Will AI replace Electronics Engineers, Except Computer?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 41 official task statements scored for Electronics Engineers, Except Computer (United States, SOC 17-2072), 53% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 56 out of 100 (range 50–63, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Electronics Engineers, Except Computer” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prepare documentation containing information such as confidential descriptions or specifications of proprietary hardware or software, product development or…” (93/100, very high); “Prepare, review, or maintain maintenance schedules, design documentation, or operational reports or charts” (93/100, very high); “Verify compliance of developed applications with architectural standards and established practices” (93/100, very 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 “Electronics Engineers, Except Computer” stay human?

About 30% 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: “Perform site analyses to determine system configurations, processes to be impacted, or on-site obstacles to technology implementation” (7/100, minimal); “Test tags or labels to ensure readability” (10/100, minimal); “Represent employer at conferences, meetings, boards, panels, committees, or working groups to present, explain, or defend findings or recommendations, negoti…” (11/100, 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 “Electronics Engineers, Except Computer” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 53% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 30% 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 Electronics Engineers, Except Computer 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 41 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.

US dataswitch to UK

Electronics Engineers, Except Computer

identifying operational requirements for new systems to inform selection of technological solutions, collecting data about existing client hardware and installing, testing. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

This job is splitting in two: preparing documentation containing information is work AI now does quickly and cheaply, and testing tags or labels to ensure readability is work it can't touch.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 53%
changing shape: 17%
staying human: 30%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 56 out of 100 (50–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 41 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 electronics engineers, except computer is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

Which half fills your week decides your exposure. That is more in your control than it sounds.

Your week, as this page understands it

Research, design, develop, or test electronic components and systems for commercial, industrial, military, or scientific use employing knowledge of electronic theory and materials properties. Design electronic circuits and components for use in fields such as telecommunications, aerospace guidance and propulsion control, acoustics, or instruments and controls. The job title says “electronics engineers” or “except computer”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: testing tags or labels to ensure readability. 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 electronics engineers, except computer is not one task. It is 41 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is testing tags or labels to ensure readability, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 53%
changing shape: 17%
staying human: 30%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

One row is marked low confidence, so treat it as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
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

22 tasks

Tasks 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.

Identifying operational requirements for new systems to inform selection of technological solutions
This is reading one thing and writing another: operational requirements in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Identify operational requirements for new systems to inform selection of technological solutions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 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: Turning business needs into system requirements is structured written analysis that drafts 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.
Operating computer-assisted engineering or designing software or equipment to perform electronics engineering tasks
This is reading one thing and writing another: computer-assisted in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Operate computer-assisted engineering or design software or equipment to perform electronics engineering tasks.” (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: Design software is increasingly automated, and routine drawing and simulation tasks are well within reach.
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.
Performing systems analysis or programming of radio frequency identification device
This is reading one thing and writing another: systems analysis in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Perform systems analysis or programming of radio frequency identification device (RFID) technology.” (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: Writing and analyzing tag-reading software follows documented interfaces, which suits code generation 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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing technical support for radio frequency identification device
This is reading one thing and writing another: technical support in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Provide technical support for radio frequency identification device (RFID) technology.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 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: Answering support questions about a documented technology is well-suited to AI assistance.
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

7 tasks

Tasks 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.

Testing radio frequency identification device
The software now makes the first pass at radio frequency identification device, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Test radio frequency identification device (RFID) software to ensure proper functioning.” (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: Test scripts and result analysis automate well, though real tags and readers are needed to run them.
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.
Conferring with engineers, customers, vendors or others to discuss existing or potential electronics engineering projects or products
The software now makes the first pass at engineers, customers, vendors, 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 · Core
Source: “Confer with engineers, customers, vendors, or others to discuss existing or potential electronics engineering projects or products.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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: Notes and options can be prepared, but these are live discussions where customers and vendors commit to things.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating project work to ensure effectiveness
The software now makes the first pass at project work, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Evaluate project work to ensure effectiveness, technical adequacy, or compatibility in the resolution of complex electronics engineering problems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Automated checks catch a lot, but judging whether a complex design actually solves the problem needs an engineer.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

12 tasks

Tasks 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.

