Will AI replace Pharmaceutical technicians?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 40 official task statements scored for Pharmaceutical technicians (United Kingdom, SOC 3212), 29% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 39 out of 100 (range 34–44, 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 “Pharmaceutical technicians” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Input data into computer systems for record-keeping” (100/100, very high); “Process medical insurance claims for billing of prescribed medications” (100/100, very high); “Calculate charges for medication or equipment dispensed to hospital patients and enter data in computer” (93/100, 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 “Pharmaceutical technicians” stay human?

About 60% 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: “Supply robotic machines that dispense medicine into containers” (0/100, minimal); “Receive and store supplies in designated areas” (0/100, minimal); “Restock medical supplies including dressings, needles, and syringes” (0/100, 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 “Pharmaceutical technicians” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 29% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 60% 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 Pharmaceutical technicians 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 dataswitch to US

Pharmaceutical technicians

handling personal, confidential and sensitive information with strict adherence to legal and organisational confidentiality policies, ensuring the effective use of systems to maintain patient safety and supplying and administering a range of authorised medicines safely. 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: maintaining patient profiles with updated medication information. 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: 29%
changing shape: 11%
staying human: 60%

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

Whole-job exposure score 39 out of 100 (34–44 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 pharmaceutical technicians 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 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, adding measured drugs or nutrients to IV solutions under sterile conditions for various uses, stays yours. The tools change hands, the accountability doesn't.

Your week, as this page understands it

Pharmaceutical technicians work in hospitals or in the community and assist pharmacists in the preparation and dispensing of drugs and medicines. The job title says “pharmaceutical technicians”. The real job is the part underneath: adding measured drugs or nutrients to IV solutions under sterile conditions for various uses. 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 pharmaceutical technicians 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 adding measured drugs or nutrients to IV solutions under sterile conditions for various uses, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 29%
changing shape: 11%
staying human: 60%

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 2026-08-05. 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.

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

12 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.

Handling personal, confidential and sensitive information with strict adherence to legal and organisational confidentiality policies
This is reading one thing and writing another: personal, confidential and sensitive information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 90 · 3212/00
Source: “Handle personal, confidential, and sensitive information with strict adherence to legal and organisational confidentiality policies.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 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: Rules for handling confidential patient information are written down and software can apply them, though the pharmacy remains answerable for any breach.
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 3/4.
Maintaining patient profiles with updated medication information
This is reading one thing and writing another: patient profiles in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 3212/00
Source: “Maintain patient profiles with updated medication information.” (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: Keeping medication records up to date is screen work software does accurately; the pharmacist's clinical check happens separately.
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.
Receiving written prescription or refilling requests
This is reading one thing and writing another: written prescription in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 3212/00
Source: “Receive written prescription or refill requests.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 61 out of 100 (54–68 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: Taking in prescriptions is increasingly electronic, so receiving and logging the request happens automatically through the system.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Informing supervisors of stock needs and shortages
This is reading one thing and writing another: supervisors of stock needs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 3212/00
Source: “Inform supervisors of stock needs and shortages.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 85 out of 100 (81–89 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: Spotting and reporting stock shortages follows directly from the stock system and is easily automated.
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 1/4 · 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.

Referring customers to the pharmacist for medication information
The software now makes the first pass at customers, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 90 · 3212/00
Source: “Refer customers to the pharmacist for medication information.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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: Recognising when a question is for the pharmacist is straightforward routing work, and this hand-off exists precisely because of the pharmacist's legal role.
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.
Reviewing prescriptions to ensure accuracy and ascertain required ingredients
The software now makes the first pass at prescriptions, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 3212/00
Source: “Review prescriptions to ensure accuracy and ascertain required ingredients.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 47 out of 100 (43–51 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high 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 rating behind it: Software checks prescriptions well, but in a UK pharmacy this check must be done by or under the supervision of a pharmacist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Promoting safe practices to ensure patient safety
The software now makes the first pass at safe practices, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 3212/00
Source: “Promote safe practices to ensure patient safety.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Safety materials and reminders can be drafted easily, but promoting safe practice means persuading colleagues face to face.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

24 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.

Advising people on the safe and effective use of their medicines and devices in various settings
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for people, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 3212/00
Source: “Advise people on the safe and effective use of their medicines and devices in various settings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 19 out of 100 (12–26 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: 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: Medicine information is well documented, but advising a patient is a registered professional job done face to face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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 3/4.
Preparing prescription items for dispensing
This work happens in the physical world: prescription items, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 3212/00
Source: “Prepare prescription items for dispensing.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 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 rating behind it: Picking and labelling the right medicine means handling boxes in the dispensary under professional supervision.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Adding measured drugs or nutrients to IV solutions under sterile conditions for various uses
This work happens in the physical world: measured drugs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 3212/00
Source: “Add measured drugs or nutrients to IV solutions under sterile conditions for various uses.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Making up an intravenous bag in a sterile unit is physical, hands-on preparation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Show the other 30 tasks

