Will AI replace Weighers, graders and sorters?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 18 official task statements scored for Weighers, graders and sorters (United Kingdom, SOC 8144), 11% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 17 out of 100 (range 14–23, band: minimal). 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 “Weighers, graders and sorters” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain relevant records of weighed or measured items” (69/100, high); “Maintain records of issued receipts for graded and sorted items” (69/100, high); “Document quantity, quality, type, weight, test result data, and value of materials or products to maintain shipping, receiving, and production records and files” (56/100, partial). 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 “Weighers, graders and sorters” 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: “Sort products or materials into sequences or groupings for display, packing, shipping, or storage” (0/100, minimal); “Remove defective or substandard materials or products” (0/100, minimal); “Paint identification marks on logs to identify grades or species using spray cans” (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 “Weighers, graders and sorters” 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 Weighers, graders and sorters 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 18 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

Weighers, graders and sorters

grading and sorting products, labelling products accurately for packaging or dispensing and weighing or measuring materials or products to ensure specification conformance. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: grading and sorting products is work software can't reach.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

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 17 out of 100 (14–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 18 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 weighers, graders and sorters 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.

What shifts is maintaining relevant records of weighed or measured items: the overhead at the edges, not the middle you trained for.

Your week, as this page understands it

Weighers, graders and sorters weigh, grade and sort materials, goods and products. The job title says “weighers”, “graders” or “sorters”: officially one job, several names. The real job is the part underneath: grading and sorting products. 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 weighers, graders and sorters is not one task. It is 18 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is grading and sorting products, 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.

How we know this

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

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

Your job, task by task

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

One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
9 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

2 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.

Maintaining relevant records of weighed or measured items
This is reading one thing and writing another: relevant records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 8144/00
Source: “Maintain relevant records of weighed or measured items.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (65–73 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 records of weights and measures is routine data entry that scales and software already do automatically.
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.
Maintaining records of issued receipts for graded and sorted items
This is reading one thing and writing another: records of issued receipts in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 50 · 8144/00
Source: “Maintain records of issued receipts for graded and sorted items.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (65–73 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: Receipt records for graded goods are standard forms that systems can generate and file without help.
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.

Changing shape

2 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.

Documenting quantity, quality, type, weight
The software now makes the first pass at quantity, quality, type, weight, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 50 · 8144/00
Source: “Document quantity, quality, type, weight, test result data, and value of materials or products to maintain shipping, receiving, and production records and files.” (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: Logging quantities, weights and test results into records is structured data work software handles reliably.
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.
Recording grade or identification numbers on tags and documentation
The software now makes the first pass at grade, but part of it still happens in the physical world. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 50 · 8144/00
Source: “Record grade or identification numbers on tags and documentation.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 41 out of 100 (34–48 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Recording grades and numbers is simple data entry, though the tags still get attached by hand.
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 4/4.

Staying human

14 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.

Grading and sorting products
This work happens in the physical world: products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 8144/00
Source: “Grade and sort products by colour, species, size, and quality for correct processing.” (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: Grading by eye and hand happens at the sorting table.
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.
Weighing products or estimating their weight
This work happens in the physical world: products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 8144/00
Source: “Weigh products or estimate their weight, visually or by feel.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Judging weight by hand or eye is a physical skill learned at the bench, not a screen task.
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 0/4.
Recording weights and identifying information of weighed containers
This work happens in the physical world: weights, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 8144/00
Source: “Record weights and identifying information of weighed containers.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Weights come off the scale in the yard, but recording them is routine data entry systems capture well.
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.
Assessing log characteristics to determine grades based on established criteria
This work happens in the physical world: log characteristics, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 8144/00
Source: “Assess log characteristics to determine grades based on established criteria.” (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: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Cameras can help grade timber, but the grader still has to be at the yard looking at each log.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Identifying logs of substandard or special grade for return to shippers
This work happens in the physical world: logs of substandard, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 8144/00
Source: “Identify logs of substandard or special grade for return to shippers.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Spotting off-grade logs means handling and viewing the actual timber before it is sent back.
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 2/4.
Labelling products accurately for packaging or dispensing
This work happens in the physical world: products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 8144/00
Source: “Label products accurately for packaging or dispensing.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Working out the right label is easy to automate, but putting the correct label on the actual product is physical work on the line.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 8 tasks

