UK dataswitch to US
Other researchers, unspecified discipline
complying with health, safety and ethics requirements in research activities, extrapolating data to develop theories to explain experimental results and communicating analysis results through presentations and publications. 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: analysing large-scale data sets to identify patterns and insights. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, operating complex instrumentation for research and analysis, stays yours. The tools change hands, the accountability doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Other researchers, unspecified discipline perform research activities across a variety of disciplines for academic purposes or to provide the systematic investigation necessary for the development of new products and services, or to enhance the performance of existing ones. The job title says “other researchers” or “unspecified discipline”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: operating complex instrumentation for research and analysis. 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 other researchers, unspecified discipline is not one task. It is 48 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is operating complex instrumentation for research and analysis, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 27%
- changing shape
- 22%
- staying human
- 51%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 45 out of 100 (38–51 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 48 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 other researchers, unspecified discipline 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.
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.
- 2 rows are marked low confidence, so treat them as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
- 13 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.
- 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.
Shifting to AI
13 tasksTasks 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.
Analysing data to support diverse research initiatives
This is reading one thing and writing another: data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2162/00Source: “Analyse data to support diverse research initiatives.” (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: Analysing research data uses documented statistical methods that AI tools now run and explain well.
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.
Analysing large-scale data sets to identify patterns and insights
This is reading one thing and writing another: large-scale data sets in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 2162/00Source: “Analyse large-scale data sets to identify patterns and insights.” (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: Finding patterns in large datasets is one of the strongest things these tools do, working directly on workplace data.
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.
Conducting literature reviews to support research projects or academic studies
This is reading one thing and writing another: literature reviews in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 2162/00Source: “Conduct literature reviews to support research projects or academic studies.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Literature reviewing is reading and summarising at scale, which software does quickly, though citations need checking.
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.
Monitoring and incorporating findings from ongoing research into current projects
This is reading one thing and writing another: findings in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 2162/00Source: “Monitor and incorporate findings from ongoing research into current projects.” (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: Tracking and digesting new publications is one of the strongest uses of current AI tools.
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.
Changing shape
11 tasksTasks 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.
Maintaining accurate records of laboratory work and results
The software now makes the first pass at accurate records of laboratory work, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2162/00Source: “Maintain accurate records of laboratory work and results.” (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: Laboratory records follow set formats and can largely be generated and kept up to date automatically, though the work itself happens at the bench.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing new products, processes and services to drive improvement
The software now makes the first pass at new products, processes and services, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2162/00Source: “Develop new products, processes, and services to drive improvement.” (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: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: New products and services can be sketched by software, but developing them depends on people and local knowledge.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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 2/4.
Extrapolating data to develop theories to explain experimental results
The software now makes the first pass at data, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 65 · 2162/00Source: “Extrapolate data to develop theories to explain experimental results.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 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: AI can suggest explanations for results, but judging which theory holds up takes expert reasoning.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Staying human
24 tasksTasks 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.
Complying with health, safety and ethics requirements in research activities
The ratings behind this row put health, safety and ethics requirements well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 80 · 2162/00Source: “Comply with health, safety, and ethics requirements in research activities.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 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.
The rating behind it: Ethics and safety rules are written down, but complying with them means doing the work that way.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Collaborating with other scientists, sometimes, scientists from other disciplines
The value here is that a specific person handles other scientists, sometimes, scientists and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2162/00Source: “Collaborate with other scientists, sometimes including scientists from other disciplines.” (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: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Working with other scientists depends on relationships and trust built between people.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting high-level research in a university setting
The ratings behind this row put high-level research well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 70 · 2162/00Source: “Conduct high-level research in a university setting.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 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.
The rating behind it: Genuinely new research needs original judgement about what is worth asking and how to test it.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 38 tasks
Processing research data and experimental results for analysis
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: research data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2162/00Source: “Process research data and experimental results for analysis.” (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: Cleaning and preparing experimental data for analysis is scripted work AI does quickly and accurately.
