with AUROC 0.59 (near chance), as contradictions are often more embedding-similar to the original than rephrased duplicates. We present MemStrata, a retrieval memory maintaining temporal validity. It stores facts like RAG, preserving static recall, but when a fact's value is contradicted, a deterministic (subject, relation, object) supersession rule retires the stale value in a bi-temporal ledger - with no similarity threshold and no LLM call. Across six benchmarks run locally with a 7B model, MemStrata ties RAG on static knowledge and reaches 0.95-1.00 accuracy on evolving knowledge (where RAG reaches 0.20-0.47). The central result is the stale-fact-error rate: when required to answer, RAG serves superseded values 15-40% of the time; MemStrata drives this to ~0%, a failure class RAG cannot avoid. MemStrata achieves this at retrieval latency (~2.1s) versus ~16-18s for LLM-reranking baselines. We release the harness, datasets, and a marker-free evaluation protocol for memory under knowledge evolution.