Abstract The term memoisation is increasingly used across disciplines to describe processes of memory, learning, and efficiency. In cognitive science, memorization and automaticity describe biological phenomena in which repeated practice reduces cognitive effort by collapsing deliberation into habit. In contrast, Cognitive Memoisation (CM) is a human-governed method for preserving semantic continuity when cognition is distributed across stateless computational systems that cannot remember. This paper argues that these two uses of the term address fundamentally different failure modes and must not be treated as equivalent. We examine the biological processes often described as cognitive memoization, identify their limits in safety-critical and epistemically governed contexts, and contrast them with the explicit design constraints of Cognitive Memoisation. We further show why emerging CM-2 mechanisms—while reducing the human effort required to preserve meaning—do not introduce learning or automaticity, and instead strengthen authority retention and auditability. The paper concludes by establishing a clear category boundary intended to prevent semantic collapse between biological learning and governed continuity. --- This is an anchored, non-peer reviewed paper describing Cognitive Memoisation as used in (CM-1) and (CM-2)