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.
Conducting reviews of relevant literature and evidence
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: reviews of relevant literature in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 55 · 2162/00Source: “Conduct reviews of relevant literature and evidence.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Literature and evidence reviews are strongly supported by these tools, though sources still need checking by a researcher.
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.
Summarising the research's nature, methodology and results for academic peers
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: the research's nature, methodology and results in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 55 · 2162/00Source: “Summarise the research's nature, methodology, and results for academic peers.” (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: Summarising your own methods and results for peers is exactly what AI writing tools do well.
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.
Regularlying read industry journals
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: read industry journals in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 50 · 2162/00Source: “Regularly read industry journals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Keeping up with journals is reading and summarising, which AI tools do quickly and reliably.
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.
Reviewing, and applying findingsing from new research and developments in the field
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: new research in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 2162/00Source: “Review and apply findings from new research and developments in the field.” (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: Reading new findings and judging what applies here mixes easy summarising with expert judgement.
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.
Conducting feasibility studies to support research objectives and funding
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: feasibility studies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2162/00Source: “Conduct feasibility studies to support research objectives and funding.” (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: Feasibility studies are structured desk research and costing that AI drafts well.
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.
Monitoring project milestones and deliverables
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: project milestones in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 55 · 2162/00Source: “Monitor project milestones and deliverables.” (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: Milestone and deliverable tracking is dashboard work pulled straight from project systems.
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.
Preparing research papers for journals and specialist publications
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: research papers in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 2162/00Source: “Prepare research papers for journals and specialist publications.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 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: Journal papers follow strict conventions, so AI drafts strong text that authors then check and refine.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Arranging the testing of products or materials to ensure that they meet quality standards
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: the testing of products in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 50 · 2162/00Source: “Arrange the testing of products or materials to ensure that they meet quality standards.” (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: Arranging tests is scheduling and paperwork against known standards, which software handles, with brief human contact to book the laboratory in.
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.
Applying for funding to support community or research projects
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at funding, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 60 · 2162/00Source: “Apply for funding to support community or research projects.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 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: Tools draft funding bids well, but tailoring one to a specific funder still needs substantial human reworking.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Applying for sources of external funding in addition to that provided by the employer
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at this work, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 55 · 2162/00Source: “Apply for sources of external funding in addition to that provided by the employer.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (54–62 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Funding bids can be drafted, but a competitive application depends on knowing the funder and the field.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Drafting research proposals to secure funding and outline study objectives
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at research proposals, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 55 · 2162/00Source: “Draft research proposals to secure funding and outline study objectives.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (54–62 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Proposals draft quickly, but the idea and the fit with the funder come from the researcher.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Advising on the development of policies and protocols
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at the development of policies, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 50 · 2162/00Source: “Advise on the development of policies and protocols related to health, safety, security, and ethics.” (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: Safety and ethics policies follow published standards, so solid drafts can be produced 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.
Effectivelying manage personal time and budget for both local and international assignments
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at manage personal time, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 50 · 2162/00Source: “Effectively manage personal time and budget for both local and international assignments.” (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: Managing your own diary and budget is scheduling and arithmetic that software handles well.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating the validity of assumptions in project planning and execution
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at the validity of assumptions, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 60 · 2162/00Source: “Evaluate the validity of assumptions in project planning and execution.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 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: Testing whether planning assumptions hold needs knowledge of the site and supply chain, not just numbers.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Working to deadlines as required by fund or grant holder
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at deadlines, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 50 · 2162/00Source: “Work to deadlines as required by fund or grant holder.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (37–61 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, low confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Tools can track deadlines, but delivering research on time depends on the work itself.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Communicating analysis results through presentations and publications
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at analysis results, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 65 · 2162/00Source: “Communicate analysis results through presentations and publications.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 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: Turning results into papers and presentations is writing work AI drafts to a usable standard.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Applying new methodologies to enhance product development processes
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put new methodologies well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 60 · 2162/00Source: “Apply new methodologies to enhance product development processes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 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.
