Papers for
enterprise data compliance teams
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
Verification improves safe memory retrieval in AI agents
The Right Memory in the Wrong Context: Verifying Retrieval Admissibility in Long-Term Agent Memory
Abstract: Long-term-memory agents can retrieve relevant information that is inadmissible for the current request because it belongs to another principal, violates policy, or reflects an incompatible lifecycle state. Recall and final-answer accuracy do not reveal this: a route can appear safe by missing required evidence, while a correct answer may follow inadmissible prompt exposure. We introduce a retrieval-admissibility verification framework that assigns each memory-query pair one of three statuses (admissible, inadmissible, or unresolved), compares routes at matched required-evidence recall with bounds for unresolved cases, and tracks memory IDs through prompt exposure while linking exposure to target-level disclosure. We evaluate its stages on separate, non-pooled populations. A post-hoc top-20 reanalysis of frozen rankings from two public long-term-memory benchmarks, RHELM and MemOps, covers 3,767 queries. All released anchors lie within trusted query namespaces; with within-namespace scores unchanged, off-namespace filtering cannot lower their ranks. Top-20 anchor recall increases from 0.432 to 0.533, 80% recall feasibility from 0.237 to 0.311, and exact similarity evaluations decrease by 98.3%. In a frozen 72-case development diagnostic, a released-metadata reference preserves required evidence, whereas neither text-only verifier detects violations under the 1% required-anchor false-denial limit. Across 1,523 paired benchmark-native cases, namespace routing is associated with judged-accuracy gains of 0.053-0.068 across three readers; recall also changes, so this comparison is observational. In 16 controlled exposure scenarios, only one of four reader-specific 95% confidence intervals excludes zero for relevant-inadmissible literal disclosure (+0.156, 95% CI [0.031, 0.312]). Results motivate separate verification of candidate support, admissibility, prompt exposure, and answer disclosure.
Enterprise AI assistants improve trust with evidence verification
EvidenT: Building Trustworthy Enterprise Assistants through Evidence Groundedness and Traceability
Abstract: Enterprise AI assistants must produce responses that are verifiable and traceable to source evidence. However, retrieval augmented generation (RAG) over heterogeneous enterprise data can suffer from citation drift, unsupported content, and weak source traceability. We present EvidenT (T = Trust + Transparency + Traceability), a lightweight pipeline that verifies extracted evidence against retrieved documents before answer generation, without model retraining. EvidenT combines structured passage extraction with deterministic lexical alignment to filter unsupported content, correct citation drift, and preserve source-span traceability. On approximately 500 real enterprise queries, EvidenT improves gold-source hit rate by an average of 29% over prompting baselines, produces no citations to nonretrieved urls, and achieves near-saturated answer-to-source lexical coverage.