INTERCOM is recorded as a network resource asset in PL. Current public evidence covers one supporting public reference; services, assets, and relationship context should be read with that evidence boundary.
Intercom's strongest claim is not that a customer-service team can add an AI chat surface. The harder claim is that a live customer request can move through knowledge retrieval, policy rules, account context, escalation and ticket state into an answer, update or handoff that the business can stand behind. That makes Intercom's real test the accepted support resolution: did the customer get a defensible outcome without losing context, trust or recoverability, and did the cost of that outcome beat the cost of maintaining the automation?
