US dataswitch to UK
Accountants and Auditors
preparing detailed reports on audit findings, examining records and interviewing workers to ensure recording of transactions and compliance with laws and regulations and reviewing accounts for discrepancies and reconciling differences. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: reviewing accounts for discrepancies and reconciling differences. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, supervising auditing of establishments and determining scope of investigation, stays yours. The tools change, the responsibility doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Examine, analyze, and interpret accounting records to prepare financial statements, give advice, or audit and evaluate statements prepared by others. Install or advise on systems of recording costs or other financial and budgetary data. The job title says “accountants” or “auditors”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: supervising auditing of establishments and determining scope of investigation. 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 accountants and auditors is not one task. It is 29 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is supervising auditing of establishments and determining scope of investigation, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 24%
- changing shape
- 41%
- staying human
- 35%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 45 out of 100 (39–52 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 29 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 accountants and auditors 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.
- One row is marked low confidence, so treat it as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
- 3 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
8 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.
Collecting and analyzing data to detect deficient controls
This is reading one thing and writing another: data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Collect and analyze data to detect deficient controls, duplicated effort, extravagance, fraud, or non-compliance with laws, regulations, and management policies.” (O*NET 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: Sifting transaction data for control weaknesses, waste and fraud patterns is the kind of analysis software does at scale.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing accounts for discrepancies and reconciling differences
This is reading one thing and writing another: accounts in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Review accounts for discrepancies and reconcile differences.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Matching accounts and chasing differences is rule-based comparison work accounting software already does at or above human accuracy.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing adjusting journal entries
This is reading one thing and writing another: journal entries in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare adjusting journal entries.” (O*NET 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: Adjusting entries follow set accounting rules applied to the firm's own figures, which software handles with an accountant checking.
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.
Establishing tables of accounts and assigning entries to proper accounts
This is reading one thing and writing another: tables of accounts in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Establish tables of accounts and assign entries to proper accounts.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Building a chart of accounts and coding entries follows standard accounting structures software can apply consistently.
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.
Changing shape
11 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Inspecting account books and accounting systems
The software now makes the first pass at account books, 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 5 · CoreSource: “Inspect account books and accounting systems for efficiency, effectiveness, and use of accepted accounting procedures to record transactions.” (O*NET 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: Checking that books follow accepted accounting practice is document work, though standards expect a qualified accountant behind the conclusion.
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.
Preparing detailed reports on audit findings
The software now makes the first pass at detailed reports, 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 5 · CoreSource: “Prepare detailed reports on audit findings.” (O*NET 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: Writing up audit findings is document work AI drafts well, but the report carries a qualified accountant's name and judgement.
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.
Reporting to management about asset utilization and audit results
The software now makes the first pass at management, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Report to management about asset utilization and audit results, and recommend changes in operations and financial activities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Presenting audit results and pushing for changes depends on being trusted by the managers in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
10 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.
Supervising auditing of establishments and determining scope of investigation
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for establishments, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Supervise auditing of establishments, and determine scope of investigation required.” (O*NET 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: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Deciding how far an audit should go and overseeing the team is a senior, professionally accountable judgement call.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conferring with company officials about financial and regulatory matters
The value here is that a specific person handles company officials and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Confer with company officials about financial and regulatory matters.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (12–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Discussing money and regulation with company officers relies on a trusted relationship software cannot stand in for.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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.
Inspecting cash on hand, notes receivable and payable, negotiable securities and canceled checks to confirm records are accurate
This work happens in the physical world: cash, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Inspect cash on hand, notes receivable and payable, negotiable securities, and canceled checks to confirm records are accurate.” (O*NET 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: Confirming cash, securities and cheques means physically counting and handling items as well as checking records.
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.
Show the other 19 tasks
Processing invoices for payment
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: invoices in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Process invoices for payment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Processing invoices for payment is high-volume, rule-based work that accounts-payable software already handles end to end.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing, maintaining or analyzing budgets, preparing periodic reports that compare budgeted costs to actual costs
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: budgets, preparing periodic reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Develop, maintain, or analyze budgets, preparing periodic reports that compare budgeted costs to actual costs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Comparing budgets to actual spending and reporting the gaps is repeatable number work finance software already produces.
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.
