arXiv:2610.30478v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Should an embodied agent's experience be baked into its policy weights, or kept external and retrieved at inference? A memory-augmented teacher (a VLM that retrieves lessons, with their episode images, from its own past attempts) produces trajectories on a vision-conditioned reach task; from the same trajectories we distil LoRA student policies and evaluate them under matched protocols, including one that re-attaches the teacher's frozen retrieval buffer to a fixed set of student weights. We pre-registered the hypotheses, arms, tests, and analysis rules before training and before any p-value. Distilling the memory-augmented behaviour into weights beat an action-only control by +1 pp (n.s.); the registered test proves underpowered for its own minimum effect, so we withdraw - rather than refute - the memory-in-weights claim. Attaching retrieval to a fixed set of student weights added +34 pp (z=5.15), reaching the pooled memory-augmented teacher reference (49.3%); the pre-registered protocol contrast agrees (+23 pp, z=3.36); under a pre-registered auto-reset sensitivity count the two are +36 and +29 pp. An exploratory behavioural probe with pre-registered per-arm predictions is consistent with behavioural distillation transferring the marginal correction but not the conditional, situation-specific correction that retrieval supplies. The recipe that follows is to externalise the memory: in follow-up controls registered before they ran, the same frozen buffer lifts the base model with no adapter to 48% (sensitivity 48%) and the other three adapters from 19-26% to 53-55% (sensitivity 17-21% to 50-55%), and the adapter adds nothing detectable once the buffer is attached. On a second, harder task, the retrieval advantage points the same direction but falls short of significance (+6 pp, 95% CI [-4.5, +16.4]); exploratory diagnostics tie the attenuation to memory coverage.