US dataswitch to UK
Dancers
preparing pointe shoes, performing in productions and coordinating dancing with that of partners or dance ensembles. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: harmonizing body movements to rhythm of musical accompaniment is work software can't reach.
What shifts is monitoring the field of dance to remain aware of current trends and innovations: the overhead at the edges, not the middle you trained for.
Your week, as this page understands it
Perform dances. May perform on stage, for broadcasting, or for video recording. The job title says “dancers”. The real job is the part underneath: harmonizing body movements to rhythm of musical accompaniment. 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 dancers is not one task. It is 14 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is harmonizing body movements to rhythm of musical accompaniment, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 7%
- changing shape
- 0%
- staying human
- 93%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 6 out of 100 (5–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 14 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 dancers 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.
Shifting to AI
1 taskTasks 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.
Monitoring the field of dance to remain aware of current trends and innovations
This is reading one thing and writing another: the field of dance in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Monitor the field of dance to remain aware of current trends and innovations.” (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: Keeping up with what is happening in dance is reading, watching and summarizing.
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.
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.
Harmonizing body movements to rhythm of musical accompaniment
This work happens in the physical world: body movements, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Harmonize body movements to rhythm of musical accompaniment.” (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: Moving in time with music is the body doing the 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.
Training exercise
This work happens in the physical world: exercise, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Train, exercise, and attend dance classes to maintain high levels of technical proficiency, physical ability, and physical fitness.” (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: Training and staying fit is something only the choreographer’s own body can do.
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.
Studying and practicing dance moves required in roles
This work happens in the physical world: dance moves, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Study and practice dance moves required in roles.” (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: Learning a role’s steps happens in the body, in the studio.
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.
Performing classical, modern or acrobatic dances in productions, expressing stories, rhythm and sound with their bodies
This work happens in the physical world: classical, modern or acrobatic dances, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Perform classical, modern, or acrobatic dances in productions, expressing stories, rhythm, and sound with their bodies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Performing is done with the dancer’s own body in front of an audience.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Developing self-understanding of physical capabilities and limitations
This work happens in the physical world: physical capabilities, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop self-understanding of physical capabilities and limitations, and choose dance styles accordingly.” (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.
The rating behind it: Knowing your own physical limits comes from feeling them, not from reading about them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Coordinating dancing with that of partners or dance ensembles
This work happens in the physical world: that of partners, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Coordinate dancing with that of partners or dance ensembles.” (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: Dancing in time with a partner or ensemble happens between real bodies in a space.
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.
Attending costume fittings, photography sessions and makeup calls associated with dance performances
This work happens in the physical world: costume fittings, photography sessions and makeup calls, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Attend costume fittings, photography sessions, and makeup calls associated with dance performances.” (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: Fittings, photo calls and makeup need the dancer physically present.
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.
Preparing pointe shoes, by sewing or other means, for use in rehearsals and performance
This work happens in the physical world: pointe shoes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · SupplementalSource: “Prepare pointe shoes, by sewing or other means, for use in rehearsals and performance.” (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: Preparing pointe shoes is close handwork on the dancer’s own footwear.
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.
Collaborating with choreographers to refine or modify dance steps
This work happens in the physical world: choreographers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Collaborate with choreographers to refine or modify dance steps.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium 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: Refining steps happens by trying them in the studio with the choreographer watching.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Show the other 4 tasks
Devising and choreographing dance for self
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: dance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Devise and choreograph dance for self or others.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (0–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Choreography is made by trying movement on bodies in a room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Teaching dance students
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: dance students, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Teach dance students.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 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: Teaching dance means correcting real bodies in a studio and earning students’ trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Auditioning for dance roles or for membership in dance companies
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: dance roles, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Audition for dance roles or for membership in dance companies.” (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: An audition is dancing in the room for the people casting.
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.
Performing in productions, singing or acting in addition to dancing
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: productions, singing, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Perform in productions, singing or acting in addition to dancing, if required.” (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: Singing or acting inside a performance is the performer live on stage.
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
- No median pay figure is published for this exact group, so there is none here. We would rather show you the gap than a number borrowed from somewhere else.No median pay figure is published for this exact occupation, so none is shown here.
- People doing this job
- 8,130in 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: the field of dance in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: monitoring the field of dance to remain aware of current trends and innovations. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where body movements get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Start with what does not change: harmonizing body movements to rhythm of musical accompaniment is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 7% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 0% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 93% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 14 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. Monitoring the field of dance to remain aware of current trends and innovations 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 field of dance, 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 body movements 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 harmonizing body movements to rhythm of musical accompaniment. 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 dancers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was choreographers: only about 14% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 6/100 here, with only 7% of the task list in the top band, and “harmonize body movements to rhythm of musical accompaniment” 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.
Choreographers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “train, exercise, and attend dance classes to maintain high levels of technical proficiency, physical ability, and…”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 14% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 14% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. I do not recommend a move I cannot price.
Musicians and Singers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already harmonize body movements to rhythm of musical accompaniment, and their equivalent is to sing a cappella or with musical accompaniment. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. I do not recommend a move I cannot price.
Actors
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already audition for dance roles or for membership in dance companies, and their equivalent is to attend auditions and casting calls to audition for roles. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. I do not recommend a move I cannot price.
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: 7% of its task weight, across 14 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 harmonizing body movements to rhythm of musical accompaniment 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 Dancers and choreographers 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 Dancers and choreographers and Teaching professionals n.e.c.. 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 dancers, 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 7% 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 dancers. 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 dancers 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 Dancers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 14 official task statements scored for Dancers (United States, SOC 27-2031), 7% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 6 out of 100 (range 5–11, 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 “Dancers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Monitor the field of dance to remain aware of current trends and innovations” (75/100, high); “Develop self-understanding of physical capabilities and limitations, and choose dance styles accordingly” (6/100, minimal); “Devise and choreograph dance for self or others” (5/100, minimal). 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 “Dancers” stay human?
- About 93% 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: “Prepare pointe shoes, by sewing or other means, for use in rehearsals and performance” (0/100, minimal); “Perform in productions, singing or acting in addition to dancing, if required” (0/100, minimal); “Audition for dance roles or for membership in dance companies” (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 “Dancers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 7% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 93% 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 Dancers 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 14 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
- No median pay figure is published for this exact occupation, so none is shown here.
- One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 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.
- No median wage is published for this occupation in the OEWS release used here.
- 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
- no pay figure published for this groupbls-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.