Enter the same session
See the current goal, evidence, blockers, participants, and agent activity without asking for a recap.
FROM CHAT TO MULTIPLAYER
AI work should be multiplayer from the beginning.
Private chat is useful for a question. Real work spans people, agents, tools, decisions, and time. Visca turns the work into a shared living record that authorized collaborators can enter and change—not a transcript they can only read.
Request a demo
CHAT IS AN INTERACTION
The work—not the transcript—is the shared object.
A transcript shows what happened in someone else’s session. A multiplayer workspace exposes the mission, present state, evidence, authority, and next action so every collaborator can make the work better while it is still alive.
HOW THE WORK MOVES
Change the work
Contribute context, redirect the approach, approve an action, or take over while history stays intact.
Leave it better
Hand the work back to the agent with decisions and responsibilities already recorded.
ACCOUNTABLE AUTONOMY
Continuous work.
Explicit responsibility.
THE AGENT CARRIES
Keep everyone on the same current state
Surface decisions at the right moment
Continue without losing contributor context
ITS HUMAN DECIDES
Join without waiting for a handoff
Challenge or redirect the work live
Approve the outcome and assign responsibility
Choose the right kind of shared work.
A short conversation can be enough for a quick question. A continuing workspace earns its place when people need to contribute, disagree, approve, and return over time.
Illustrative design scenario
From individual research to a team decision
A colleague asks an agent to compare three possible venues for a team gathering. For an informal first look, a concise answer may be sufficient. The task changes when someone else adds accessibility requirements, finance sets a budget, and the organizer must confirm availability. The group now needs shared constraints and a current decision, not just several plausible answers.
In a continuing workspace, the agent’s comparison connects each option to the requirement it satisfies and the information still missing. Finance can correct the budget without rewriting the research. The organizer can reject an option and record why. The agent can then update the remaining choices without rediscovering the same preference in a later conversation.
The useful distinction is not how many people can type at once. It is whether their contributions change the same understood assignment. When availability changes, the group should know which conclusions are stale and whether the original approval still covers the proposed booking.
The team retains a decision it can explain: the chosen option, reasons, approver, commitments, and follow-up. People may participate through different interfaces without creating separate versions of the truth.
The cases worth designing for.
Keep simple questions simple
Do not require a formal project setup for every answer. Use the smallest interaction that meets the need, and introduce a durable assignment when there are commitments, multiple contributors, or work worth continuing.
Make disagreement useful
An agent should be able to present incompatible requirements without inventing agreement. Name the decision and its owner. Where possible, continue reversible preparation while the team resolves the tradeoff.
Avoid turning visibility into interruption
People need access to the state of work, not a notification for every change. Distinguish information they may inspect from decisions that require their attention, and let their role determine the difference.
What to look for in an evaluation.
- Can people contribute from different interfaces without forking the assignment?
- Are alternatives preserved until a decision resolves them?
- Does the workspace reduce coordination effort enough to justify its structure?
No transcript handoff. No thousand private threads.
Keep control of the agent