The rating behind it: Bringing a new method into product development takes hands-on trial and knowledge of the process.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Liaising with and referring to other professionals within the industry
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles this work and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 60 · 2162/00Source: “Liaise with, and refer to, other professionals within the industry.” (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: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Knowing who to ask and being able to ask them rests on personal contacts.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting pilot projects to test and refine new ideas
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put pilot projects well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 60 · 2162/00Source: “Conduct pilot projects to test and refine new ideas.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software helps design and analyse a pilot, but running one depends on local conditions and hands-on trial that are not written down anywhere.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing new products and processes based on research findings
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: new products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 2162/00Source: “Develop new products and processes based on research findings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 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: Turning findings into a working product needs building and testing in the real world.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning and carrying out laboratory-based scientific investigations and experiments following specified methodologies and quality standards
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: laboratory-based scientific investigations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 2162/00Source: “Plan and carry out laboratory-based scientific investigations and experiments following specified methodologies and quality standards.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 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: Experimental plans and methods are well documented and can be drafted automatically, but half the task is physically running the work at the bench.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supporting organisational adaptation to internal or external change
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles organisational adaptation and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 50 · 2162/00Source: “Support organisational adaptation to internal or external change.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (21–35 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: Helping an organisation through change depends on trust with the people living through it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Giving presentations at conferences and other events
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: presentations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2162/00Source: “Give presentations at conferences and other events.” (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: Slides and a script draft well, but standing up at a conference and taking questions is personal.
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.
Presenting research findings at professional scientific conferences
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles research findings and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2162/00Source: “Present research findings at professional scientific conferences.” (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: Slides and abstracts can be drafted automatically, but standing up at a conference and handling questions on your own data is the researcher's 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 2/4.
Verballying communicate research findings to the scientific community
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: communicate research findings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 2162/00Source: “Verbally communicate research findings to the scientific community, producers, and the public.” (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: The words prepare easily, but explaining findings to an audience happens face to face.
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.
Delivering training in research techniques and methods to colleagues and students
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: research techniques, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 50 · 2162/00Source: “Deliver training in research techniques and methods to colleagues and students.” (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: Course material writes easily, but teaching a technique means watching people try it.
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.
Facilitating an in-depth understanding of an organisation's operations
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles this work and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 50 · 2162/00Source: “Facilitating an in-depth understanding of an organisation's operations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (14–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, low confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Really understanding how an organisation works comes from talking to the people inside it.
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.
Designing and carrying out specific scientific experiments to test hypotheses
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: specific scientific experiments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2162/00Source: “Design and carry out specific scientific experiments to test hypotheses.” (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.
The rating behind it: Experiments can be designed on paper, but carrying them out involves handling animals and equipment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining working relationships and communicating effectively with internal and external stakeholders
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles relationships and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 55 · 2162/00Source: “Maintain working relationships and communicate effectively with internal and external stakeholders.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Working relationships with stakeholders are built person to person over time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising staff to ensure compliance with job standards
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles staff and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 60 · 2162/00Source: “Supervise staff to ensure compliance with job standards.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (13–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high 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: Supervision works through a relationship with the people being supervised.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing new products to contribute to scientific knowledge
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: new products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 2162/00Source: “Develop new products to contribute to scientific knowledge.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Creating something genuinely new depends on original insight and hands-on experimental work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Teaching undergraduate and postgraduate students
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: undergraduate, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 2162/00Source: “Teach undergraduate and postgraduate students.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 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: Materials write easily, but students learn from someone who notices when they are stuck.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing a research team, including technicians and supporting staff, to conduct studies
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles a research team, including technicians and supporting staff and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 60 · 2162/00Source: “Manage a research team, including technicians and support staff, to conduct studies.” (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: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Managing technicians and support staff runs on knowing individuals, reading the room and earning their confidence, which software cannot do for you.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Managing a group of research students
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles a group of research students and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 50 · 2162/00Source: “Manage a group of research students.” (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: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Managing research students means knowing each of them and how their work and confidence are going.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting fieldwork to collect data for research
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: fieldwork, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 55 · 2162/00Source: “Conduct fieldwork to collect data for research.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 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 rating behind it: Fieldwork means getting to the location and taking the measurements.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Attending conferences to engage with the academic community
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: conferences, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2162/00Source: “Attend conferences to engage with the academic community.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium 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: Conferences are about being in the room and meeting people, which software cannot do for you.
