Supported data flows with VeSys and Capital are essentially one-way. You can start a design in VeSys and finish it in Capital, but you can't start in Capital and finish in VeSys, because the Capital data model will contain structures and elements that VeSys cannot understand.
You didn't say which type of data you want to exchange - wiring or harness. If you're talking about harness data exchange then you can exchange data bidirectionally using the DSI format. The content of a DSI file is a subset of what you have in the full XML file - part numbers, dimensions, etc are exchanged, but not the fancy graphical features and capabilities, so you won't see a facsimile of the original design.
So if you're exchanging harness designs then DSI is a solution.
We have a number of VeSys Harness customers that need to interface with customers using Capital HarnessXC and some of them have adopted a mixed VeSys Harness and Capital HarnessXC environment. This allows them to use Capital HarnessXC to receive incoming designs in a wide range of formats (e.g. KBL) and either process them directly in Capital HarnessXC or, with simple harnesses, use DSI exchange to finish the job in VeSys. Two really good reasons to go this way - firstly, you never know what you might be receiving from the Capital customer - there may be more complexity than you expected, some of this complex data would be lost through DSI and need laborious re-creation in VeSys. Secondly, if you're a small harness maker with ambitions, then eventually you need to move up the value chain from being a low-margin build-to-print operation and take contracts with more variant complexity - and with variant harnesses the Capital HarnessXC approach offers much higher efficiency and lower cost than VeSys Harness.