Memory in an agent deployment may be stored by multiple plugins with different lifetimes and authorization boundaries. The issue notes that a forget request can complete for the core store without removing matching entries from a selected Hindsight or Honcho provider, and an informational warning may not reach JSON automation consumers. That is a…
Inspect the ClaimsCase · DiggingBeagle record
OpenClaw forget reporting can omit data retained by the selected memory provider
The reported forget workflow covers a core memory path but not necessarily the active plugin store, while machine-readable completion output omits that gap.
Scope
The issue proposes extending semantics; complete cross-provider forgetting and its prevalence remain unverified.
Assessment profile
Assessment method- Setting
- research demonstration
- Exploitation
- demonstrated
- Evidence
- Grade D
- AI role
- AGAINST AI
Basis and provenance
The pinned Claim and its primary disclosure support the described controlled result, but do not establish a population-wide rate or calibrated impact. The only available supporting evidence is the reporter's or advisory author's own account; independent reproduction has not been shown. Impact remains unbanded because no calibrated impact rubric for this particular evidence is established.
Assessed Nov 2, 2026 using diggingbeagle.assessment/1.
Evidence basis: CLM-2026-NOV02-OPENCLAW-MEMORY-FORGET-SCOPE-A · OpenClaw issue 190720: selected memory plugin and forget behavior
At a glance
A data-erasure operation needs provider-specific receipts and a truthful coverage result, including stores that were not accessed.
Read the implicationsThe issue proposes extending semantics; complete cross-provider forgetting and its prevalence remain unverified. The proposed provider-aware JSON reporting does not establish end-to-end deletion from every connected memory plugin.
Limits and uncertaintyFull account
Memory in an agent deployment may be stored by multiple plugins with different lifetimes and authorization boundaries. The issue notes that a forget request can complete for the core store without removing matching entries from a selected Hindsight or Honcho provider, and an informational warning may not reach JSON automation consumers. That is a coverage-reporting defect; it is not evidence that every provider ignores removal or that all reported data remains retrievable.
The command described in the issue targets a core memory sidecar, while a configured third-party memory provider may retain the same user fact. A warning printed to stderr does not provide adequate evidence to an automation consuming only the JSON response, which can report success despite incomplete erasure. This is a coverage and reporting defect, not proof that deletion from every external store is technically possible. An honest forget result must inventory participating stores, identify unsupported deletion semantics, and distinguish a request to erase from evidence that records and derived views were actually removed.
Mechanism and trust boundary
- 01
Receive a forget request
The tool targets a memory scope chosen by the user or operator.
Boundary: Removal instruction into orchestrator
- 02
Delete only a subset of storage
A core sidecar performs its own deletion while separate plugin stores remain outside that action.
Boundary: One-store success into multi-store claim
- 03
Report incomplete success
JSON output may not encode which providers were not touched.
Boundary: Partial deletion into misleading completion status
Claims & evidence
CLM-2026-NOV02-OPENCLAW-MEMORY-FORGET-SCOPE-AOpenClaw issue 190720 asks for the selected memory provider to participate in forget operations rather than limiting deletion to a core sidecar store.supported
Basis: reported finding
- supportsOpenClaw issue 190720: selected memory plugin and forget behaviorprimary disclosure
Issue 190720, current memory-core and selected-plugin behavior; related issue 190719
Implications
A data-erasure operation needs provider-specific receipts and a truthful coverage result, including stores that were not accessed.
Controls and mitigations
- Enumerate active memory providers, require individual deletion acknowledgments and report incomplete removal in machine-readable output.
- Expose per-store deletion and verification status in machine-readable output; never return unqualified successful erasure when a configured provider was not processed.
Unknowns and contradictions
- The issue proposes extending semantics; complete cross-provider forgetting and its prevalence remain unverified.
- The proposed provider-aware JSON reporting does not establish end-to-end deletion from every connected memory plugin.
Sources and citation
Material revision history
- Nov 2, 2026 · Canonical change recorded · new in release · revision 214