Futureproof
Menu

US dataswitch to UK

Financial Examiners

directing and participating in formal and informal meetings with bank directors, reviewing balance sheets and planning, supervising and reviewing work of assigned subordinates. 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: preparing reports, exhibits and other supporting schedules that detail an institution's safety and soundness. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, directing and participating in formal and informal meetings with bank directors, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.

Your week, as this page understands it

Enforce or ensure compliance with laws and regulations governing financial and securities institutions and financial and real estate transactions. May examine, verify, or authenticate records. The job title says “financial examiners”. The real job is the part underneath: directing and participating in formal and informal meetings with bank directors. 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 financial examiners is not one task. It is 17 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is directing and participating in formal and informal meetings with bank directors, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI
26%
changing shape
21%
staying human
53%

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

Whole-job exposure score 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 17 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for financial examiners is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

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

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

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

Shifting to AI

4 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.

  • Preparing reports, exhibits and other supporting schedules that detail an institution's safety and soundness

    This is reading one thing and writing another: reports, exhibits and other supporting schedules in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Prepare reports, exhibits, and other supporting schedules that detail an institution's safety and soundness, compliance with laws and regulations, and recommended solutions to questionable financial conditions.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 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: Assembling findings into reports, exhibits and schedules is document work software drafts well from the underlying examination data.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Reviewing audit reports of internal and external auditors to monitor adequacy of scope of reports or to discover specific weaknesses in internal routines

    This is reading one thing and writing another: audit reports of internal and external auditors in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Review audit reports of internal and external auditors to monitor adequacy of scope of reports or to discover specific weaknesses in internal routines.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 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: Reading audit reports to spot gaps in scope or weak internal routines is close reading that 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 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Examining the minutes of meetings of directors

    This is reading one thing and writing another: the minutes of meetings of directors in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Examine the minutes of meetings of directors, stockholders, and committees to investigate the specific authority extended at various levels of management.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 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: Reading board and committee minutes to trace who was given what authority is exactly the kind of text search software is good at.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Reviewing and analyzing new, proposed or revised laws, regulations, policies and procedures to interpret their meaning and determine their impact

    This is reading one thing and writing another: new, proposed or revised laws, regulations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Review and analyze new, proposed, or revised laws, regulations, policies, and procedures to interpret their meaning and determine their impact.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (65–79 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: Reading new or revised rules and explaining what they mean and who they affect is text analysis software does strongly.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.

Changing shape

4 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.

  • Reviewing balance sheets, operating income and expense accounts and loan documentation to confirm institution assets and liabilities

    The software now makes the first pass at balance sheets, 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 · Core
    Source: “Review balance sheets, operating income and expense accounts, and loan documentation to confirm institution assets and liabilities.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high 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: Reviewing balance sheets and loan files against the records is document checking that software is now good at.

    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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Establishing guidelines for procedures and policies that comply with new and revised regulations and direct their implementation

    The software now makes the first pass at guidelines, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Establish guidelines for procedures and policies that comply with new and revised regulations and direct their implementation.” (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: Drafting procedures from new regulations is well within reach; getting them adopted across an organization is the harder human part.

    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.

  • Evaluating data processing applications for institutions under examination to develop recommendations for coordinating existing systems with examination procedures

    The software now makes the first pass at data processing applications, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Evaluate data processing applications for institutions under examination to develop recommendations for coordinating existing systems with examination procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 44 out of 100 (37–51 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: Assessing a bank systems setup and fitting it to examination procedures needs a look at how that particular institution works.

    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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Staying human

9 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.

  • Recommending actions to ensure compliance with laws and regulations

    The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for actions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Recommend actions to ensure compliance with laws and regulations, or to protect solvency of institutions.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.

    The rating behind it: Software can draft sensible recommendations, but deciding what a regulator will require of a specific institution rests with a qualified examiner.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.

  • Directing and participating in formal and informal meetings with bank directors

    The value here is that a specific person handles formal and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Direct and participate in formal and informal meetings with bank directors, trustees, senior management, counsels, outside accountants, and consultants to gather information and discuss findings.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Formal meetings with bank directors and senior management run on credibility built face to face, not on prepared text.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Investigating activities of institutions to enforce laws and regulations and to ensure legality of transactions and operations or financial solvency

    The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for activities of institutions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Investigate activities of institutions to enforce laws and regulations and to ensure legality of transactions and operations or financial solvency.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.

    The rating behind it: Much of the analysis can be automated, but an enforcement judgment about a specific institution needs a qualified examiner and some on-site work.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 7 tasks

  • Reviewing applications for mergers, acquisitions, establishment of new institutions

    changing shape

    The software now makes the first pass at applications, 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 · Core
    Source: “Review applications for mergers, acquisitions, establishment of new institutions, acceptance in Federal Reserve System, or registration of securities sales to determine their public interest value and conformance to regulations, and recommend acceptance or rejection.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.

    The rating behind it: Merger and licence applications can be analyzed against the rules, but the public-interest recommendation rests with a qualified examiner.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Providing regulatory compliance training to employees

    staying human

    The value here is that a specific person handles regulatory compliance and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Provide regulatory compliance training to employees.” (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: The material is easy to produce, but delivering compliance training that sticks depends on a person in the room.

    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.

