Answer playback, account and device questions for a viewer, draft the community reply and log an accessibility complaint against its clock — with cancellations routed, not handled, and a named manager publishing.
Take the viewer's message from chat, email, the help centre or a community thread, with account and device attached.
02
Read the session it is about — player errors, device, app build and the status of the service in that region.
Reason
03
Answer from the published help centre, the service status page and the account record, and cite what it came from.
04
Check what a title's availability, release date or feature actually is before saying anything about it to a viewer.
05
Draft the community reply in the brand's approved voice, and mark any plot detail or unannounced date it contains.
Decide
06
Detect a cancellation request and hand the viewer straight to the cancellation path, with no offer in between.
07
Detect an accessibility complaint, a legal threat, or talk of self-harm or abuse, and route each to its owner.
Out
08
Send the reply on the approved private channels, disclosed as an AI agent, and hold every public post for a person.
09
Retain the message, the sources read, the reply sent and the complaint clock the case was logged against.
→Product statement
The agent answers on the approved private channels. A named community manager publishes anything public, and no offer, credit or cancellation decision is made on this path.
Example workflow
One viewer contact, end to end
AgentHuman
1Message receivedChat, email, the help centre, an in-app report or a post in one of your community spaces
2Session and account readPlayer errors on that session, the device and app build, entitlements on the account and the regional service status
3Reply drafted from sourcesThe published help article, the status page and the account record, cited beside the sentence each one supports
4Duty screenCancellation, accessibility complaint, legal threat, a minor's account, or a disclosure of self-harm or abuse
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run without a person in the loop — the session read, the draft and the duty screen are finished before anyone is asked to look. A disclosure of harm ends that stretch on the spot.
5DecisionSplits on the duty the message carries
Routine, sources agree
Goes back to the viewer as a private reply.
Carries a duty, or is public
Goes to the person who owns it, unsent.
Community manager and support lead
Reads the draft and the sources behind it, then puts anything public up under the brand's name — and takes the case over when it carries a duty the agent must not answer.
Approve · Rewrite · Escalate
Approved — handed back▼
6Reply sent or post heldSent on the private channels the boundary allows, disclosed as an agent; anything public waits for a person
7Outcome evaluatedAnswer accuracy against the source, repeat contacts, complaints logged to their clock and the edits made before a post went up
Rewrites
Every line a manager changes before it goes up is counted.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Posting a reply in a public community space.
Making an offer, a credit or a refund.
Standing between a viewer and cancelling.
Confirming a fault fixed or service restored.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Answer playback, sign-in and device questions.
✓Read the session's player errors, device and regional service status.
✓Draft the community reply and mark any spoiler in it.
✓Log an accessibility complaint against its clock and route it to a named owner.
Write actions run only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation. A cancellation is routed, not handled.
Answering a disclosure of self-harm or abuse.
Closing an accessibility complaint.
Confirming an unannounced date or plot detail.
Changing macros, the duty screen or routing.
Example output
One viewer contact, annotated
Everything the agent sends is attached to the contact it answered.
Support output · single viewer contactIllustrative example
Viewer wrote
Channel
Session
Logged as
Confidence
Fault
Subtitles out of sync
In-app chat, disclosed
2 errors
Accessibility complaint
87%
Not diagnosed by the agent
As receivedThe viewer's own words, the channel used, and the fact that the agent named itself as one.
Evidence usedCaption track presentTwo player errorsHelp article, sync
Why it left the queueA captions complaint carries a response duty and a clock. The accessibility owner answers it.
ActionApproveRewriteEscalate
What the score decidesHow much a person re-reads before the reply goes back, not how faulty the captions were.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every viewer contactChat, email, help centre and community threads
03Sources & status
Answer from what is published
Use the help centre, the status page and the account record as they stand now.
01Approved path
Clear the routine questions first
Playback, sign-in and device questions are answered on the private channels, not queued behind them.
02Human review
Get the duty to its owner early
An accessibility complaint, a legal threat or a disclosure of harm leaves for the person who owns it.