Integrating tags, readers or software in radio frequency identification device, RFID) designs
This work happens in the physical world: tags, readers or software, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Integrate tags, readers, or software in radio frequency identification device (RFID) designs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Integration design can be drafted, but tags and readers have to be fitted and tuned in the real environment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Testing tags or labels to ensure readability
This work happens in the physical world: tags, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Test tags or labels to ensure readability.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Checking that a tag actually reads means holding it in front of a reader.
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 3/4.
Installing, testing or maintaining radio frequency identification device, RFID) systems
This work happens in the physical world: radio frequency identification device, rfid) systems, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Install, test, or maintain radio frequency identification device (RFID) systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Installing and maintaining readers and antennas means physical work at the site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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 3/4.

Show the other 31 tasks

Preparing documentation containing information
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: documentation containing information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Prepare documentation containing information such as confidential descriptions or specifications of proprietary hardware or software, product development or introduction schedules, product costs, or information about product performance weaknesses.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing specifications, schedules, costings and performance notes is document work software drafts to a high standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing, reviewing or maintaining maintenance schedules, designing documentation or operational reports or charts
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: maintenance schedules in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Prepare, review, or maintain maintenance schedules, design documentation, or operational reports or charts.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Maintaining schedules, design documents and operational reports is routine structured office work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Verifying compliance of developed applications with architectural standards and established practices
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: compliance of developed applications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Verify compliance of developed applications with architectural standards and established practices.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Checking code and designs against written standards is exactly the kind of consistent review software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Documenting equipment or processing details of radio frequency identification device
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: equipment in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Document equipment or process details of radio frequency identification device (RFID) technology.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Documenting equipment and process detail is routine technical writing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analyzing radio frequency identification device
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: radio frequency identification device in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Analyze radio frequency identification device (RFID)-related supply chain data.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Analyzing supply chain data from tag reads is straightforward data analysis.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing process flows, work instructions or standard operating procedures for radio frequency identification device, RFID) systems
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: process flows, work instructions or standard operating procedures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop process flows, work instructions, or standard operating procedures for radio frequency identification device (RFID) systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing process flows, work instructions and standard procedures is structured documentation work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing budget or cost estimates
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: budget in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Prepare budget or cost estimates for equipment, construction, or installation projects or control expenditures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Building cost estimates and tracking spend against them is routine number work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Determining usefulness of new radio frequency identification device
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: usefulness of new radio frequency identification device in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Determine usefulness of new radio frequency identification device (RFID) technologies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Assessing whether a new technology is worth using is documented research and comparison.
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 4/4.
Investigating green consumer electronics applications for consumer electronic devices
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: green consumer electronics applications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 2 · Supplemental
Source: “Investigate green consumer electronics applications for consumer electronic devices, power saving devices for computers or televisions, or energy efficient power chargers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Surveying published work on energy-efficient devices and chargers is research and write-up 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 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Preparing engineering sketches or specifications
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: sketches in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Prepare engineering sketches or specifications for construction, relocation, or installation of equipment, facilities, products, or systems.” (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: Producing sketches and installation specifications from a design is well-supported by drafting and generation tools.
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.
Preparing necessary criteria, procedures
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: necessary criteria, procedures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Prepare necessary criteria, procedures, reports, or plans for successful conduct of the project with consideration given to site preparation, facility validation, installation, quality assurance, or testing.” (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: Project procedures, test plans and quality criteria follow familiar patterns and draft 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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Determining means of integrating radio frequency identification device
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: means of integrating radio frequency identification device in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Determine means of integrating radio frequency identification device (RFID) into other applications.” (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: Working out how tag data feeds other systems is documented integration design.
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.
Defining and comparing possible radio frequency identification device
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: possible radio frequency identification device in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Define and compare possible radio frequency identification device (RFID) solutions to inform selection for specific projects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Comparing candidate solutions against project needs is structured written analysis.
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.
Creating simulations or models of radio frequency identification device
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: simulations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Create simulations or models of radio frequency identification device (RFID) systems to provide information for selection and configuration.” (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: Building models and simulations of a documented system is well within reach of current tools.
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.
Determining project material or equipment needs
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: project material in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Determine project material or equipment needs.” (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: Working out what materials and equipment a project needs follows from the design documents.
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 technical support or instruction to staff or customers regarding electronics equipment standards
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: technical support in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Provide technical support or instruction to staff or customers regarding electronics equipment standards.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 70 out of 100 (63–77 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: Equipment standards are documented, so clear support answers and training notes are easy to produce.
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.
Analyzing electronics system requirements, capacity, cost or customer needs to determine project feasibility