  • Training other examiners in the financial examination process

    staying human

    The value here is that a specific person handles other examiners and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Train other examiners in the financial examination process.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Course material can be generated, but training new examiners depends on an experienced person walking them through real cases.

    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 2/4.

  • Resolving problems concerning the overall financial integrity of banking institutions

    staying human

    The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for problems concerning the overall financial integrity, and that person cannot be a piece of software.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Resolve problems concerning the overall financial integrity of banking institutions including loan investment portfolios, capital, earnings, and specific or large troubled accounts.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Sorting out real problems in a troubled bank mixes judgment about the institution with dealing with the people running it.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Planning, supervising and reviewing work of assigned subordinates

    staying human

    The value here is that a specific person handles work of assigned subordinates and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Plan, supervise, and review work of assigned subordinates.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Planning and reviewing the work of a team depends on knowing the people and their strengths.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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 2/4.

  • Verifying and inspecting cash reserves

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: cash reserves, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 3 · Core
    Source: “Verify and inspect cash reserves, assigned collateral, and bank-owned securities to check internal control procedures.” (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: work that happens in the physical world.

    The rating behind it: Verifying cash reserves, collateral and securities involves physically checking what the bank actually holds.

    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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Conferring with officials of real estate

    staying human

    The value here is that a specific person handles officials of real estate and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.

    importance 3 · Supplemental
    Source: “Confer with officials of real estate, securities, or financial institution industries to exchange views and discuss issues or pending cases.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Exchanging views with industry officials is a relationship task where what gets shared depends on who is asking.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay
$94,160a 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
67,830in 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: reports, exhibits and other supporting schedules in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: preparing reports, exhibits and other supporting schedules that detail an institution's safety and soundness and reviewing audit reports of internal and external auditors to monitor adequacy of scope of reports or to discover specific weaknesses in internal routines. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what formal runs on: someone specific doing it and standing behind it. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Preparing reports, exhibits and other supporting schedules that detail an institution's safety and soundness is going; directing and participating in formal and informal meetings with bank directors is not.

So, given all that: 26% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 21% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 53% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 17 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.

This week: one thing

Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.

What you end up holding
your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
How long it takes
about twenty minutes

If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.

Over the next 90 days

Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (directing and participating in formal and informal meetings with bank directors) 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 directing and participating in formal and informal meetings with bank directors, 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 financial examiners (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was managers, all other: only about 2% of its durable work is work you already do. Your own job splits about 26/74: 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 “recommend actions to ensure compliance with laws and regulations, or to protect…”, 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.

  • Managers, All Other

    Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already provide regulatory compliance training to employees, and their equivalent is to train or coordinate the training of employees in operations, safety, environmental issues, or…. 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.

    Look at that job’s page anyway →

  • First-Line Supervisors of Police and Detectives

    Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already plan, supervise, and review work of assigned subordinates, and their equivalent is to explain police operations to subordinates to assist them in performing their job duties. 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.

    Look at that job’s page anyway →

  • Financial Managers

    Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already provide regulatory compliance training to employees, and their equivalent is to verify regulatory compliance of transaction reporting. 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.

    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: 26% of its task weight, across 17 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.

  • The whole-job doom story

    Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.

  • Panic-buying a course

    Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.

  • The “obvious” next job everyone suggests

    I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United States figures

The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Finance and investment analysts and advisers 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 Finance and investment analysts and advisers and Chartered and certified accountants. 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

Two honest options, and no deadline on either

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.

A nearby route

There's no Space built for financial examiners yet.

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

The closest match is The AI Authority, a community for non-technical managers and domain experts turning one-off AI prompts into workflows a team can trust. It overlaps with the part of your job that is growing: checking AI-drafted assessments and write-ups before they carry your name, and deciding what can safely be put into an AI in the first place. It covers no financial regulation and nothing about the rules you examine against. If that overlap isn't you, the free route below covers the same ground.

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.

After the trial it is a paid community, and you get identical data either way. If the overlap above is not your job, the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for financial examiners 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 financial examiners yet. Should there be one?

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

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for financial examiners 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 Financial Examiners?
Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 17 official task statements scored for Financial Examiners (United States, SOC 13-2061), 26% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 40 out of 100 (range 33–47, 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 “Financial Examiners” can AI already do?
The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Review and analyze new, proposed, or revised laws, regulations, policies, and procedures to interpret their meaning and determine their impact” (72/100, high); “Examine the minutes of meetings of directors, stockholders, and committees to investigate the specific authority extended at various levels of management” (66/100, high); “Prepare reports, exhibits, and other supporting schedules that detail an institution's safety and soundness, compliance with laws and regulations, and recomm…” (66/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Financial Examiners” stay human?
About 53% 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: “Confer with officials of real estate, securities, or financial institution industries to exchange views and discuss issues or pending cases” (10/100, minimal); “Direct and participate in formal and informal meetings with bank directors, trustees, senior management, counsels, outside accountants, and consultants to ga…” (12/100, minimal); “Verify and inspect cash reserves, assigned collateral, and bank-owned securities to check internal control procedures” (14/100, 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 “Financial Examiners” do about AI?
Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 26% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 53% 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 Financial Examiners calculated?
Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 17 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

Worth knowing about these figures

  • The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
  • 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 2026-08-05.
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.

How we score a jobDownload this releaseLook 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 . 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.