UK dataswitch to US
Veterinarians
diagnosing and treating sick and injured animals, performing surgical procedures on animals to treat injuries or illnesses and maintaining accurate records. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: administering injections and medications to animals is work software can't reach.
What shifts is maintaining accurate records: the overhead at the edges, not the middle you trained for.
Your week, as this page understands it
Veterinarians diagnose and treat animal injuries, diseases and disorders, and advise on preventative action. They may work in practices, specialising according to their location in either a rural or urban area, or in the public sector or associated industries such as pharmaceuticals, food production or drug regulation. The job title says “veterinarians”. The real job is the part underneath: administering injections and medications to animals. 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 veterinarians is not one task. It is 47 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is administering injections and medications to animals, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 11%
- changing shape
- 10%
- staying human
- 79%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 20 out of 100 (16–25 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 47 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 veterinarians 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.
- 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
6 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.
Maintaining accurate records
This is reading one thing and writing another: accurate records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2240/00Source: “Maintain accurate records.” (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: Keeping accurate records is structured writing software produces reliably from what happened in the consultation.
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 treatment records
This is reading one thing and writing another: treatment records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2240/00Source: “Maintain treatment records.” (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: Writing up what was done to an animal is structured note-taking software produces well from the consultation.
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.
Planning feeding to suit individual animal needs
This is reading one thing and writing another: suit individual animal needs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2240/00Source: “Plan feeding to suit individual animal needs.” (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: Feeding plans follow well-documented nutrition rules, so software produces a sound plan for the vet to approve.
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.
Preparing paperwork for animals travelling abroad
This is reading one thing and writing another: paperwork in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 2240/00Source: “Prepare paperwork for animals travelling abroad.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Export paperwork follows published government rules, so software can fill it in for a vet to certify.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Changing shape
5 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.
Collecting and recording data for analysis and researching purposes
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 75 · 2240/00Source: “Collect and record data for analysis and research purposes.” (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: Collecting and recording research data is structured work software handles well once the readings exist.
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.
Establishing quarantine procedures to prevent disease spread and comply with regulations
The software now makes the first pass at quarantine procedures, 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 75 · 2240/00Source: “Establish quarantine procedures to prevent disease spread and comply with regulations.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Quarantine rules are well documented, so software can draft the procedures for a vet to approve.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Liaising with vets regarding animal health and welfare
The software now makes the first pass at vets regarding animal health, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2240/00Source: “Liaise with vets regarding animal health and welfare.” (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: Passing animal health information between colleagues is routine written communication software drafts accurately.
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.
Staying human
36 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.
Diagnosing and treating sick and injured animals
This work happens in the physical world: sick, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 95 · 2240/00Source: “Diagnose and treat sick and injured animals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Working out what is wrong and treating it needs hands on the animal, and by law a registered vet must do it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Administering injections and medications to animals
This work happens in the physical world: injections, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2240/00Source: “Administer injections and medications to animals.” (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: Giving an injection means physically handling the animal, so software cannot do it.
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 3/4.
Administering vaccinations to animals to prevent disease
This work happens in the physical world: vaccinations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2240/00Source: “Administer vaccinations to animals to prevent disease.” (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: Injecting an animal is hands-on work, and these vaccines may only be given by or under a registered vet.
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 3/4.
Show the other 37 tasks
Managing the practice finances
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: the practice finances in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2240/00Source: “Manage the practice finances.” (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: Practice accounts, budgets and cash flow are ordinary desk work that software handles 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.
Understanding the requirements of the Animal
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: the requirements of the animal in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2240/00Source: “Understand the requirements of the Animal (Scientific Procedure) Act 1986 which governs the use of animals in scientific research.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (65–79 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: The Act is published in full, so software can explain what it requires, with a vet judging tricky cases.
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.
Planning animal nutrition or reproduction programmes
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at animal nutrition, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2240/00Source: “Plan animal nutrition or reproduction programmes.” (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: Feeding and breeding plans follow well-documented formulas that software can work out and a vet checks.
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.
Liaising with and referring to other professionals within the industry
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at this work, 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 · 2240/00Source: “Liaise with, and refer to, other professionals within the industry.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Referral letters draft easily, but the decision to refer follows from the vet's own clinical judgement about the animal.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising pet owners on animal health care and nutrition
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for pet owners, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2240/00Source: “Advise pet owners on animal health care and nutrition.” (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 pet care and feeding advice is well documented and drafts easily, though advice tied to a diagnosis is the vet's.
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.