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: electronics system requirements, capacity, cost or customer needs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Analyze electronics system requirements, capacity, cost, or customer needs to determine project feasibility.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 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: Weighing requirements, capacity and cost against customer needs is analysis that drafts well from project data.
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.
Recommending repair or designing modifications of electronics components or systems
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: repair in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Recommend repair or design modifications of electronics components or systems, based on factors such as environment, service, cost, or system capabilities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 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: Recommending a fix or design change from cost, environment and capability data is well-suited to analysis tools.
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.
Planning or developing applications or modifications for electronic properties used in components
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at applications, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Plan or develop applications or modifications for electronic properties used in components, products, or systems to improve technical performance.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Improving how a component performs needs real engineering insight; tools mostly supply starting points.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Collecting data about existing client hardware
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at data, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Collect data about existing client hardware, software, networking, or key business processes to inform implementation of radio frequency identification device (RFID) technology.” (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; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Gathering details of a client’s hardware, software and processes is largely structured questioning and record-gathering.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Researching or developing new green electronics technologies
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at new green electronics technologies, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 2 · Supplemental
Source: “Research or develop new green electronics technologies, such as lighting, optical data storage devices, or energy efficient televisions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Literature reviews come easily, but developing genuinely new technology needs lab work and engineering judgment.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reading current literature
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at current literature, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Read current literature, attend meetings or conferences, or talk with colleagues to stay abreast of industry research about new technologies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 41 out of 100 (34–48 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Summaries of new research are easy to produce, but conferences and colleagues also matter for keeping current.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Designing electronic components, software, products or systems for commercial, industrial, medical, military or scientific applications
staying human
The ratings behind this row put electronic components, software, products or systems well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Design electronic components, software, products, or systems for commercial, industrial, medical, military, or scientific applications.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 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.
The rating behind it: Design tools give useful starting points, but real circuits and systems still need heavy engineering rework.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing or performing operational, maintenance or testing procedures for electronic products, components, equipment or systems
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: operational, maintenance or testing procedures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Develop or perform operational, maintenance, or testing procedures for electronic products, components, equipment, or systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 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: Test and maintenance procedures write up well, but actually performing them means handling the hardware.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Training users in details of system operation
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles users and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Train users in details of system operation.” (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: Training materials draft easily, but users learn faster when a person answers their questions live.
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.
Selecting appropriate radio frequency identification device
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: appropriate radio frequency identification device, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Select appropriate radio frequency identification device (RFID) tags and determine placement locations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Tag choice can be reasoned from specs, but placement depends on how radio behaves in that actual building.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing acceptance testing on newly installed or updated systems
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: acceptance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Perform acceptance testing on newly installed or updated systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Test plans draft well, but acceptance testing means exercising the installed system on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing or coordinating activities concerned with manufacture
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: activities, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Direct or coordinate activities concerned with manufacture, construction, installation, maintenance, operation, or modification of electronic equipment, products, or systems.” (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; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Plans and schedules can be drafted, but coordinating build, install and maintenance work happens where the equipment is.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Inspecting electronic equipment, instruments, products or systems to ensure conformance to specifications, safety standards or applicable codes or regulations
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: electronic equipment, instruments, products or systems, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Inspect electronic equipment, instruments, products, or systems to ensure conformance to specifications, safety standards, or applicable codes or regulations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal 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: Checking that built equipment matches spec and safety rules means inspecting the actual hardware.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Representing employer at conferences, meetings, boards, panels, committees or working groups to present, explain or defend findings or recommendations
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: employer, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 2 · Supplemental
Source: “Represent employer at conferences, meetings, boards, panels, committees, or working groups to present, explain, or defend findings or recommendations, negotiate compromises or agreements, or exchange information.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (0–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, low confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the 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: Standing in front of a panel to defend findings and negotiate agreements depends on a person being 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 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing site analyses to determine system configurations
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: site analyses, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Perform site analyses to determine system configurations, processes to be impacted, or on-site obstacles to technology implementation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Finding the obstacles at a site means walking it and seeing what is in the way.
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 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $130,220a 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: 96,900in 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: documentation containing information in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: preparing documentation containing information and identifying operational requirements for new systems to inform selection of technological solutions. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where tags 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

The exposed part of your job is the biggest part, and I am not going to dress that up: preparing documentation containing information is work today's tools do quickly and cheaply, and that is not coming back.

So, given all that: 53% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 17% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 30% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 41 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

What you have that the software does not is testing tags or labels to ensure readability, plus the years of knowing when something looks wrong before you can say why. That is the raw material for everything below.

