Access scoping vs. derivation: does a leaked-column value ever get re-served via a different memory it flowed into? #7390

Mem0's user_id/agent_id scoping is exactly the right first layer, but it's necessarily about who wrote or owns a memory, not about what upstream data a memory's value was derived from. In enterprise BI/analytics use cases specifically, we ran into a related but distinct failure: an AI agent caches an analytical result (say, a churn rate), a second agent later computes a different metric using that cached value as an input, and the new memory carries none of the original access markers — even though it transitively contains information from a column the second requester shouldn't see.

We built and published a mechanism for this (Analytical Memory Unit / AMU schema — a derivation graph + definition hash attached to each cached record, with a retrieval gate that checks the requester's permissions against the full transitive derivation, not just the immediate write). Measured on synthetic and TPC-H workloads: naive tag-based gating leaked 18.8%–25.5% of restricted values through exactly this path; the derivation-gated version leaked 0% while still serving 82.6% of cacheable reuse.

Peer-reviewed / published: IEEE Access, DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2026.3730363. Reference implementation + reproducible experiments: https://github.com/sangaraju1988/Lineage-Aware-Memory

Curious whether this is a gap Mem0 has run into with multi-agent BI/analytics deployments specifically — happy to have this referenced if it's useful context for your docs or roadmap discussions.