Will AI replace Elected officers and representatives?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 40 official task statements scored for Elected officers and representatives (United Kingdom, SOC 1112), 20% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 32 out of 100 (range 27–38, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Elected officers and representatives” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Compose newsletters highlighting political achievements” (93/100, very high); “Prepare budgets for approval, including those for funding or implementation of programmes” (88/100, very high); “Manage the reimbursement of expenses” (88/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Elected officers and representatives” stay human?

About 68% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Attend receptions and dinners to meet people and exchange views” (0/100, minimal); “Participate in conferences to develop working relationships” (2/100, minimal); “Represent their government at meetings and conferences at various levels” (3/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Elected officers and representatives” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 20% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 68% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

How is the AI exposure score for Elected officers and representatives calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 40 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

UK data

Elected officers and representatives

communicating constituents' concerns to ministers, formulating positions and strategies on pending issues with colleagues and making decisions considering the perspectives of private citizens. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: composing newsletters highlighting political achievements. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 20%
changing shape: 11%
staying human: 68%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 32 out of 100 (27–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 40 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for elected officers and representatives is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, debating the merits of proposals and bill amendments during floor sessions, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.

Your week, as this page understands it

Elected representatives in national government formulate and ratify legislation and government policy, act as elected representatives in Parliament, Regional Parliaments or Assemblies, and as representatives of the government and its executive. Elected officers in local government act as representatives in the local authority and participate in the formulation, ratification and implementation of local government policies. The job title says “elected officers” or “representatives”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: debating the merits of proposals and bill amendments during floor sessions. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But elected officers and representatives is not one task. It is 40 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is debating the merits of proposals and bill amendments during floor sessions, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 20%
changing shape: 11%
staying human: 68%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

Shifting to AI

8 tasks

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Evaluating the implications of proposed legislation on local and national levels
This is reading one thing and writing another: the implications of proposed legislation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Evaluate the implications of proposed legislation on local and national levels.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reading proposed legislation and working out what it means is document analysis with plenty of source material.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Determining campaign strategies for media advertising
This is reading one thing and writing another: campaign strategies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Determine campaign strategies for media advertising, positions on issues, and public appearances.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Strategy documents, messaging and media plans are writing and analysis tasks software produces strong drafts for.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Composing newsletters highlighting political achievements
This is reading one thing and writing another: newsletters highlighting political achievements in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Compose newsletters highlighting political achievements.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing a constituency newsletter from a list of achievements is exactly the kind of drafting software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing budgets for approval, including those for funding or implementation of programmes
This is reading one thing and writing another: budgets in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Prepare budgets for approval, including those for funding or implementation of programmes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Preparing programme budgets for approval is spreadsheet and narrative work software produces reliably, with approval happening elsewhere.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.

Changing shape

4 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Assessing the structure, efficiency, activities and performance of government agencies
The software now makes the first pass at the structure, efficiency, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Assess the structure, efficiency, activities, and performance of government agencies.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (35–49 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Performance data and published reports are the raw material, and analysing them is well-suited desk work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing public concerns to determine the need for governmental action
The software now makes the first pass at public concerns, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 65 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Review public concerns to determine the need for governmental action.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Sorting large volumes of correspondence and local issues into themes is a reading task software handles quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing drafts of legislative proposals for governmental
The software now makes the first pass at drafts of legislative proposals, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Write drafts of legislative proposals for governmental use.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 57 out of 100 (50–64 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: The statute book is public and software drafts credible proposals, though formal drafting conventions still need specialist lawyers.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.

Staying human

28 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Debating the merits of proposals and bill amendments during floor sessions
This work happens in the physical world: the merits of proposals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Debate the merits of proposals and bill amendments during floor sessions, following the appropriate rules of procedure.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: A speech can be drafted, but only the elected member may stand and make it in the chamber.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Communicating effectively with other colleagues and professional groups through briefings
The value here is that a specific person handles other colleagues and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Communicate effectively with other colleagues and professional groups through briefings, operational reports, and presentations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Briefings, reports and slides can be drafted automatically, though delivering them convincingly is a person's job.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Formulating positions and strategies on pending issues with colleagues
The value here is that a specific person handles positions and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Formulate positions and strategies on pending issues with colleagues.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (27–41 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Policy options are easy to draft, but settling a line with colleagues is done in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 30 tasks

