US dataswitch to UK
Crematory Operators
documenting divided remains to ensure parts are not, cleaning the crematorium, including tables, floors and equipment and embalming dress or otherwise prepare the deceased for viewing. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: cleaning the crematorium, including tables, floors and equipment is work software can't reach.
What shifts is the routine end of the work. This page scores what today's tools actually do, not headlines.
Your week, as this page understands it
Operate crematory equipment to reduce human or animal remains to bone fragments in accordance with state and local regulations. Duties may include preparing the body for cremation and performing general maintenance on crematory equipment. May use traditional flame-based cremation, calcination, or alkaline hydrolysis. The job title says “crematory operators”. The real job is the part underneath: cleaning the crematorium, including tables, floors and equipment. 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 crematory operators is not one task. It is 12 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is cleaning the crematorium, including tables, floors and equipment, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 0%
- changing shape
- 0%
- staying human
- 100%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 7 out of 100 (5–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 12 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 crematory operators 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.
- O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
- 1 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
0 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.
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.
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
12 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.
Documenting divided remains to ensure parts are not
This work happens in the physical world: divided remains, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Document divided remains to ensure parts are not misplaced.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 33 out of 100 (26–40 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: Recording which remains are which is careful paperwork, though it is tied to handling them in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reading documentation to confirm the identity
This work happens in the physical world: documentation, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Read documentation to confirm the identity of the deceased.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (21–35 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: Matching paperwork to the right person is a checking task, but it happens at the body and an accountable operator signs it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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.
Explaining the cremation process to family or friends
The value here is that a specific person handles the cremation process and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Explain the cremation process to family or friends of the deceased.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The cremation process can be written down clearly, but families need a real person answering them at a hard moment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Offering counsel and comfort to bereaved families or friends
This work happens in the physical world: counsel, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Offer counsel and comfort to bereaved families or friends.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Comforting a grieving family is the work itself, and it needs a person in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Cleaning the crematorium, including tables, floors and equipment
This work happens in the physical world: the crematorium, including tables, floors and equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Clean the crematorium, including tables, floors, and 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: Cleaning tables, floors and equipment is physical work in the building.
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.
Embalming dress or otherwise prepare the deceased for viewing
This work happens in the physical world: dress, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Embalm, dress, or otherwise prepare the deceased for viewing.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Embalming and dressing the deceased is hands-on preparation work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Picking up and handling human or pet remains in a respectful manner
This work happens in the physical world: and handling human, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Pick up and handle human or pet remains in a respectful manner.” (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: Collecting and handling remains respectfully is physical work with the body.
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.
Placing corpses into crematory machines to reduce remains to bone fragments
This work happens in the physical world: corpses, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Place corpses into crematory machines to reduce remains to bone fragments using flame, heat, or alkaline hydrolysis.” (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: Placing a body into the machine is hands-on work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Pulverizing remaining bone fragments into smaller pieces
This work happens in the physical world: bone fragments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Pulverize remaining bone fragments into smaller pieces, using specialized equipment, such as a cremulator or grinder.” (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: Processing bone fragments with a grinder is hands-on equipment 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 1/4.
Removing jewelry, watches or other personal items from the deceased prior to cremation
This work happens in the physical world: jewelry, watches or other personal items, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Remove jewelry, watches, or other personal items from the deceased prior to cremation.” (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: Removing jewelry and personal items requires handling the deceased.
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.
Show the other 2 tasks
Sweeping or vacuuming the cremation chamber to retrieve remains for storage in an urn or other container
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the cremation chamber, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Sweep or vacuum the cremation chamber to retrieve remains for storage in an urn or other container.” (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: Sweeping the chamber and collecting remains is physical work at the machine.
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.
Transporting the deceased to a funeral home or crematory using a van
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: this work, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Transport the deceased to a funeral home or crematory using a van, hearse, or other vehicle.” (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: Driving the deceased between locations means a person behind the wheel.
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
- $43,650a 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
- 2,970in 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. Almost none of this job is reading one thing and writing another (the shape today's tools are built for), because the work turns on the crematorium, including tables, floors and equipment, which happens with people and things rather than on a screen. The rows above are the evidence rather than the reassurance: documenting divided remains to ensure parts are not and reading documentation to confirm the identity. The parts that are changing are the paperwork and the tools around the job, not the middle of it, 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: cleaning the crematorium, including tables, floors and equipment is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 0% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 0% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 100% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 12 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. The routine end of the work 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 the routine work, 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 the crematorium, including tables, floors and equipment are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license 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 divided remains to ensure parts are not. 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, 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 crematory operators (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was morticians, undertakers, and funeral arrangers: only about 11% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 7/100 here, with only 0% of the task list in the top band, and “clean the crematorium, including tables, floors, and equipment” 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.
Morticians, Undertakers, and Funeral Arrangers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “offer counsel and comfort to bereaved families or friends”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 11% 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 11% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Funeral Home Managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already offer counsel and comfort to bereaved families or friends, and their equivalent is to offer counsel and comfort to families and friends of the deceased. 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.
Funeral Attendants
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already transport the deceased to a funeral home or crematory using a van, hearse…, and their equivalent is to transport the deceased to the funeral home. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $35,680 against your $43,650, 18.3% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 0% of its task weight, across 12 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 cleaning the crematorium, including tables, floors and equipment 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 States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Undertakers, mortuary and crematorium assistants 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 Undertakers, mortuary and crematorium assistants, Housekeepers and related occupations, Sports and leisure assistants and Bed and breakfast and guest house owners and proprietors. 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
Why there is no community here
Collab365, who build this site, run paid Spaces for a small number of subjects, and none of them is built for this job. We are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
So the free services listed on this page are the whole answer, and it is the same answer we would give a friend.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for crematory operators 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 Crematory Operators?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 12 official task statements scored for Crematory Operators (United States, SOC 39-4012), 0% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 7 out of 100 (range 5–12, 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 “Crematory Operators” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Document divided remains to ensure parts are not misplaced” (33/100, low); “Read documentation to confirm the identity of the deceased” (28/100, low); “Explain the cremation process to family or friends of the deceased” (24/100, low). 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 “Crematory Operators” stay human?
- About 100% 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: “Transport the deceased to a funeral home or crematory using a van, hearse, or other vehicle” (0/100, minimal); “Sweep or vacuum the cremation chamber to retrieve remains for storage in an urn or other container” (0/100, minimal); “Remove jewelry, watches, or other personal items from the deceased prior to cremation” (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 “Crematory Operators” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 0% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 100% 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 Crematory Operators 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 12 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
- O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 1 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 2026-08-05.
- 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.