Inputting data into computer systems for record-keeping
shifting to AI
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 · 3212/00
Source: “Input data into computer systems for record-keeping.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 100 out of 100 (96–100 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: Typing information from prescriptions and forms into a computer system is screen work that software already handles accurately, with no licence needed.
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 4/4.
Processing medical insurance claims for billing of prescribed medications
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: medical insurance claims in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 3212/00
Source: “Process medical insurance claims for billing of prescribed medications.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 100 out of 100 (96–100 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: Submitting prescription reimbursement claims follows published rules and is the kind of form-filling software completes reliably.
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 4/4.
Calculating charges for medication or equipment dispensed to hospital patients and entering data in computer
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: charges in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 3212/00
Source: “Calculate charges for medication or equipment dispensed to hospital patients and enter data in computer.” (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: Working out charges and entering them into the system is arithmetic and data entry software already does automatically.
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.
Using a computerised management system to generate product order specifications
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: a computerised management system in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 3212/00
Source: “Use a computerised management system to generate product order specifications.” (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: Generating stock orders from usage data is exactly what pharmacy ordering systems already do without human input.
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.
Pricing prescriptions
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: prescriptions in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 3212/00
Source: “Price prescriptions that have been filled.” (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: Pricing a filled prescription is a lookup and calculation that dispensing software performs automatically.
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.
Inventorying and ordering medical, lab or office supplies or equipment
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: medical, lab or office supplies or equipment in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 3212/00
Source: “Inventory and order medical, lab, or office supplies or equipment.” (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: Reordering from stock data is exactly what software does well, with only occasional need to check shelves in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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 4/4.
Performing administrative duties to support pharmacy operations
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: administrative duties in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 3212/00
Source: “Perform administrative duties to support pharmacy operations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (62–76 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: General pharmacy admin is ordinary office work that AI tools handle well, though some of it happens at the counter.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Managing and maintaining quality levels in service delivery
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: quality levels in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 3212/00
Source: “Manage and maintain quality levels in service delivery.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 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: Audits, procedures and quality reports are well-documented office work that software drafts well, with the pharmacy still answerable for standards.
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 3/4.
Implementing their own continued personal and professional development plan
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at their own continued personal and professional development plan, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 3212/00
Source: “Implement their own continued personal and professional development plan.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software can draft a development plan, but the learning is the technician's own and the record must be submitted by the registered person.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing patients with advice and counselling on health promotion and disease prevention
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 3212/00
Source: “Provide patients with advice and counselling on health promotion and disease prevention.” (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: General health advice is well documented and easy to draft, but it is given face to face under the pharmacy's professional oversight.
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.
Typing and affixing labels to medicine bottles
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: labels, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 3212/00
Source: “Type and affix labels to medicine bottles.” (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; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Label text is generated automatically, but someone still has to stick the label on the bottle as part of a supervised dispensing process.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Pricing stock and labelling items for sale
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: stock, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 50 · 3212/00
Source: “Price stock and label items for sale.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (34–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high 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: Working out prices is easy for software, but someone still has to put the labels on the physical stock.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Labelling and counting stock of medicines
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: stock of medicines, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 3212/00
Source: “Label and count stock of medicines, chemicals, or supplies.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 36 out of 100 (32–40 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high 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: Counting and labelling stock is part screen work and part handling boxes on the shelf.
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.
Checking for out-of-date medications in current inventory
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: out-of-date medications, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 3212/00
Source: “Check for out-of-date medications in current inventory.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 36 out of 100 (32–40 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high 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: Expiry dates can be flagged automatically from stock records, though someone still has to walk the shelves and pull the stock.
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.
Answering questions about medications and minor health issues
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for questions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 3212/00
Source: “Answer questions about medications and minor health issues.” (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: 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: Medicines information is fully published, so good answers are easy to produce, but a trained person should check them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Ensuring the effective use of systems to maintain patient safety
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for the effective use of systems, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 3212/00
Source: “Ensure the effective use of systems to maintain patient safety.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Safety checks and audits can be automated, but someone accountable must make sure the systems are actually followed.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting training sessions for pharmacy and healthcare team members
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: sessions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 3212/00
Source: “Conduct training sessions for pharmacy and healthcare team members, including new staff.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 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: Training materials are quick to produce, but delivering a session and answering questions works best with a person present.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing the storage of medicines to ensure they are kept securely and under appropriate conditions
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the storage of medicines, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 3212/00
Source: “Manage the storage of medicines to ensure they are kept securely and under appropriate conditions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 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: Temperature logs and procedures can be handled by software, but medicines still have to be physically stored securely, and controlled drugs are tightly governed.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing the day-to-day operations of the pharmacy
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the day-to-day operations of the pharmacy, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 3212/00
Source: “Manage the day-to-day operations of the pharmacy, including clinical governance and business processes.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Reports and rotas can be automated, but running a pharmacy day to day means being there and carrying responsibility.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing, supervising and training pharmacy support staff
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for pharmacy support staff, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 3212/00
Source: “Manage, supervise and train pharmacy support staff.” (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: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Rotas and training materials can be generated, but supervising and developing pharmacy staff depends on a registered person present with the team.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing specialist services in response to local and national needs and initiatives
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: specialist services, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 3212/00
Source: “Provide specialist services in response to local and national needs and initiatives.” (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: 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: Planning and materials can be drafted by software, but these pharmacy services are delivered in person under the pharmacy's professional oversight.
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 2/4.
Locating items for customers
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: items, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 3212/00
Source: “Locate items for customers.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal 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: Finding a product means walking to the shelf and picking it up, which needs a person in the shop.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supplying and administering a range of authorised medicines safely
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: a range of authorised medicines, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 3212/00
Source: “Supply and administer a range of authorised medicines safely.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (0–12 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 rating behind it: Handing over and giving medicines is physical, and UK law restricts who may supply or administer them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Delivering medications or pharmaceutical supplies
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: medications, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 3212/00
Source: “Deliver medications or pharmaceutical supplies to patients, nursing stations, or surgery.” (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: 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: Carrying medicines to patients, wards or surgeries is physical delivery work that cannot be done from a screen.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Prepacking bulk medicines and filling bottles with prescribed medicines
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: bulk medicines, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 3212/00
Source: “Prepack bulk medicines and fill bottles with prescribed medicines.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Filling bottles from bulk containers is manual work at the dispensary bench.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Maintaining cleanliness and biosecurity of the work environment
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: cleanliness, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 3212/00
Source: “Maintain cleanliness and biosecurity of the work environment, including equipment maintenance, storage, and sterilisation.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: This is hands-on work: cleaning, maintaining and sterilising equipment cannot be done by software at all.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Transferring medication from vials
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: medication, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 3212/00
Source: “Transfer medication from vials to sterile, disposable syringes using aseptic techniques.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Drawing medicine into a syringe under sterile conditions is precise physical work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Restocking medical supplies, dressings, needles and syringes
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: medical supplies, dressings, needles and syringes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 3212/00
Source: “Restock medical supplies including dressings, needles, and syringes.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Restocking dressings, needles and syringes is physical work done by hand in the dispensary or clinic.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Receiving and storing supplies in designated areas
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: supplies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 3212/00
Source: “Receive and store supplies in designated areas.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Taking in deliveries and putting stock away is physical work that has to be done by a person on site.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supplying robotic machines that dispense medicine into containers
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: robotic machines, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 3212/00
Source: “Supply robotic machines that dispense medicine into containers.” (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: Loading stock into a dispensing robot means carrying boxes to the machine and filling it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · 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: £31,000a 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: 23,700in 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: patient profiles in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: maintaining patient profiles with updated medication information and handling personal, confidential and sensitive information with strict adherence to legal and organisational confidentiality policies. What it cannot do is be answerable: measured drugs 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. Maintaining patient profiles with updated medication information is going; adding measured drugs or nutrients to IV solutions under sterile conditions for various uses is not.

