arXiv:2611.05873v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Repeated mobile GUI tests can reuse routes, locators, and recovery strategies from earlier executions. However, a route that worked in one workflow or app version may be irrelevant or misleading in another. We study how an LLM-based tester can retain useful experience while withholding entries contradicted by current observations. We present a maintenance contract for AdaptiTest in which reusable experience has an explicit applicability scope, trace provenance, and a lifecycle for confirmation, revalidation, and withdrawal. The contract reserves persistence for a Reflector role and treats recalled experience as advice. The archived implementation does not establish end-to-end enforcement of every specified mechanism. The design changes retrieved context, not model weights. The evaluation uses read-only Android workflows and archived internal comparisons. A six-task, three-repeat ready subset reports 18/18 completed runs with memory versus 3/18 without it, but a grounded single-agent control also solves the earlier hard-task slice. A separate cross-session probe is excluded from efficacy conclusions because of confounded route schedules and unvalidated state labels. We examine 13 selected real-update hazard records across nine subjects, distinguishing stale-locator observations from policy-based withholding and offline retrieval diagnostics. The latter do not measure live-device failures or actions saved. These events are UI changes, not confirmed regression bugs. The evidence supports a bounded design and case study; it does not establish general efficacy, superiority over independent GUI-agent systems, or unrestricted exploration.