Discussing treatment options for various pet health issues
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for treatment options, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2240/00Source: “Discuss treatment options for various pet health issues.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (24–38 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: Software explains treatment choices well, but owners making hard decisions about a pet need a vet they trust.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Researching diseases and managing infection outbreaks
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for diseases, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2240/00Source: “Research diseases and manage infection outbreaks.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 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: Disease research reads well from published literature, but managing an outbreak requires the vet's judgement and legal reporting duties.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Investigating food safety issues
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for food safety issues, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2240/00Source: “Investigate food safety issues.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 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: Software helps sift the evidence, but food safety investigations still involve visiting premises and official judgement.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Overseeing the operations of veterinary clinics
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles the operations of veterinary clinics and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2240/00Source: “Oversee the operations of veterinary clinics.” (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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Rotas, reports and figures can be drafted automatically, but running a practice means being there 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 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Communicating with pet owners to understand their concerns
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles pet owners and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2240/00Source: “Communicate with pet owners to understand their concerns.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 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: An owner will tell a person things they would not type, and worried owners need someone they trust listening.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Monitoring animal health and welfare
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: animal health, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2240/00Source: “Monitor animal health and welfare.” (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: Some health monitoring is data on a system, but knowing an animal is off colour usually means seeing it.
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.
Advising farmers on nutrition, breeding and herd health
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for farmers, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2240/00Source: “Advise farmers on nutrition, breeding, and herd health.” (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: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can draft feeding and breeding advice, but the parts that matter depend on seeing the farm and the farmer trusting you.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Overseeing animal care procedures to ensure health and welfare standards
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: animal care procedures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2240/00Source: “Oversee animal care procedures to ensure health and welfare standards.” (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: Overseeing animal care needs someone present to see how animals are actually handled, though the standards themselves are published.
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.
Ensuring effective lab practices and adherence to Health & Safety procedures
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: effective lab practices, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2240/00Source: “Ensure effective lab practices and adherence to Health & Safety procedures.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Keeping a laboratory safe and well run means being in it, watching how people actually work and stepping in.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supervising workers to ensure humane treatment of animals
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: workers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 2240/00Source: “Supervise workers to ensure humane treatment of animals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: 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: Making sure animals are handled kindly means watching people work and stepping in on the spot.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Performing blood tests to diagnose health conditions
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: blood tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2240/00Source: “Perform blood tests to diagnose health conditions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Taking the blood sample is hands-on, though software is good at reading the results.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Treating animals to prevent disease
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: animals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2240/00Source: “Treat animals to prevent disease.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 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: Preventive treatment means handling the animal, and by law treating animals is an act reserved to a registered vet.
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.
Carrying out diagnostic tests, such as taking or developing x-rays
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: diagnostic tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2240/00Source: “Carry out diagnostic tests, such as taking or developing x-rays.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 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: Taking an x-ray means positioning a live animal, and only a registered vet may make the diagnosis from it.
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.
Performing x-rays on animals to diagnose health issues
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: x-rays, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2240/00Source: “Perform x-rays on animals to diagnose health issues.” (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: Positioning and imaging the animal needs a person present, even though software reads images well.
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.
Observing animals to assess their health and behaviour
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: animals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2240/00Source: “Observe animals to assess their health and behaviour.” (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: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Judging how an animal looks and behaves needs someone physically watching it, and the clinical view is the vet's.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Operating ultrasound equipment to perform diagnostic medical examinations
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: ultrasound equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2240/00Source: “Operate ultrasound equipment to perform diagnostic medical examinations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 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: Scanning needs a hand on the probe and the animal, and reading it as a diagnosis is a registered vet's act.
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.
Performing routine health and welfare checks on livestock
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: routine health, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2240/00Source: “Perform routine health and welfare checks on livestock.” (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: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Checking livestock means being in the shed with your hands on the animals, which cannot be done remotely.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting veterinary surgeries in a clinical setting
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: veterinary surgeries, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2240/00Source: “Conduct veterinary surgeries in a clinical setting.” (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: Operating on an animal is hands-on work that only a registered vet may carry out.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Vaccinating animals against different types of disease
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: animals against different types of disease, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2240/00Source: “Vaccinate animals against different types of disease.” (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: Giving an injection is physical work on a live animal, and these vaccines may only be given by or under a vet.
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 3/4.
Completing physical checks on animals to assess health and diagnose conditions
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: physical checks, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2240/00Source: “Complete physical checks on animals to assess health and diagnose conditions.” (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: Checking an animal over means touching and listening to it in person.
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.
Handling out-of-hours emergency cases when on call
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: out-of-hours emergency cases, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2240/00Source: “Handle out-of-hours emergency cases when on call.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Emergency call-outs mean turning up and treating the animal there and then.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Inspecting horses, sheep, poultry or other animals to detect communicable diseases
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: horses, sheep, poultry or other animals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2240/00Source: “Inspect horses, sheep, poultry, or other animals to detect communicable diseases.” (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: Spotting disease in livestock means handling and looking at the animals in person.
