You know how GPS navigation sometimes tells you to drive north even though your destination is south, because there's a highway on-ramp that way? That's the core insight here. Visual world-model planners have been scoring every candidate action by how close the predicted outcome looks to the final goal image — the equivalent of always driving toward the pin on a straight line. This paper shows that strategy is provably suboptimal even with perfect dynamics and globally optimal short-horizon search. Goals that require detours — going around a wall, rotating a cube past an intermediate face — punish straight-line scoring. The committed claim: with a completely frozen LeWM (Learned World Model), simply swapping what the planner aims at — from the final goal to a nearby intermediate target — substantially improves both action synthesis and action ranking across four diverse tasks (Cube, PushT, Reacher, TwoRoom). No fine-tuning, no new architectures, no additional training of any kind. The model is fixed; only the objective changes. The method, called Anchored Planning, works by retrieval. Given a current observation and a goal observation, it searches a recorded experience buffer for a trajectory segment whose start resembles the current state and whose end resembles the goal. It then sets the planning target to an observation shortly after the start of that retrieved segment — a near-future waypoint rather than the far-future destination. The frozen model scores candidate actions against this closer target. As execution advances, the retrieval span shrinks, progressively pulling the target closer to the goal. It's subgoal planning via nearest-neighbor lookup, zero learning required. The ladder comparison is direct and clean: Anchored Planning beats the released LeWM planner on every task in the long-range evaluation suite. The paper also tests a variant that adds a final-goal search step on top — and finds it doesn't help, or helps less than intermediate targeting alone. This is the most interesting negative result: the standard objective is not just suboptimal but actively counterproductive for long-horizon problems. Lower successor-prediction error (the metric world models are usually trained to minimize) does not reliably translate into better control. Architecturally, this is model-based reinforcement learning in the planning-with-learned-dynamics family, specifically building on LeWM's visual latent-space world model. The retrieval mechanism is non-parametric — nearest-neighbor in observation space — which means the method's ceiling is bounded by the quality and coverage of the experience buffer. The planning itself is short-horizon search (shooting or CEM-style) scored against the retrieved target. The key design choice is the target schedule: how far ahead to place the intermediate target, and how aggressively to contract the retrieval window during execution. Integrity is mixed. The evaluation is on four simulated environments, all under the authors' control. The baseline is the publicly released LeWM planner, which is reproducible, but there's no comparison to other planning-over-world-models approaches (TD-MPC2, Dreamer-v3, MBPO) or to model-free baselines. The ablations are useful — they isolate target distance, retrieval-span contraction, and learned vs. experience-based targets — but all validation is same-team simulation. No pre-registration, no independent replication. The bigger implication is methodological: the world-model planning community may be leaving performance on the table by optimizing model fidelity when the bottleneck is the planning objective. If your world model is already good enough but your planner can't exploit it because the scoring target is wrong, better dynamics won't help. This reframes the research agenda from 'build better world models' toward 'build better planning targets over existing world models.' Whether Anchored Planning's retrieval-based approach scales to high-dimensional real-world observations and much longer horizons is the obvious open question.