Analyzing business operations, trends, costs, revenues, financial commitments and obligations to project future revenues and expenses or to provide advice
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: business operations, trends, costs, revenues in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Analyze business operations, trends, costs, revenues, financial commitments, and obligations to project future revenues and expenses or to provide advice.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Analysing costs, revenues and trends to forecast is number work software does well, though the advice carries professional responsibility.
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.
Reviewing data about material assets
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Review data about material assets, net worth, liabilities, capital stock, surplus, income, or expenditures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reviewing figures on assets, liabilities and income is desk analysis of data already held in the accounting system.
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, examining or analyzing accounting records, financial statements or other financial reports to assess accuracy, completeness and conformance to reporting and procedural standards
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at records, 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 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare, examine, or analyze accounting records, financial statements, or other financial reports to assess accuracy, completeness, and conformance to reporting and procedural standards.” (O*NET 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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Preparing and checking financial statements is well-defined work software handles, but the accuracy judgement belongs to a qualified accountant.
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.
Evaluating taxpayer finances to determine tax liability
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at taxpayer finances, 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 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate taxpayer finances to determine tax liability, using knowledge of interest and discount rates, annuities, valuation of stocks and bonds, and amortization valuation of depletable assets.” (O*NET 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: Working out tax liability from valuations and rates is calculation-heavy work software does, with a qualified person answerable.
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.
Auditing payroll and personnel records to determine unemployment insurance premiums
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at payroll, 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 3 · CoreSource: “Audit payroll and personnel records to determine unemployment insurance premiums, workers' compensation coverage, liabilities, and compliance with tax laws.” (O*NET 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: Auditing payroll and personnel records for premiums and tax compliance is rule-checking against structured data software does well.
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.
Computing taxes owed and preparing tax returns
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at taxes, 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 4 · SupplementalSource: “Compute taxes owed and prepare tax returns, ensuring compliance with payment, reporting, or other tax requirements.” (O*NET 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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Tax computations and returns follow published rules on the client's own figures, but a qualified person must stand behind the filing.
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.
Preparing, analyzing or verifying annual reports, financial statements and other records
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at annual reports, financial statements and other records, 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 not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Prepare, analyze, or verify annual reports, financial statements, and other records, using accepted accounting and statistical procedures to assess financial condition and facilitate financial planning.” (O*NET 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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Producing and verifying annual reports and statements is structured work software handles, with a qualified accountant answerable for it.
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.
Examining and evaluating financial and information systems
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at financial and information systems, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Examine and evaluate financial and information systems, recommending controls to ensure system reliability and data integrity.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reviewing financial systems and suggesting controls is analysis software supports well, though the recommendation carries professional weight.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing, implementing, modifying and documenting recordkeeping and accounting systems, making use of current computer technology
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at systems, making use of current computer technology, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop, implement, modify, and document recordkeeping and accounting systems, making use of current computer technology.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Setting up and documenting accounting systems is technical desk work AI assists with, though implementation still needs people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reporting to management regarding the finances of establishment
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at management regarding the finances of establishment, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Report to management regarding the finances of establishment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Reporting the finances to management is partly a conversation, where trust and being questioned in the room matter.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting pre-implementation audits to determine if systems and programs under development will work
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put pre-implementation audits well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Conduct pre-implementation audits to determine if systems and programs under development will work as planned.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Checking whether a system under development will work as planned is analysis software supports, though much depends on the project team.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Examining records and interviewing workers to ensure recording of transactions and compliance with laws and regulations
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for records, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Examine records and interview workers to ensure recording of transactions and compliance with laws and regulations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Records can be checked by software, but interviewing staff about how transactions are handled needs a person they will talk to.
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 3/4.
Advising clients in areas, compensation, employee health care benefits
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Advise clients in areas such as compensation, employee health care benefits, the design of accounting or data processing systems, or long-range tax or estate plans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 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: Advising clients on benefits, systems or estate plans depends on a trusted relationship and carries professional responsibility.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Examining inventory to verify journal and ledger entries
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: inventory, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Examine inventory to verify journal and ledger entries.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 19 out of 100 (12–26 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Verifying stock against the ledger means physically going to the warehouse and looking at what is there.
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 2/4.
