What would a memory benchmark have to do before you'd trust the number?

Working on a memory eval and I've hit a wall on whether it's even worth building. Spent the last couple weeks going through the actual benchmark repos instead of the writeups, and two things stuck. There's a public audit of LoCoMo that found 99 of the 1540 questions have wrong golden answers, with code and the full error list included so you can check it yourself. That puts the real ceiling around 93.5 and a few published scores sit above it. The other one bothers me more: I found a repo where the same set of predictions gets scored three ways in the same committed file, token overlap F1 gives 51.4 and an LLM judge on the identical answers gives 75.8. Nobody did anything shady, that's just what happens when there's no agreed metric, but a 24 point gap from the scoring method alone is wider than most of the gaps between systems that people argue about. So does anyone here actually use these numbers when picking a memory layer, or is it all throw my own data at two options and see which one annoys me less. And if you do look at them, what's the bar. Fixed judge model, raw per question output published so you can recount it yourself, something I'm not thinking of. Half expecting the answer to be that none of it matters and everyone picks on docs and pricing. One more thing since it changed my mind halfway through. A lot of the complaints I see are aimed at stuff that already got fixed, "memory benchmarks don't test knowledge updates" comes up constantly but LongMemEval has 78 of exactly those questions and there's a whole separate benchmark for fabrication now. So some of what gets repeated is really about the 2024 versions, and probably some of my own assumptions are too.