The product · one conversation at a time

One screen. One conversation, read top to bottom.

BearScope puts every live conversation on one board, whether a person or an AI agent is handling it. Open one and you see the whole case: the full thread it sensed, the read it reasoned about, and the move it is ready to make. Nothing runs until a person says go.

See it on your floor → Watch it answer
1 Sense

It reads the whole conversation, not the last message.

BearScope pulls every signal that decides how a thread should go, from the systems you already run. No new data entry, no manual tagging by your team.

  • The full thread, every turn
  • Customer history & prior contacts
  • Channel: chat, voice, email
  • Sentiment & how it is shifting
  • Linked order, account & policy
2 Reason

It names the intent, the quality read, and the risk.

The signals fold into one read per conversation, grounded only in what your data actually says. It explains the case the way a senior lead would on a walkthrough.

  • Intent, not a keyword guess
  • A quality read against your rubric
  • One risk score per thread
  • Plain-language, citable answer
  • Fallbacks are tagged, never shown as fact
3 Act

It proposes the move and runs it when you confirm.

Every case carries the next move: resolve, hand off to a person, or reassign. You confirm, BearScope executes through a safe connector, and you get a receipt.

  • Resolve, hand off, or reassign
  • One confirm, then it executes
  • Handled once: no duplicate sends
  • Policy can veto before it runs
  • Every action leaves a receipt
A worked question

Ask it like a person. It answers from your data, then offers to act.

No query builder, no dashboard tour. A lead types a question. Radar answers from real conversation and scoring data, cites where it looked, and proposes the action. Nothing happens until someone says run it.

Ask Which conversations are about to breach SLA, and why?
Radar answered

Three threads breach SLA within the hour. Thread 5821 (charged twice, $0) scores 0.88: a billing dispute with no reply for 3h 40m, and the customer has messaged twice today. Thread 5847 (wrong item) is on voice with sentiment falling and a refund mentioned. The afternoon shift is short two reps, and refund-tone got flagged on 6 chats, which is what pulled CSAT to 3.4. The two reopened billing threads are the ones at risk.

Conversation feed live threads + last-reply timestamps
Scoring engine quality reads on 412 conversations today
Staffing shift roster + handle times · live
✓ Grounded in real tenant data · no estimates, no invented numbers
1
Propose
Reassign the 2 reopened billing threads to a senior rep and set each one to In progress so they leave the auto queue.
2
Confirm
A person confirms before anything runs.
Run itNot now
3
Execute
Reassigned and status set · handled once, so a double click runs once.
4
Receipt
Action conversation.reassign · status.set
Target threads 5821, 5847 · to d.vance
By j.ruiz · 14:02 CT
✓ Checked by policy · Receipt #RB-90417
On a real support operation

A real support operation, not a demo dataset.

BearScope runs live on a real team's floor. The conversations are real, the customers are real, and the rubric is the same one the team already grades by. Every conversation gets scored, AI and human alike, and each miss turns into a coaching note. Here is what one screen replaces.

01The QA sample. Instead of reviewing one or two percent and arguing about the rest, the team sees all 412 scored on one rubric, with the two that fell below 60 already pulled to the top.
02The coaching guess. A miss is not a vibe. It points at the exact line in the thread, so the note to the rep is specific and the agent's guardrail gets the same fix.
03The angry-survey surprise. A frustrated thread is caught mid-conversation, not after the CSAT survey lands. A person steps in while the save is still cheap.
How scoring works →
Quality scorecard 412 scored today · 2 below 60
Did not pass · failed 2 of 8 categories
✓Greeting & identity10%
✓Understood the issue20%
✗Set the right expectation20%
✓Resolved or routed25%
✗Closed the loop15%
Coaching note · from thread 5821
Set the right expectation. The reply promised the duplicate charge would "drop off in a few days" before the refund was confirmed. State only what is true, then act.
Flagged line: "It should drop off in a few days."
→ Sent to Jenny's guardrails · routed to Dana as a coaching note
Where BearScope sits

Every other tool reads the conversation after. BearScope reads it while you can still fix it.

CSAT surveys, BI dashboards and escalation reports all look at the conversation after it has already gone wrong. BearScope reads the same thread earlier in its life, mid-conversation, where stepping in is cheap.

Turn 1
Customer opens
"I was charged twice." Tone neutral, still recoverable.
Turn 4 to 6
BearScope flags it
A false promise, no reply for hours, risk climbing. A handoff still saves it.
Turn 9
Customer reopens
Now it is frustrated and public-facing. Options are expensive.
After close
CSAT survey
A 1-star lands. Most tools notice the score here.
Next week
Escalation review
The pattern shows up in a report. Too late to fix this one.
Book a walkthrough

Bring one shift of conversations. We will run BearScope on it live.

A 30-minute walkthrough on a real shift, white-labeled to your brand and safe from the first query. You will see every conversation scored, the four that needed a person, and the moves you could have made mid-thread.

We onboard the operation, not sell you a tool.