So, given all that: 29% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 11% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 60% 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 (adding measured drugs or nutrients to IV solutions under sterile conditions for various uses) 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 adding measured drugs or nutrients to IV solutions under sterile conditions for various uses, 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 pharmaceutical technicians (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was pharmacy and optical dispensing assistants: only about 18% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 23.4% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 39/100 here, with only 29% of the task list in the top band, and “advise people on the safe and effective use of their medicines and…” 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.

Pharmacy and optical dispensing assistants
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “deliver medications or pharmaceutical supplies to patients, nursing stations, or surgery”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 18% 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 18% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: £23,783 against your £31,044, 23.4% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Pharmacists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “supply and administer a range of authorised medicines safely”. 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.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Other registered nursing professionals
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already process medical insurance claims for billing of prescribed medications, and their equivalent is to administer prescribed injections and medications. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
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: 29% 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

The United States splits this work across more than one official group, of which Pharmacy Technicians 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

In US official statistics this job is counted as Pharmacy Technicians. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.

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 pharmaceutical technicians, 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 29% 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 pharmaceutical technicians. 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 pharmaceutical technicians 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 pharmaceutical technicians 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 pharmaceutical technicians 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 pharmaceutical technicians 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 Pharmaceutical technicians?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 40 official task statements scored for Pharmaceutical technicians (United Kingdom, SOC 3212), 29% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 39 out of 100 (range 34–44, 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 “Pharmaceutical technicians” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Input data into computer systems for record-keeping” (100/100, very high); “Process medical insurance claims for billing of prescribed medications” (100/100, very high); “Calculate charges for medication or equipment dispensed to hospital patients and enter data in computer” (93/100, 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 “Pharmaceutical technicians” stay human?: About 60% 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: “Supply robotic machines that dispense medicine into containers” (0/100, minimal); “Receive and store supplies in designated areas” (0/100, minimal); “Restock medical supplies including dressings, needles, and syringes” (0/100, 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 “Pharmaceutical technicians” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 29% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 60% 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 Pharmaceutical technicians 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

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.
The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
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.

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.