US dataswitch to UK
Biological Technicians
using computers, computer-interfaced equipment, providing technical support and services for scientists and engineers working in fields and keeping detailed logs of all work-related activities. 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: inputting data into databases. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, conducting research or assisting in the conduct of research, stays yours. The tools change hands, the accountability doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Assist biological and medical scientists. Set up, operate, and maintain laboratory instruments and equipment, monitor experiments, collect data and samples, make observations, and calculate and record results. May analyze organic substances, such as blood, food, and drugs. The job title says “biological technicians”. The real job is the part underneath: conducting research or assisting in the conduct of research. 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 biological technicians is not one task. It is 17 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is conducting research or assisting in the conduct of research, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 27%
- changing shape
- 0%
- staying human
- 73%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 28 out of 100 (24–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 17 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 biological technicians is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
4 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.
Keeping detailed logs of all work-related activities
This is reading one thing and writing another: detailed logs of all work-related activities in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Keep detailed logs of all work-related activities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 61 out of 100 (54–68 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping detailed work logs is record-keeping software does well, though entries must reflect what actually happened at the bench.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analyzing experimental data and interpreting results to write reports and summaries of findings
This is reading one thing and writing another: experimental data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Analyze experimental data and interpret results to write reports and summaries of findings.” (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: Turning experimental results into written analysis and reports is exactly the kind of work 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 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Inputting data into databases
This is reading one thing and writing another: data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Input data into databases.” (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: Entering results into a database is routine data work software already does faster and more accurately.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Placing orders for laboratory equipment and supplies
This is reading one thing and writing another: orders in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Place orders for laboratory equipment and supplies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 79 out of 100 (75–83 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: Placing supply orders from a catalog is an ordering task software handles with brief supplier contact.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
0 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.
Nothing in this job’s scored task list landed in this group. That is the measurement, not an editorial choice, and it is worth knowing either way.
Staying human
13 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.
Using computers, computer-interfaced equipment, robotics or high-technology industrial applications to perform work duties
This work happens in the physical world: computers, computer-interfaced equipment, robotics or high-technology industrial applications, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Use computers, computer-interfaced equipment, robotics or high-technology industrial applications to perform work duties.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Some of this is screen work software shares, but operating lab instruments and robots needs someone at the bench.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting research or assisting in the conduct of research
This work happens in the physical world: research, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct research, or assist in the conduct of research, including the collection of information and samples, such as blood, water, soil, plants and animals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Collecting blood, water, soil or plant samples means going to where they are and handling them.
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 2/4.
Setting up, adjust, calibrate, clean, maintain and troubleshooting laboratory and field equipment
This work happens in the physical world: up, adjust, calibrate, clean, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Set up, adjust, calibrate, clean, maintain, and troubleshoot laboratory and field equipment.” (O*NET 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: Setting up, calibrating and fixing lab equipment is hands-on work with the instruments.
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.
Cleaning, maintaining and preparing supplies and work areas
This work happens in the physical world: supplies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Clean, maintain and prepare supplies and work areas.” (O*NET 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: Cleaning and preparing benches and supplies is physical work in the lab.
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.
Monitoring and observing experiments, recording production and testing data for evaluation by research personnel
This work happens in the physical world: experiments, recording production and testing data, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Monitor and observe experiments, recording production and test data for evaluation by research personnel.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 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: Instruments log much of the data automatically, but watching an experiment as it runs still means being there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Isolating, identifying and preparing specimens for examination
This work happens in the physical world: specimens, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Isolate, identify and prepare specimens for examination.” (O*NET 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: Isolating and preparing specimens is hands-on bench work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 7 tasks
Monitoring laboratory work to ensure compliance with set standards
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: laboratory work, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Monitor laboratory work to ensure compliance with set standards.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Software can check records against standards, but seeing whether lab practice really follows them means being in the lab.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing technical support and services for scientists and engineers working in fields
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: technical support, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide technical support and services for scientists and engineers working in fields such as agriculture, environmental science, resource management, biology, and health sciences.” (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: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Some support is advice software can give, but much of it is practical help at the bench alongside scientists.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting standardized biological
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: standardized biological, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Conduct standardized biological, microbiological or biochemical tests and laboratory analyses to evaluate the quantity or quality of physical or chemical substances in food or other products.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 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: The methods are documented, but running the test means pipetting, incubating and reading samples by hand.
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.
Examining animals and specimens to detect the presence of disease or other problems
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: animals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Examine animals and specimens to detect the presence of disease or other problems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Judging whether an animal or specimen shows disease means examining it in person.
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 2/4.
Participating in the research, development or manufacturing of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the research, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Participate in the research, development, or manufacturing of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Making medicines involves hands-on production under rules requiring qualified staff at each step.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Measuring or weighing compounds and solutions for use in testing or animal
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: compounds, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Measure or weigh compounds and solutions for use in testing or animal feed.” (O*NET 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: Weighing and measuring compounds is hands-on bench work.
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.
Feeding livestock or laboratory animals
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: livestock, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Feed livestock or laboratory animals.” (O*NET 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: Feeding animals is physical work in the animal facility.
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
- $57,510a 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
- 69,620in 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: detailed logs of all work-related activities in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: inputting data into databases and keeping detailed logs of all work-related activities. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where research gets done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Inputting data into databases is going; conducting research or assisting in the conduct of research is not.
So, given all that: 27% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 0% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 73% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 17 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 (conducting research or assisting in the conduct of research) 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 conducting research or assisting in the conduct of research, 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 biological technicians (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was chemists: only about 9% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 28/100 here, with only 27% of the task list in the top band, and “use computers, computer-interfaced equipment, robotics or high-technology industrial applications to perform work…” 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 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.
Chemists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already set up, adjust, calibrate, clean, maintain, and troubleshoot laboratory and field equipment, and their equivalent is to maintain laboratory instruments to ensure proper working order and troubleshoot malfunctions when needed. Across both published task lists that is about 9% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Chemical Technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already monitor laboratory work to ensure compliance with set standards, and their equivalent is to monitor product quality to ensure compliance with standards and specifications. Across both published task lists that is about 9% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Clinical Laboratory Technologists and Technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already set up, adjust, calibrate, clean, maintain, and troubleshoot laboratory and field equipment, and their equivalent is to set up, clean, and maintain laboratory equipment. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% 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: 27% of its task weight, across 17 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 Laboratory technicians 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 Laboratory technicians and Environment professionals. 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.
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
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for biological technicians, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 27% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for biological technicians. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for biological technicians launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No 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 Biological Technicians?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 17 official task statements scored for Biological Technicians (United States, SOC 19-4021), 27% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 28 out of 100 (range 24–33, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Biological Technicians” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Input data into databases” (93/100, very high); “Place orders for laboratory equipment and supplies” (79/100, high); “Analyze experimental data and interpret results to write reports and summaries of findings” (66/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Biological Technicians” stay human?
- About 73% 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: “Feed livestock or laboratory animals” (0/100, minimal); “Measure or weigh compounds and solutions for use in testing or animal feed” (0/100, minimal); “Clean, maintain and prepare supplies and work areas” (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 “Biological Technicians” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 27% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 73% 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 Biological Technicians calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 17 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- 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.