US dataswitch to UK
Dietetic Technicians
observing and monitoring patient food intake and body weight, planning menus or diets or guiding individuals or families in food selection and determining food and beverage costs and assisting in implementing cost control procedures. 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: developing job specifications, job descriptions or work schedules. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, supervising food production or service or assisting dietitians or nutritionists in food service supervision or planning, stays yours. The tools change hands, the accountability doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Assist in the provision of food service and nutritional programs, under the supervision of a dietitian. May plan and produce meals based on established guidelines, teach principles of food and nutrition, or counsel individuals. The job title says “dietetic technicians”. The real job is the part underneath: supervising food production or service or assisting dietitians or nutritionists in food service supervision or planning. 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 dietetic technicians is not one task. It is 13 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is supervising food production or service or assisting dietitians or nutritionists in food service supervision or planning, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 21%
- changing shape
- 22%
- staying human
- 56%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 37 out of 100 (31–43 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 13 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 dietetic 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
3 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.
Developing job specifications, job descriptions or work schedules
This is reading one thing and writing another: job specifications, job descriptions or work schedules in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop job specifications, job descriptions, or work schedules.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 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: Writing job descriptions and staff schedules is standard office paperwork software produces quickly.
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.
Providing dietitians with assistance researching food
This is reading one thing and writing another: dietitians in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide dietitians with assistance researching food, nutrition, or food service systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 70 out of 100 (66–74 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: Researching nutrition and food service questions draws on abundant published material software searches and summarises well.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Determining food and beverage costs and assisting in implementing cost control procedures
This is reading one thing and writing another: food in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Determine food and beverage costs and assist in implementing cost control procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Costing food and drink and tracking spend is ordinary spreadsheet work software handles well.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
3 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.
Planning menus or diets or guiding individuals or families in food selection
The software now makes the first pass at menus, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Plan menus or diets or guide individuals or families in food selection, preparation, or menu planning, based upon nutritional needs and established guidelines.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Building menus and diets from nutrition guidelines is exactly the kind of documented planning 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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analyzing menus or recipes, standardize recipes or testing new products
The software now makes the first pass at menus, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Analyze menus or recipes, standardize recipes, or test new products.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Analyzing recipes and standardizing portions is documented calculation, though tasting new products is not.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Referring patients to other relevant services to provide continuity of care
The software now makes the first pass at patients, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Refer patients to other relevant services to provide continuity of care.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Choosing the right onward service is well-documented routing, though a qualified person owns the referral.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
7 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Supervising food production or service or assisting dietitians or nutritionists in food service supervision or planning
This work happens in the physical world: food production, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Supervise food production or service or assist dietitians or nutritionists in food service supervision or planning.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervising a kitchen means being there with the team, even though the planning part is documented.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Observing and monitoring patient food intake and body weight
This work happens in the physical world: patient food intake, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Observe and monitor patient food intake and body weight, and report changes, progress, and dietary problems to dietician.” (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: Tracking what a patient eats and weighs is easy to record, but the watching happens on the ward.
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.
Conducting nutritional assessments of individuals
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for nutritional assessments of individuals, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Conduct nutritional assessments of individuals, including obtaining and evaluating individuals' dietary histories, to plan nutritional programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Taking a diet history and turning it into a plan is well-documented work, though a qualified person signs it off.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing a major meal, following recipes and determining group food quantities
This work happens in the physical world: a major meal, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Prepare a major meal, following recipes and determining group food quantities.” (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: Cooking a large meal is physical kitchen 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.
Show the other 3 tasks
Selecting, scheduling or conducting orientation or in-service education programs
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles orientation and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Select, schedule, or conduct orientation or in-service education programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 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: Software can build the training materials, but running the session in front of staff is a live job.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Delivering speeches on diet, nutrition or health to promote healthy eating habits and illness prevention and treatment
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: speeches, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Deliver speeches on diet, nutrition, or health to promote healthy eating habits and illness prevention and treatment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can write the talk, but standing up and delivering it to an audience is a human job.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Attending interdisciplinary meetings with other health care professionals to discuss patient care
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: interdisciplinary meetings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Attend interdisciplinary meetings with other health care professionals to discuss patient care.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 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: Team meetings about patient care depend on live discussion among the people responsible.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $37,640a 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
- 31,560in 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: job specifications, job descriptions or work schedules in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: developing job specifications, job descriptions or work schedules and providing dietitians with assistance researching food. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where food production 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. Developing job specifications, job descriptions or work schedules is going; supervising food production or service or assisting dietitians or nutritionists in food service supervision or planning is not.
So, given all that: 21% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 22% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 56% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 13 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (supervising food production or service or assisting dietitians or nutritionists in food service supervision or planning) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles supervising food production or service or assisting dietitians or nutritionists in food service supervision or planning, 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 dietetic technicians (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was dietitians and nutritionists: only about 16% of its durable work is work you already do and the 2.0× pay gap is the market pricing a barrier. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 37/100 here, with only 21% of the task list in the top band, and “supervise food production or service or assist dietitians or nutritionists in food…” 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.
Dietitians and Nutritionists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already conduct nutritional assessments of individuals, and their equivalent is to assess nutritional needs, diet restrictions, and current health plans to develop and implement…. Across both published task lists that is about 16% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 16% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $76,400 against your $37,640 is 2.03× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 16% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route.
Cooks, Private Household
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already plan menus or diets or guide individuals or families in food selection, preparation…, and their equivalent is to plan menus according to employers' needs and diet restrictions. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 1,100 of those jobs against 31,560 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 3% as many seats.
Registered Nurses
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already attend interdisciplinary meetings with other health care professionals to discuss patient care, and their equivalent is to collaborate with other health care professionals and service providers to ensure optimal patient…. Across both published task lists that is about 1% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 1% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $97,550 against your $37,640 is 2.59× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 1% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route.
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: 21% of its task weight, across 13 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.
If you run a team doing this job
If you run a team doing this job, the conversation you owe them is the one on this page, and sooner than feels comfortable. Show them the ledger rather than a reassurance: the rows moving toward the software are developing job specifications, job descriptions or work schedules, and the rows that are not are where you want your people visible. Ask each of them to do the this-week move and bring the list to your next one-to-one. It turns a rumour into a piece of work, and it tells you which parts of your team's week are actually at stake. And say the thing out loud that a team lead usually leaves unsaid: a shrinking team is your exposure too, so do the move yourself as well.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Health associate professionals n.e.c. 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
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Health associate professionals n.e.c.. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
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 dietetic 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 21% 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 dietetic 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 dietetic 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 Dietetic Technicians?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 13 official task statements scored for Dietetic Technicians (United States, SOC 29-2051), 21% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 37 out of 100 (range 31–43, 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 “Dietetic Technicians” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Develop job specifications, job descriptions, or work schedules” (75/100, high); “Provide dietitians with assistance researching food, nutrition, or food service systems” (70/100, high); “Determine food and beverage costs and assist in implementing cost control procedures” (64/100, 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 “Dietetic Technicians” stay human?
- About 56% 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 a major meal, following recipes and determining group food quantities” (0/100, minimal); “Attend interdisciplinary meetings with other health care professionals to discuss patient care” (10/100, minimal); “Supervise food production or service or assist dietitians or nutritionists in food service supervision or planning” (18/100, 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 “Dietetic Technicians” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 21% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 56% 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 Dietetic 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 13 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.