Will AI replace Floral Designers?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 15 official task statements scored for Floral Designers (United States, SOC 27-1023), 6% 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 15–24, 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 “Floral Designers” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Inform customers about the care, maintenance, and handling of various flowers and foliage, indoor plants, and other items” (64/100, high); “Order and purchase flowers and supplies from wholesalers and growers” (57/100, partial); “Confer with clients regarding price and type of arrangement desired and the date, time, and place of delivery” (39/100, low). 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 “Floral Designers” stay human?

About 87% 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: “Unpack stock as it comes into the shop” (0/100, minimal); “Perform general cleaning duties in the store to ensure the shop is clean and tidy” (0/100, minimal); “Trim material and arrange bouquets, wreaths, terrariums, and other items, using trimmers, shapers, wire, pins, floral tape, foam, and other materials” (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 “Floral Designers” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 6% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 87% 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 Floral Designers 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 15 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

Floral Designers

conferring with clients regarding price and type of arrangement desired and the date, watering plants and cutting condition and cleaning flowers and foliage and trimming material and arranging bouquets. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: trimming material and arranging bouquets is work software can't reach.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 6%
changing shape: 7%
staying human: 87%

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

Whole-job exposure score 19 out of 100 (15–24 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 15 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 floral designers 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.

What shifts is informing customers about the care. This page scores what today's tools actually do, not headlines.

Your week, as this page understands it

Design, cut, and arrange live, dried, or artificial flowers and foliage. The job title says “floral designers”. The real job is the part underneath: trimming material and arranging bouquets. 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 floral designers is not one task. It is 15 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is trimming material and arranging bouquets, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 6%
changing shape: 7%
staying human: 87%

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 2026-08-05. 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

1 task

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.

Informing customers about the care
This is reading one thing and writing another: customers in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Inform customers about the care, maintenance, and handling of various flowers and foliage, indoor plants, and other items.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Flower and plant care advice is standard, well-documented information that software can give accurately.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.

Changing shape

1 task

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.

Ordering and purchasing flowers and supplies from wholesalers and growers
The software now makes the first pass at flowers, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Order and purchase flowers and supplies from wholesalers and growers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 57 out of 100 (50–64 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Ordering stock is desk and phone work, though knowing which growers deliver good quality stays with the buyer.
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 2/4.

Staying human

13 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.

Selecting flora and foliage
This work happens in the physical world: flora, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Select flora and foliage for arrangements, working with numerous combinations to synthesize and develop new creations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Choosing actual stems means standing at the cooler and judging what looks fresh and works together.
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 2/4.
Conferring with clients regarding price and type of arrangement desired and the date
The value here is that a specific person handles clients regarding price and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Confer with clients regarding price and type of arrangement desired and the date, time, and place of delivery.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Taking an order for flowers and a delivery slot is a routine conversation that online tools already handle well.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning arrangement according to client's requirements
The ratings behind this row put arrangement well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Plan arrangement according to client's requirements, using knowledge of design and properties of materials, or select appropriate standard design pattern.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software can suggest a design, but the plan has to match what is actually in stock that day.
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 2/4.
Trimming material and arranging bouquets
This work happens in the physical world: material, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Trim material and arrange bouquets, wreaths, terrariums, and other items, using trimmers, shapers, wire, pins, floral tape, foam, and other materials.” (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: Building a bouquet or wreath is hands-on work with wire, tape and scissors.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Wrapping and pricing completed arrangements
This work happens in the physical world: completed arrangements, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Wrap and price completed arrangements.” (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: Pricing is simple to automate, but wrapping the finished arrangement is handwork.
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.
Watering plants and cutting condition and cleaning flowers and foliage for storage
This work happens in the physical world: plants, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Water plants, and cut, condition, and clean flowers and foliage for storage.” (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: Watering, cutting and cleaning flowers is done entirely by hand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Performing general cleaning duties in the store to ensure the shop is clean and tidy
This work happens in the physical world: general cleaning duties, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Perform general cleaning duties in the store to ensure the shop is clean and tidy.” (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: Cleaning the shop is physical work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Creating and changing in-store and window displays
This work happens in the physical world: in-store, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Create and change in-store and window displays, designs, and looks to enhance a shop's image.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: A machine can suggest a display theme, but someone has to build and change it in the window.
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 2/4.

Show the other 5 tasks

Performing office and retail service duties
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: office, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Perform office and retail service duties, such as keeping financial records, serving customers, answering telephones, selling giftware items, and receiving payment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 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: Record-keeping and phone answering are easy to automate; serving people at the counter and taking payment are not.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting classes or demonstrations or training other workers
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: classes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Conduct classes or demonstrations, or train other workers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Lesson content is easy to draft, but showing people how to handle flowers happens in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Decorating or supervising the decoration
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the decoration, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Decorate, or supervise the decoration of, buildings, halls, churches, or other facilities for parties, weddings and other occasions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Decorating a hall or church means carrying and fixing materials in the room itself.
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.
Delivering arrangements to customers or overseeing employees responsible for deliveries
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: arrangements, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Deliver arrangements to customers, or oversee employees responsible for deliveries.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Getting flowers to a doorstep needs a vehicle and a person, whoever plans the route.
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.
Unpacking stock as it comes into the shop
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: stock, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Unpack stock as it comes into the shop.” (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: Unpacking deliveries is lifting and sorting physical boxes in the shop.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $37,360a 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: 40,590in 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: customers in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: informing customers about the care and ordering and purchasing flowers and supplies from wholesalers and growers. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where material 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: trimming material and arranging bouquets is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 6% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 7% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 87% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 15 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. Informing customers about the care 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 customers, 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 clients regarding price 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 ordering and purchasing flowers and supplies from wholesalers and growers. 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 floral designers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was landscaping and groundskeeping workers: only about 6% 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 6% of the task list in the top band, and “select flora and foliage for arrangements, working with numerous combinations to synthesize…” 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.

Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already water plants, and cut, condition, and clean flowers and foliage for storage, and their equivalent is to trim or pick flowers and clean flower beds. 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.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already perform general cleaning duties in the store to ensure the shop is clean…, and their equivalent is to perform or assist with cleaning duties as necessary. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Fashion Designers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already plan arrangement according to client's requirements, using knowledge of design and properties of…, and their equivalent is to draw patterns for articles designed, cut patterns, and cut material according to patterns…. 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. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $80,960 against your $37,360 is 2.17× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 2% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route.
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: 6% of its task weight, across 15 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 trimming material and arranging bouquets 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 Florists is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Florists. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
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 floral designers, 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 6% 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 floral designers. 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 floral designers 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 floral designers 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 floral designers 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 floral designers 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 Floral Designers?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 15 official task statements scored for Floral Designers (United States, SOC 27-1023), 6% 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 15–24, 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 “Floral Designers” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Inform customers about the care, maintenance, and handling of various flowers and foliage, indoor plants, and other items” (64/100, high); “Order and purchase flowers and supplies from wholesalers and growers” (57/100, partial); “Confer with clients regarding price and type of arrangement desired and the date, time, and place of delivery” (39/100, low). 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 “Floral Designers” stay human?: About 87% 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: “Unpack stock as it comes into the shop” (0/100, minimal); “Perform general cleaning duties in the store to ensure the shop is clean and tidy” (0/100, minimal); “Trim material and arrange bouquets, wreaths, terrariums, and other items, using trimmers, shapers, wire, pins, floral tape, foam, and other materials” (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 “Floral Designers” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 6% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 87% 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 Floral Designers 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 15 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.

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.