US dataswitch to UK
Fire Inspectors and Investigators
preparing and maintaining reports of investigation results, conducting fire code compliance follow-ups to ensure that corrective actions have been taken in cases where violations were found and inspecting properties that store. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: photographing damage and evidence related to causes of fires or explosions to document investigation findings is work software can't reach.
What shifts is preparing and maintaining reports of investigation results. This page scores what today's tools actually do, not headlines.
Your week, as this page understands it
Inspect buildings to detect fire hazards and enforce local ordinances and state laws, or investigate and gather facts to determine cause of fires and explosions. The job title says “fire inspectors” or “investigators”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: photographing damage and evidence related to causes of fires or explosions to document investigation findings. 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 fire inspectors and investigators is not one task. It is 30 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is photographing damage and evidence related to causes of fires or explosions to document investigation findings, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 8%
- changing shape
- 11%
- staying human
- 81%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 19 out of 100 (14–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 30 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 fire inspectors and investigators 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.
- 2 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
2 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Preparing and maintaining reports of investigation results
This is reading one thing and writing another: reports of investigation results in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Prepare and maintain reports of investigation results, and records of convicted arsonists and arson suspects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up investigation findings and keeping case records is document work software drafts well from notes.
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.
Writing detailed reports of fire inspections
This is reading one thing and writing another: detailed reports of fire inspections in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Write detailed reports of fire inspections performed, fire code violations observed, and corrective recommendations offered.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Turning inspection notes into a written report with recommendations is drafting work software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
4 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Developing or reviewing fire exit plans
The software now makes the first pass at fire exit plans, 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 · CoreSource: “Develop or review fire exit plans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (35–49 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Exit plans follow published codes and building drawings, which software can work through before inspector approval.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recommending changes to fire prevention
The software now makes the first pass at changes, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Recommend changes to fire prevention, inspection, and fire code endorsement procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 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: Proposed procedure changes can be drafted from records and codes, though local context shapes what will work.
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 3/4.
Issuing permits for public assemblies
The software now makes the first pass at permits, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Issue permits for public assemblies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 47 out of 100 (40–54 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: The paperwork behind an assembly permit is routine, but issuing it is an authorized official’s decision.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing and coordinating fire prevention programs
The software now makes the first pass at fire prevention programs, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Develop and coordinate fire prevention programs, such as false alarm billing, fire inspection reporting, and hazardous materials management.” (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: Designing programs like false alarm billing and inspection reporting is largely system and document work.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
24 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Analyzing evidence and other information to determine probable cause of fire or explosion
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for evidence, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Analyze evidence and other information to determine probable cause of fire or explosion.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (21–35 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software can weigh evidence patterns, but a certified investigator’s judgment about the cause is what stands up.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Photographing damage and evidence related to causes of fires or explosions to document investigation findings
This work happens in the physical world: damage, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Photograph damage and evidence related to causes of fires or explosions to document investigation findings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Taking photographs of fire damage requires someone with a camera at the scene.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inspecting buildings to locate hazardous conditions and fire code violations
This work happens in the physical world: buildings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Inspect buildings to locate hazardous conditions and fire code violations, such as accumulations of combustible material, electrical wiring problems, and inadequate or non-functional fire exits.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Spotting hazards and code violations means walking through the building and looking.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Examining fire sites and collecting evidence
This work happens in the physical world: fire sites, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Examine fire sites and collect evidence such as glass, metal fragments, charred wood, and accelerant residue for use in determining the cause of a fire.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Collecting charred samples and residue from a fire scene is hands-on field work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 20 tasks
Identifying corrective actions necessary to bring properties into compliance with applicable fire codes
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for this work, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Identify corrective actions necessary to bring properties into compliance with applicable fire codes, laws, regulations, and standards, and explain these measures to property owners or their representatives.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 36 out of 100 (29–43 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: The required fixes follow from published codes, though a qualified inspector explains and stands behind them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing blueprints and plans for new or remodeled buildings to ensure the structures meet fire safety codes
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for blueprints, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Review blueprints and plans for new or remodeled buildings to ensure the structures meet fire safety codes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 36 out of 100 (29–43 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: Plans and codes are documents software can check, but the official review is an authorized examiner’s act.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating efforts with other organizations
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles efforts and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Coordinate efforts with other organizations, such as law enforcement agencies.” (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: Joint work with police depends on relationships and shared decisions between agencies, not just paperwork.
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.
Supervising staff, training them, planning their work and evaluating their performance
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles staff, training them and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Supervise staff, training them, planning their work, and evaluating their performance.” (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: Schedules and appraisal drafts are easy, though supervising and developing staff happens in person.
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.
Arranging for the replacement of defective fire fighting equipment and for repair of fire alarm and sprinkler systems
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the replacement of defective fire fighting equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Arrange for the replacement of defective fire fighting equipment and for repair of fire alarm and sprinkler systems, making minor repairs such as servicing fire extinguishers when feasible.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Ordering replacements is straightforward paperwork, but servicing extinguishers and alarms is hands-on.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Teaching fire investigation techniques to other firefighter personnel
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: fire investigation techniques, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Teach fire investigation techniques to other firefighter personnel.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Course material is easy to prepare, though teaching investigation skills relies on hands-on demonstration.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Attending training classes to maintain current knowledge of fire prevention
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: classes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Attend training classes to maintain current knowledge of fire prevention, safety, and firefighting procedures.” (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: Attending training builds a person’s own competence, which nothing can do on their behalf.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · 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.