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.
Managing anaesthesia during animal surgical procedures to ensure animal welfare and procedural success
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: anaesthesia during animal surgical procedures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2240/00Source: “Manage anaesthesia during animal surgical procedures to ensure animal welfare and procedural success.” (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: Keeping an animal safely under anaesthetic is hands-on work throughout the operation.
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.
Performing surgeries on patients to repair injuries or treat diseases
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: surgeries, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2240/00Source: “Perform surgeries on patients to repair injuries or treat diseases.” (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: Operating on an animal is physical work the law defines as something only a registered vet may do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Performing surgical procedures on animals to treat injuries or illnesses
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: surgical procedures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 85 · 2240/00Source: “Perform surgical procedures on animals to treat injuries or illnesses.” (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: Surgery is physical work that the law reserves for a registered vet.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Euthanising rabid, unclaimed or severely injured animals
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: rabid, unclaimed or severely injured animals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2240/00Source: “Euthanise rabid, unclaimed, or severely injured animals.” (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: Putting an animal down is a physical act the law reserves to a registered vet, so software has no part in it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inserting identification microchips in animals
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: identification microchips, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2240/00Source: “Insert identification microchips in animals.” (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: Putting a microchip into an animal is a physical act.
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.
Neutering animals to prevent them from breeding
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: animals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2240/00Source: “Neuter animals to prevent them from breeding.” (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: Neutering is an operation, so it needs a vet with instruments in hand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing care for animals in veterinary surgeries
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: care, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2240/00Source: “Provide care for animals in veterinary surgeries.” (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: Caring for animals in the practice is physical, hands-on work.
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.
Obtaining samples and measurements from animals
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: samples, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2240/00Source: “Obtain samples and measurements from animals.” (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 samples and measurements means handling the animal.
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.
Restraining and handling animals in a safe and appropriate manner
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: animals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2240/00Source: “Restrain and handle animals in a safe and appropriate manner.” (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: Holding an animal safely is purely physical work with a live creature, so nothing can do it remotely.
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 2/4.
Making home visits to patients who are unable to visit the surgery/hospital due to their condition
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: home visits, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 2240/00Source: “Make home visits to patients who are unable to visit the surgery/hospital due to their condition.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: This is travelling to someone's home to see the animal there, which is entirely about being physically present.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- £51,100a 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
- 34,600in 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: accurate records in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: maintaining accurate records and maintaining treatment records. What it cannot do is be answerable: injections 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
Start with what does not change: administering injections and medications to animals is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 11% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 10% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 79% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 47 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Maintaining accurate records is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to accurate records, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether injections are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no licence needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near collecting and recording data for analysis and researching purposes. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. 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 veterinarians (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was veterinary nurses: only about 28% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 43.4% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 20/100 here, with only 11% of the task list in the top band, and “diagnose and treat sick and injured animals” 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.
Veterinary nurses
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “administer injections and medications to animals”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 28% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: It is closer than most, and still not close enough: about 28% of that job's durable work is already yours, against the 35% I want to see before I will call something a route. It is a pay cut, in those words: £28,893 against your £51,058, 43.4% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Farm workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “treat animals to prevent disease”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 9% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: £30,101 against your £51,058, 41.0% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Managers and proprietors in forestry, fishing and related services
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already administer injections and medications to animals, and their equivalent is to administer medication to animals as prescribed by vets. 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. It is a pay cut, in those words: £33,011 against your £51,058, 35.3% 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: 11% of its task weight, across 47 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like administering injections and medications to animals arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
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 nearest United States equivalent is Veterinarians. It is a close match rather than an identical one: the two countries draw the boundary of the job in slightly different places.
Switch to the United States page →close match
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 veterinarians, 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 11% 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 veterinarians. 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 veterinarians 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 Veterinarians?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 47 official task statements scored for Veterinarians (United Kingdom, SOC 2240), 11% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 20 out of 100 (range 16–25, 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 “Veterinarians” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Manage the practice finances” (75/100, high); “Understand the requirements of the Animal (Scientific Procedure) Act 1986 which governs the use of animals in scientific research” (72/100, high); “Maintain accurate records” (66/100, 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 “Veterinarians” stay human?
- About 79% 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: “Make home visits to patients who are unable to visit the surgery/hospital due to their condition” (0/100, minimal); “Restrain and handle animals in a safe and appropriate manner” (0/100, minimal); “Obtain samples and measurements from animals” (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 “Veterinarians” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 11% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 79% 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 Veterinarians 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 47 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
Worth knowing about these figures
- 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.
- 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.