04Build an evidence trail
Retain the viewer's words, the session read, the sources cited, the reply sent and the manager's rewrite — on both paths.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Accessibility complaints, live faults and older devices carry most of what a manager rewrites and most of what comes back a second time. Nestack reports performance by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Accessibility complaints
6.2%
3.9×
Review
Live-event playback faults
4.0%
2.5×
Review
Older smart TVs and set-tops
2.9%
1.8×
Watch
Routine sign-in questions
1.3%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: reply-correction rate lift vs. routine sign-in questions · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
A wrong answer to one viewer is a wrong answer to thousands
Support answers are reused. A sentence that is wrong once stays wrong every time the macro fires, and it is public the moment a viewer posts it.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Reply corrections, repeat contacts or a missed clock move in one cohort.
02Diagnose
Traced to the session read, the article, the macro or the routing.
03Improve
The article, macro or rule is corrected with your support lead.
04Verify
Re-run against held-out contacts, including the ones a manager rewrote.
05Learn
The correction is published in the help centre both sides read.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The help centre is what both the agent and your team answer from — correcting it there is the fix, not an edit to the prompt.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources and the duty screen, drafting, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Workflow discovery and automation-boundary definition.
02Contact channels and helpdesk assessment.
03Help-centre and status-page source mapping.
04Duty screen: accessibility, cancellation, harm.
05Session, entitlement and device read.
06Reply drafting in your approved voice.
07Community drafting and the publication hold.
08Accessibility-complaint logging and clocks.
09Evaluation suite, slices and regression contacts.
10Language and accessibility contact testing.
11Helpdesk and community-platform integration.
12Observability, deployment and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne contact channelProductionProduction helpdesk integrationAdvancedMulti-market / multi-channel
Introduced at Pilot
Answers from the published help centre✓✓✓
AI disclosure on every contact✓✓✓
Cancellation routed, never intercepted✓✓✓
Accessibility complaints logged to the clock✓✓✓
Named manager publishes anything public✓✓✓
Baseline evaluation✓✓✓
Session, device and entitlement read✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Helpdesk and community-platform integration—✓✓
Observability and slice evaluation—✓✓
Multi-language and multi-market coverage—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-brand and enterprise controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on contact channels, helpdesk and community platforms in scope, contact volume, languages and markets, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your help centre and status page as a viewer sees them→Help-centre and status-page source mappingWeek 1
02The channels viewers reach you on, and who staffs each→Contact channels and helpdesk assessmentWeek 1
03Where a cancellation request must go, and who owns it→Duty screen: accessibility, cancellation, harmWeek 2
04Your embargo and spoiler rules, and the brand voice→Reply drafting and community drafting in your voiceWeek 3
05Your accessibility-complaint owner and its clock→Accessibility-complaint logging and clocksWeek 4
06Contacts that went wrong, and the posts you deleted→Evaluation suite, slices and regression contactsWeek 4
07Named community managers and a support lead→Publication hold, then supervised replies and validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Phases are drawn over the weeks they actually occupy. Week 5 carries both the language slices and the first replies a viewer actually receives.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Channels, the duty owners and where a cancellation goesW2Help centre, status page and the duty screen wired inW3Reply drafting, community drafting and the publication holdW4Complaint clocks, evaluation suite, slices and regression contactsW5Helpdesk integration, supervised replies and targeted correctionsW6Viewers answered inside the boundary, then Agent Care starts
Reading the bandThe duty screen is built in week 2, before a single reply is drafted in week 3. Nothing carrying a complaint clock or a harm signal reaches a draft first.
At the end of W6Replies have gone to real viewers on the private channels, and everything public went up under a named community manager, then Agent Care takes over monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Media AI agent
Build an audience-support agent around your help centre and your community team.
Show us the channels your viewers reach you on, where your help centre and status page live, and who owns an accessibility complaint. We'll answer a week of your real contacts from your own help centre and show you the ones the agent would have refused to answer at all.