Directing activities of personnel engaged in filing
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles activities of personnel and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Direct activities of personnel engaged in filing, recording, compiling, and transmitting financial records.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Directing the staff who file and compile records is people management built on day-to-day working relationships.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Examining whether the organization's objectives are reflected in its management activities
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles whether the organization's objectives and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Examine whether the organization's objectives are reflected in its management activities, and whether employees understand the objectives.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (0–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, low confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Judging whether staff understand and act on company objectives comes from conversations and impressions that are not written down.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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 1/4.
Reviewing taxpayer accounts and conducting audits on-site, by correspondence or by summoning taxpayer to office
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: taxpayer accounts, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Review taxpayer accounts, and conduct audits on-site, by correspondence, or by summoning taxpayer to office.” (O*NET 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: 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: Revenue audits involve visiting premises and calling taxpayers in, and only an authorised officer can do that.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · 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
- $83,680a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 1,449,500in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
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: account books in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: reviewing accounts for discrepancies and reconciling differences and collecting and analyzing data to detect deficient controls. What it cannot do is be answerable: establishments need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Reviewing accounts for discrepancies and reconciling differences is going; supervising auditing of establishments and determining scope of investigation is not.
So, given all that: 24% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 41% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 35% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 29 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (supervising auditing of establishments and determining scope of investigation) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles supervising auditing of establishments and determining scope of investigation, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, 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 US occupations to accountants and auditors (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was securities, commodities, and financial services sales agents: only about 2% of its durable work is work you already do and it is under the same pressure this job is. Your own job splits about 24/76: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “inspect account books and accounting systems for efficiency, effectiveness, and use of…”, and let the exposed end go.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US 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.
Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services Sales Agents
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already audit payroll and personnel records to determine unemployment insurance premiums, workers' compensation coverage…, and their equivalent is to interview clients to determine clients' assets, liabilities, cash flow, insurance coverage, tax status…. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 56% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (62/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it.
Tax Examiners and Collectors, and Revenue Agents
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already compute taxes owed and prepare tax returns, ensuring compliance with payment, reporting, or…, and their equivalent is to review selected tax returns to determine the nature and extent of audits to…. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $62,370 against your $83,680, 25.5% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 56,610 of those jobs against 1,449,500 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 4% as many seats.
Financial Managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already prepare, analyze, or verify annual reports, financial statements, and other records, using accepted…, and their equivalent is to prepare or direct preparation of financial statements, business activity reports, financial position forecasts…. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
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: 24% of its task weight, across 29 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Chartered and certified accountants is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Chartered and certified accountants and Taxation experts. 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
Two honest options, and no deadline on either
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.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
A nearby route
There's no Space built for accountants and auditors yet.
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.
The closest match is Microsoft 365 Report Builders, a community for people who build business reports in Excel, Power Query and Power BI without a data team behind them. It overlaps with the part of your job that is growing: the reporting and analysis end - the pack, the reconciliation checks, the numbers people ask questions about - rather than transaction processing. It covers no audit standard, no tax, no qualification. If that overlap isn't you, the free route below covers the same ground.
- Problem: “I’ve been asked to build my first Power BI report, but I only know Excel”
- Problem: “My Monday report takes four hours and managers still ask for last week’s version”
Try Microsoft 365 Report Builders free →
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
After the trial it is a paid community, and you get identical data either way. If the overlap above is not your job, the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for accountants and auditors 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 Accountants and Auditors?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 29 official task statements scored for Accountants and Auditors (United States, SOC 13-2011), 24% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 45 out of 100 (range 39–52, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Accountants and Auditors” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Process invoices for payment” (93/100, very high); “Review accounts for discrepancies and reconcile differences” (81/100, very high); “Develop, maintain, or analyze budgets, preparing periodic reports that compare budgeted costs to actual costs” (75/100, 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 “Accountants and Auditors” stay human?
- About 35% 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: “Review taxpayer accounts, and conduct audits on-site, by correspondence, or by summoning taxpayer to office” (11/100, minimal); “Examine whether the organization's objectives are reflected in its management activities, and whether employees understand the objectives” (11/100, minimal); “Supervise auditing of establishments, and determine scope of investigation required” (14/100, 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 “Accountants and Auditors” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 24% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 35% 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 Accountants and Auditors 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 29 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
- One row is marked low confidence, so treat it as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 3 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
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt-with-imputed)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-04.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
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.