Memory That Changes Action Is Not Memory That Guides It: Counterfactual Auditing of History-Conditioned Robot Policies

A robot returning a block to its origin tray may encounter two task-consistent pasts that reconverge to the same current input but warrant different actions. Yet memory-policy evaluations often rely on task success or action change under memory perturbation, neither of which establishes that memory guides the decision. We propose the \textbf{Counterfactual Memory Audit (CMA)}, an evaluation protocol that crosses two histories at a verified-identical present, queries a frozen policy under common randomness, and evaluates each saved action under both pasts. This separates memory sensitivity, warranted choice, matched-world physical value, and per-pair reliability. On Mem-0, every audited Put Back pair changes action, but only $20/64$ pairs are fully reliable; at a later Swap decision, all paired actions change while both memories select the same branch. Native interventions further show closed-loop influence: replacing the history bank redirects behavior toward the replaced content, while restoring a 4096-byte protected anchor recovers $38.9$ points of Swap success lost to injected bank faults. On a dual-arm physical platform, memory changes saved actions, yet five of nine completed Put Back manipulations reach the wrong target. These results show that a robot can remember and react without reliably using memory to choose the behavior its past warrants. CMA provides a decision-level audit for distinguishing these cases.