Managing the reimbursement of expenses
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: the reimbursement of expenses in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 50 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Manage the reimbursement of expenses.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Processing expense claims against published rules is routine administration that systems already handle, with validation done elsewhere.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Maintaining up-to-date knowledge about current news stories and specialist areas
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: up-to-date knowledge in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Maintain up-to-date knowledge about current news stories and specialist areas.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping across the news and a specialist beat is reading and summarising, which software does at scale.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Reading local newspapers to stay informed about community concerns
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: local newspapers in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Read local newspapers to stay informed about community concerns.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Scanning local news for community concerns is reading and summarising, which software does quickly, though not everything local is online.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Sourcing grants and funding for community projects
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: grants in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Source grants and funding for community projects.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Searching out grants and funding sources is research and matching work that tools do quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Making recommendations on how
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at recommendations, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 60 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Make recommendations on how to proceed.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Options and recommendations can be generated quickly, but an elected representative's recommendation carries a mandate only they hold.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Negotiating legal documents to support legislative processes
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for legal documents, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 65 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Negotiate legal documents to support legislative processes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Drafting and comparing legal text is well-suited desk work, though agreeing final wording involves the parties.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Ensuring that money collected is properly
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: money collected, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 50 · 1112/02
Source: “Ensure that money collected is properly recorded and secured.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 36 out of 100 (29–43 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Recording money is automatic, but securing cash means someone physically banking it and locking it away.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Communicating constituents' concerns to ministers
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles constituents' concerns and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 1112/01
Source: “Communicate constituents' concerns to ministers.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (27–41 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Letters and briefings are easy to draft from casework, but raising it with a minister carries the member’s own name.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing support staff to ensure efficient office operations
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles support staff and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 55 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Manage support staff to ensure efficient office operations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Workflow can be organised automatically, but managing the people doing it is a human job.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Making decisions considering the perspectives of private citizens
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for decisions considering the perspectives of private citizens, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Make decisions considering the perspectives of private citizens.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Constituent correspondence can be summarised well, but weighing it into a decision is the member’s own responsibility.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Marketing the industries and products of specific electoral districts to potential investors
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the industries, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 55 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Market the industries and products of specific electoral districts to potential investors.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Investment materials are easy to produce, but winning investors involves meetings and relationships.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Carrying out "head counts" to help forecast the outcome of upcoming votes
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles "head counts" and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 50 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Carry out "head counts" to help forecast the outcome of upcoming votes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Past voting records help, but the decisive information comes from private conversations with colleagues.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Reviewing bills in committee
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: bills, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Review bills in committee.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Reading and comparing clauses is document work software is good at, but committee membership belongs to the member.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing, preparing and delivering statements for the Hansard
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: statements, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Write, prepare, and deliver statements for the Hansard.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: The writing is straightforward drafting, but delivery in the House can only be done by the member.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Organising and maintaining campaign organisations and fundraisers to raise money for elections
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: campaign organisations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Organise and maintain campaign organisations and fundraisers to raise money for elections.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Planning and donation records can be handled digitally, though running events and asking supporters for money is personal.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in commissions to examine specialised areas and recommend action
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: commissions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Participate in commissions to examine specialised areas and recommend action.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Research and draft recommendations can be assisted, but sitting on a commission is a role given to a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Making decisions considering the perspectives of party leaders
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for decisions considering the perspectives of party leaders, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Make decisions considering the perspectives of party leaders.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: What the leadership will accept is mostly unwritten and picked up through private conversation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Hearing evidence from various stakeholders on bills or issues under consideration
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: evidence, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Hear evidence from various stakeholders on bills or issues under consideration.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Written submissions can be summarised, though live evidence sessions depend on members questioning witnesses face to face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Appointing nominees to leadership positions
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for nominees, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Appoint nominees to leadership positions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Shortlists can be prepared, but the appointment itself is a judgement the office-holder is answerable for.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Encouraging and supporting students in developing into future political leaders
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles students and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 60 · 1112/01
Source: “Encourage and support students in developing into future political leaders.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Encouraging someone into public life is a personal relationship over years.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Speaking with the media on behalf of their parties
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the media, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Speak with the media on behalf of their parties.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Lines can be prepared in advance, but the interview is given by the person answerable for them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supporting electoral campaign activities before and during election periods
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: electoral campaign activities, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Support electoral campaign activities before and during election periods.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Leaflets and messaging can be produced easily, but canvassing and campaign events happen on the doorstep.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Engaging in debates on relevant issues and pose critical questions
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: debates, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 1112/01
Source: “Engage in debates on relevant issues and pose critical questions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Sharp questions are easy to draft from the papers, but asking them is the member’s job in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Establishing personal offices in local districts or regions
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: personal offices, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Establish personal offices in local districts or regions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Setting up an office means finding premises, equipment and staff in a real place.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Negotiating with colleagues or members of other political parties to reconcile differing interests
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: colleagues, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Negotiate with colleagues or members of other political parties to reconcile differing interests.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Reconciling interests across parties depends on trust and reading the room in live conversation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Making personal visits and phone calls to understand issues affecting constituents
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: personal visits, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Make personal visits and phone calls to understand issues affecting constituents.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Turning up on someone’s doorstep and listening is the point of the task.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Participating in voting on new laws and policies
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: voting, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 1112/01
Source: “Participate in voting on new laws and policies.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: A vote is legally the member’s own act and cannot be cast by anything else.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Representing their government at meetings and conferences at various levels
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: their government, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Represent their government at meetings and conferences at various levels.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Representing your government means the office-holder is physically in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Participating in conferences to develop working relationships
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: conferences, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Participate in conferences to develop working relationships.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 2 out of 100 (0–6 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Building working relationships happens by being there and talking to people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Attending receptions and dinners to meet people and exchange views
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: receptions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 1112/01, 1112/02
Source: “Attend receptions and dinners to meet people and exchange views.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Meeting people over dinner is presence and conversation, which needs the person there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: No median pay figure is published for this exact group, so there is none here. We would rather show you the gap than a number borrowed from somewhere else.The ONS doesn't publish a reliable pay figure for this exact job (too few people in its survey sample), so none is shown here.
People doing this job: 12,400in the UK, 2026.nomis-aps · Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period)This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: newsletters highlighting political achievements in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: composing newsletters highlighting political achievements and evaluating the implications of proposed legislation on local and national levels. What it cannot do is be answerable: the merits of proposals need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Composing newsletters highlighting political achievements is going; debating the merits of proposals and bill amendments during floor sessions is not.