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 1/4.
Operating complex instrumentation for research and analysis
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: complex instrumentation, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2162/00Source: “Operate complex instrumentation for research and analysis.” (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 rating behind it: Operating research instruments is hands-on laboratory work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- £44,600a year, before tax, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.ashe-t14, 2025 · ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
How we know this
Source: ashe-t14
Reference period: ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)
Rounding: Shown to the nearest £100. The exact published figure is in the downloadable dataset. We do not render pounds the survey cannot support.
- People doing this job
- 78,200in 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: large-scale data sets in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: analysing large-scale data sets to identify patterns and insights and analysing data to support diverse research initiatives. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where complex instrumentation gets done. 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. Analysing large-scale data sets to identify patterns and insights is going; operating complex instrumentation for research and analysis is not.
So, given all that: 27% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 22% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 51% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 48 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 (operating complex instrumentation for research and analysis) 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 operating complex instrumentation for research and analysis, 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 other researchers, unspecified discipline (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was research and development (r&d) managers: only about 14% of its durable work is work you already do. Your own job splits about 27/73: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “comply with health, safety, and ethics requirements in research activities”, and let the exposed end go.
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.
Research and development (r&d) managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “plan and carry out laboratory-based scientific investigations and experiments following specified methodologies and quality standards”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 14% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 14% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Higher education teaching professionals
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “manage a group of research students”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 10% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 10% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Data analysts
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already present research findings at professional scientific conferences, and their equivalent is to present research findings to relevant stakeholders to support project development. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% 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: 74% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (71/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: £38,572 against your £44,580, 13.5% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
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: 27% of its task weight, across 48 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
The United States splits this work across more than one official group, of which Animal Scientists is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United States page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In US official statistics this job is counted as Animal Scientists, Food Scientists and Technologists, Soil and Plant Scientists, Biochemists and Biophysicists, Microbiologists, Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists, Biological Scientists, All Other, Epidemiologists, Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists and Life Scientists, All Other. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
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:
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
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:
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
In Scotland:
My World of Work (Skills Development Scotland)
In Scotland it's My World of Work, from Skills Development Scotland.
Free, publicly funded
In 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 other researchers / unspecified discipline, 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 27% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
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 other researchers / unspecified discipline. 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 other researchers / unspecified discipline 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 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 Other researchers, unspecified discipline?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 48 official task statements scored for Other researchers, unspecified discipline (United Kingdom, SOC 2162), 27% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 45 out of 100 (range 38–51, band: partial). 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 “Other researchers, unspecified discipline” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Analyse large-scale data sets to identify patterns and insights” (93/100, very high); “Process research data and experimental results for analysis” (93/100, very high); “Analyse data to support diverse research initiatives” (83/100, 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 “Other researchers, unspecified discipline” stay human?
- About 51% 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: “Operate complex instrumentation for research and analysis” (0/100, minimal); “Attend conferences to engage with the academic community” (3/100, minimal); “Conduct fieldwork to collect data for research” (10/100, 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 “Other researchers, unspecified discipline” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 27% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 51% 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 Other researchers, unspecified discipline 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 48 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
- Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
- This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.
- 2 rows are marked low confidence, so treat them as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 13 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.
- 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
- ashe-t14 (ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025))nomis-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.
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}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . 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.