This week: one thing

Sit on the machine's side of the desk. Pick one real piece of documentation containing information you would normally do yourself, let whatever software you already have take the first pass at it, and then go through what it produced and write down every single thing it got wrong. One evening this week. Do not fix anything yet. Just catch it.

What you end up holding: a written list of the machine’s mistakes, in your handwriting
How long it takes: an evening, or an hour if you pick one job rather than one client

If you can’t run software on your employer’s or your clients’ data: Do the same hunt on paper. Take one printed piece of documentation containing information, work through it the way you always do, and mark every point where you made a call rather than followed a rule. Same evening, same list, nothing to log into and nobody to ask permission from. That list is the same artifact: it is the judgment written down.

Over the next 90 days

Change one sentence about what you do. Not on a CV. Out loud, to whoever pays you. From “my job is preparing documentation containing information” to “I check what the software does and tell you what it means.” Your error list from this week is what makes that sentence true instead of a claim, so use it: show it once, to one person, inside the next ninety days. Same skills, priced as judgment rather than as typing.

Over the next 12 months

Walk toward the end of this job that answers for things, and get it recognised. Pick the one part of testing tags or labels to ensure readability you are already best at, and spend the year making it formal: a qualification, a named responsibility, a specialism people ask for by name. Price it honestly: that is evenings, it is months rather than weeks, and the seats are competitive because everyone in your position is looking at the same door. 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 electronics engineers, except computer (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was electrical engineers: only about 9% of its durable work is work you already do. Your own job splits about 53/47: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “integrate tags, readers, or software in radio frequency identification device (RFID) designs”, and let the exposed end go.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Electrical Engineers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already confer with engineers, customers, vendors, or others to discuss existing or potential electronics…, and their equivalent is to confer with engineers, customers, or others to discuss existing or potential engineering projects…. 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.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technologists and Technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already direct or coordinate activities concerned with manufacture, construction, installation, maintenance, operation, or modification…, and their equivalent is to supervise the installation or operation of electronic equipment or systems. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $78,190 against your $130,220, 40.0% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Mechanical Engineers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already read current literature, attend meetings or conferences, or talk with colleagues to stay…, and their equivalent is to read current literature, attend meetings or conferences, or talk with colleagues to stay…. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $104,110 against your $130,220, 20.1% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

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: 53% of its task weight, across 41 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
“It’s too late for me to become something else”
You are not starting from zero, and the page shows why: testing tags or labels to ensure readability is work the software cannot do and you already do it. The move above is a repricing of what you know, not a new career. Nobody who has just left college has that.
“I should learn to code”
Almost certainly not. The value in your job is moving toward checking, deciding and answering for the output, not toward writing the software. A weekend of Python will not change your position; the error list from this week will.
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 Electronics engineers (professional) 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 Electronics engineers (professional), Security system installers and repairers, Tv, video and audio servicers and repairers, Telecoms and related network installers and repairers and Aerospace engineers. 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:
American Job Center locator
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
- CareerOneStop local help hub
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop
Free

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for electronics engineers / except computer, 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 53% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

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 electronics engineers / except computer. 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 electronics engineers / except computer 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 Space for electronics engineers / except computer yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for electronics engineers / except computer existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for electronics engineers / except computer launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

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 Electronics Engineers, Except Computer?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 41 official task statements scored for Electronics Engineers, Except Computer (United States, SOC 17-2072), 53% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 56 out of 100 (range 50–63, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Electronics Engineers, Except Computer” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prepare documentation containing information such as confidential descriptions or specifications of proprietary hardware or software, product development or…” (93/100, very high); “Prepare, review, or maintain maintenance schedules, design documentation, or operational reports or charts” (93/100, very high); “Verify compliance of developed applications with architectural standards and established practices” (93/100, very 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 “Electronics Engineers, Except Computer” stay human?: About 30% 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: “Perform site analyses to determine system configurations, processes to be impacted, or on-site obstacles to technology implementation” (7/100, minimal); “Test tags or labels to ensure readability” (10/100, minimal); “Represent employer at conferences, meetings, boards, panels, committees, or working groups to present, explain, or defend findings or recommendations, negoti…” (11/100, 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 “Electronics Engineers, Except Computer” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 53% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 30% 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 Electronics Engineers, Except Computer 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 41 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

About the data on this page

One row is marked low confidence, so treat it as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
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)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-04.
Pay and employment: bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

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}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. 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.