So, given all that: 20% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 11% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 68% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 40 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.

This week: one thing

Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.

What you end up holding: your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
How long it takes: about twenty minutes

If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.

Over the next 90 days

Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (debating the merits of proposals and bill amendments during floor sessions) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.

Over the next 12 months

Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles debating the merits of proposals and bill amendments during floor sessions, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, spend an hour with National Careers Service. It is free and government-funded, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest UK occupations to elected officers and representatives (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was business, research and administrative professionals n.e.c.: only about 2% of its durable work is work you already do and it is under the same pressure this job is. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 32/100 here, with only 20% of the task list in the top band, and “communicate constituents' concerns to ministers” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 412 UK occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Business, research and administrative professionals n.e.c.
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already communicate constituents' concerns to ministers, and their equivalent is to agree on project requirements with policy officials and ministers. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 59% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (61/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. I do not recommend a move I cannot price.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Social services managers and directors
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already represent their government at meetings and conferences at various levels, and their equivalent is to represent organisations in relations with government and media institutions. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. I do not recommend a move I cannot price.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Public relations professionals
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already communicate effectively with other colleagues and professional groups through briefings, operational reports, and…, and their equivalent is to communicate effectively verbally with clients, colleagues, and the public. Across both published task lists that is about 1% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 1% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. I do not recommend a move I cannot price.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 20% of its task weight, across 40 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United Kingdom figures

There is no counterpart mapped for this job in the other country, so there is nothing to switch to. That is a gap in the mapping, not a statement about the job.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

In England:
National Careers Service
A free hour with a government-funded careers adviser is worth more than another evening of reading. In England that's the National Careers Service.
Free, government-funded
- Discover your skills and careers (the skills assessment)
In England:
National Careers Service - Find a course
Search what's actually running near you before you spend anything.
Free to search; individual courses vary
In England:
Free courses for jobs (Level 3 qualifications)
A free Level 3 qualification you already qualify for beats a paid course you don't need.
Free for eligible adults
In England:
Skills Bootcamps
Free, up to 16 weeks, and you get a job interview at the end. In England these are Skills Bootcamps - search what's running near you.
Free for eligible adults in England
- Skills Bootcamps - what they are and who can do them (DfE, Skills for Careers)
- Skills Bootcamps - JobHelp (DWP)
In Scotland:
My World of Work (Skills Development Scotland)
In Scotland it's My World of Work, from Skills Development Scotland.
Free, publicly funded
- Skills Development Scotland
In Wales:
Careers Wales
In Wales it's Careers Wales.
Free, Welsh Government-funded
In Northern Ireland:
Careers Service Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland it's the Careers Service on nidirect.
Free, Department for the Economy-funded

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for elected officers / representatives, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 20% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for elected officers / representatives. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for elected officers / representatives launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for elected officers / representatives yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for elected officers / representatives existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for elected officers / representatives launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Elected officers and representatives?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 40 official task statements scored for Elected officers and representatives (United Kingdom, SOC 1112), 20% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 32 out of 100 (range 27–38, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Elected officers and representatives” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Compose newsletters highlighting political achievements” (93/100, very high); “Prepare budgets for approval, including those for funding or implementation of programmes” (88/100, very high); “Manage the reimbursement of expenses” (88/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Elected officers and representatives” stay human?: About 68% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Attend receptions and dinners to meet people and exchange views” (0/100, minimal); “Participate in conferences to develop working relationships” (2/100, minimal); “Represent their government at meetings and conferences at various levels” (3/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Elected officers and representatives” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 20% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 68% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Elected officers and representatives calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 40 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

About the data on this page

The ONS doesn't publish a reliable pay figure for this exact job (too few people in its survey sample), so none is shown here.
This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.
6 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
ASHE suppresses or does not publish a median for this unit group. We leave it empty rather than interpolating one from sibling groups, which would be a fabricated number.
No cross-market counterpart is mapped for this occupation, so there is no US↔UK comparison on this page.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: gaisi-indexProcessing: catalogue-bridge → ssc-relatedness-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: gaisi-index (relatedness)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: no pay figure published for this groupnomis-aps (Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.