Teaching public education programs on fire safety and prevention
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: public education programs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Teach public education programs on fire safety and prevention.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Public safety talks need someone in front of the audience, even if the material is easy to write.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting internal investigation to determine negligence and violation of laws and regulations by fire department employees
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: internal investigation, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Conduct internal investigation to determine negligence and violation of laws and regulations by fire department employees.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Internal investigations rest on interviews and judgment about colleagues’ conduct.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Instructing children about the dangers of fire
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: children, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Instruct children about the dangers of fire.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Fire-safety information is easy to write, but young children learn it from an adult they trust.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting inspections and acceptance testing of newly installed fire protection systems
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: inspections, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Conduct inspections and acceptance testing of newly installed fire protection systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Acceptance testing means an authorized inspector physically operating the installed system.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting fire code compliance follow-ups to ensure that corrective actions have been taken in cases where violations were found
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: fire code compliance follow-ups, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Conduct fire code compliance follow-ups to ensure that corrective actions have been taken in cases where violations were found.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Confirming a fix was actually made means going back and looking at the property.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Inspecting properties that store
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: properties, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Inspect properties that store, handle, and use hazardous materials to ensure compliance with laws, codes, and regulations, and issue hazardous materials permits to facilities found in compliance.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Checking hazardous material storage and granting the permit needs an authorized inspector on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Subpoenaing and interviewing witnesses, property owners and building occupants to obtain information and sworn testimony
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: witnesses, property owners and building occupants, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · SupplementalSource: “Subpoena and interview witnesses, property owners, and building occupants to obtain information and sworn testimony.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Interviewing witnesses under oath is an authorized officer’s job done face to face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Testifying in court cases involving fires
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: court cases involving fires, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Testify in court cases involving fires, suspected arson, and false alarms.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Giving evidence in court means a sworn person standing in the witness box.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Packaging collected pieces of evidence in securely closed containers
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: collected pieces of evidence, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Package collected pieces of evidence in securely closed containers, such as bags, crates, or boxes, to protect them.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Bagging and sealing evidence is a hands-on task with strict handling rules.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inspecting and testing fire protection or fire detection systems to verify that such systems are installed in accordance with appropriate laws
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: fire protection, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Inspect and test fire protection or fire detection systems to verify that such systems are installed in accordance with appropriate laws, codes, ordinances, regulations, and standards.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Testing alarms and sprinklers means operating the equipment in the building.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting fire exit drills to monitor and evaluate evacuation procedures
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: fire exit drills, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct fire exit drills to monitor and evaluate evacuation procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Running an evacuation drill means being in the building watching people move.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Testing sites and materials to establish facts
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: sites, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Test sites and materials to establish facts, such as burn patterns and flash points of materials, using test equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Burn and flash point testing is done with equipment and materials in hand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Dusting evidence or portions of fire scenes for latent fingerprints
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: evidence, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Dust evidence or portions of fire scenes for latent fingerprints.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Dusting for fingerprints is careful physical work at the scene.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $75,920a 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
- 13,800in 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 of investigation results in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: preparing and maintaining reports of investigation results and writing detailed reports of fire inspections. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where damage gets done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Start with what does not change: photographing damage and evidence related to causes of fires or explosions to document investigation findings is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 8% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 11% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 81% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 30 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Preparing and maintaining reports of investigation results is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to reports of investigation results, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether damage is in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near developing or reviewing fire exit plans. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to fire inspectors and investigators (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was first-line supervisors of firefighting and prevention workers: only about 11% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 19/100 here, with only 8% of the task list in the top band, and “analyze evidence and other information to determine probable cause of fire or…” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
First-Line Supervisors of Firefighting and Prevention Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already inspect and test fire protection or fire detection systems to verify that such…, and their equivalent is to supervise and participate in the inspection of properties to ensure that they are…. Across both published task lists that is about 11% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 11% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already develop or review fire exit plans, and their equivalent is to inspect buildings or building designs to determine fire protection system requirements and potential…. Across both published task lists that is about 10% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 10% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Firefighters
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already instruct children about the dangers of fire, and their equivalent is to inspect fire sites after flames have been extinguished to ensure that there is…. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $59,280 against your $75,920, 21.9% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 8% of its task weight, across 30 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like photographing damage and evidence related to causes of fires or explosions to document investigation findings arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Building and civil engineering technicians 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 Building and civil engineering technicians, Quality assurance technicians and Science, engineering and production technicians n.e.c.. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for fire inspectors / investigators, 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 8% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for fire inspectors / investigators. 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 fire inspectors / investigators launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Fire Inspectors and Investigators?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 30 official task statements scored for Fire Inspectors and Investigators (United States, SOC 33-2021), 8% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 19 out of 100 (range 14–25, band: minimal). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Fire Inspectors and Investigators” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prepare and maintain reports of investigation results, and records of convicted arsonists and arson suspects” (66/100, high); “Write detailed reports of fire inspections performed, fire code violations observed, and corrective recommendations offered” (66/100, high); “Develop and coordinate fire prevention programs, such as false alarm billing, fire inspection reporting, and hazardous materials management” (56/100, partial). 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 “Fire Inspectors and Investigators” stay human?
- About 81% 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: “Dust evidence or portions of fire scenes for latent fingerprints” (0/100, minimal); “Test sites and materials to establish facts, such as burn patterns and flash points of materials, using test equipment” (0/100, minimal); “Conduct fire exit drills to monitor and evaluate evacuation procedures” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Fire Inspectors and Investigators” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 8% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 81% 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 Fire Inspectors and Investigators 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 30 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.
- 2 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.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.