Measuring felled logs or pulpwood to calculate volume
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: felled logs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 50 · 8144/00
Source: “Measure felled logs or pulpwood to calculate volume, weight, and marketable value, using measuring devices.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 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: The volume sums are easy to automate, but someone has to measure the actual logs first.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Place products in containers according to grade
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 8144/00
Source: “Place products in containers according to grade.” (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: Sorting and placing products into the right containers is physical handling that requires a person at the bench.
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.
Weighing or measuring materials or products to ensure specification conformance
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: materials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 8144/00
Source: “Weigh or measure materials or products to ensure specification conformance.” (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: Weighing and measuring products requires hands on the goods and the scales.
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.
Collecting samples of materials or products for laboratory analysis
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: samples of materials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 50 · 8144/00
Source: “Collect samples of materials or products for laboratory analysis.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Taking a physical sample requires being at the tank with a container.
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.
Inspecting products to ensure they meet specifications
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 50 · 8144/00
Source: “Inspect products to ensure they meet specifications.” (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: Checking that delivered products match the specification means physically examining them.
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.
Painting identification marks on logs to identify grades or species using spray cans
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: identification marks, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 50 · 8144/00
Source: “Paint identification marks on logs to identify grades or species using spray cans.” (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: Spraying grade marks onto logs is hands-on work done at the stack.
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 1/4.
Removing defective or substandard materials or products
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: defective, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 50 · 8144/00
Source: “Remove defective or substandard materials or products.” (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: Pulling faulty products off the line is physical work done on the spot.
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.
Sorting products or materials into sequences or groupings
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 50 · 8144/00
Source: “Sort products or materials into sequences or groupings for display, packing, shipping, or storage.” (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: Physically moving products into groups for packing or storage needs hands on the goods.
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 1/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: £30,900a 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: 7,800in 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: relevant records in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: maintaining relevant records of weighed or measured items and maintaining records of issued receipts for graded and sorted items. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where products get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

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

Start with what does not change: grading and sorting products 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 18 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 relevant records of weighed or measured items 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 relevant 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 products 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 documenting quantity, quality, type, weight. 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 weighers, graders and sorters (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was packers, bottlers, canners and fillers: only about 14% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 15.4% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 17/100 here, with only 11% of the task list in the top band, and “grade and sort products by colour, species, size, and quality for correct…” 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.

Packers, bottlers, canners and fillers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “label products accurately for packaging or dispensing”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 14% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 14% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: £26,152 against your £30,918, 15.4% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Routine inspectors and testers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already inspect products to ensure they meet specifications, and their equivalent is to test products to ensure they meet specifications. Across both published task lists that is about 12% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 12% 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 →
Metal working machine operatives
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “remove defective or substandard materials or products”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 6% 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 6% 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: 11% of its task weight, across 18 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 grading and sorting products 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 United States splits this work across more than one official group, of which Graders and Sorters, Agricultural Products is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United States page →partial match

The other groups this work is counted across:

Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers

In US official statistics this job is counted as Graders and Sorters, Agricultural Products and Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

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

In England:
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 weighers / graders / sorters, 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.

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 weighers / graders / sorters. 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 weighers / graders / sorters 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 weighers / graders / sorters 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 weighers / graders / sorters 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 weighers / graders / sorters 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 Weighers, graders and sorters?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 18 official task statements scored for Weighers, graders and sorters (United Kingdom, SOC 8144), 11% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 17 out of 100 (range 14–23, band: minimal). 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 “Weighers, graders and sorters” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain relevant records of weighed or measured items” (69/100, high); “Maintain records of issued receipts for graded and sorted items” (69/100, high); “Document quantity, quality, type, weight, test result data, and value of materials or products to maintain shipping, receiving, and production records and files” (56/100, partial). 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 “Weighers, graders and sorters” 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: “Sort products or materials into sequences or groupings for display, packing, shipping, or storage” (0/100, minimal); “Remove defective or substandard materials or products” (0/100, minimal); “Paint identification marks on logs to identify grades or species using spray cans” (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 “Weighers, graders and sorters” 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 Weighers, graders and sorters 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 18 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.
One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
9 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: gaisi-indexProcessing: catalogue-bridge → ssc-relatedness-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: gaisi-index (relatedness)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: ashe-t14 (ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025))nomis-aps (Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period))

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

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

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

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.