US dataswitch to UK
Information Security Analysts
developing plans to safeguard computer files against accidental or unauthorized modification, performing risk assessments and executing tests of data processing system to ensure functioning of data processing activities and security measures and modifying computer security files to incorporate new software. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
Most tasks in this job are the kind AI has learned to do: developing plans to safeguard computer files against accidental or unauthorized modification. The tasks, though, are not you.
It would be a lie to soften that; reviewing violations of computer security procedures and discussing procedures with violators to ensure violations are not is what this work rebuilds around. The routes below start from it.
Your week, as this page understands it
Plan, implement, upgrade, or monitor security measures for the protection of computer networks and information. Assess system vulnerabilities for security risks and propose and implement risk mitigation strategies. May ensure appropriate security controls are in place that will safeguard digital files and vital electronic infrastructure. May respond to computer security breaches and viruses. The job title says “information security analysts”. The real job is the part underneath: reviewing violations of computer security procedures and discussing procedures with violators to ensure violations are not. 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 information security analysts is not one task. It is 11 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is reviewing violations of computer security procedures and discussing procedures with violators to ensure violations are not, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 64%
- changing shape
- 36%
- staying human
- 0%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 64 out of 100 (59–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, across 11 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 information security analysts is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.
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
7 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Developing plans to safeguard computer files against accidental or unauthorized modification
This is reading one thing and writing another: plans in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop plans to safeguard computer files against accidental or unauthorized modification, destruction, or disclosure and to meet emergency data processing needs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Security plans follow published frameworks, so software can draft a solid version for the organization to adapt.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Documenting computer security and emergency measures policies
This is reading one thing and writing another: computer security in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Document computer security and emergency measures policies, procedures, and tests.” (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: Security documentation follows established formats and is drafted well from the organisation’s existing setup.
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.
Performing risk assessments and executing tests of data processing system to ensure functioning of data processing activities and security measures
This is reading one thing and writing another: risk assessments in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Perform risk assessments and execute tests of data processing system to ensure functioning of data processing activities and security measures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Risk assessments and system tests follow documented methods software can run and write up.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Modifying computer security files to incorporate new software
This is reading one thing and writing another: computer security files in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Modify computer security files to incorporate new software, correct errors, or change individual access status.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Changing security settings and access rights is configuration work software handles from a clear request.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring current reports of computer viruses to determine when to update virus protection systems
This is reading one thing and writing another: current reports of computer viruses in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Monitor current reports of computer viruses to determine when to update virus protection systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Watching threat feeds and flagging when protection needs updating is monitoring work software already does.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Monitoring use of data files and regulating access to safeguard information in computer files
This is reading one thing and writing another: use of data files in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Monitor use of data files and regulate access to safeguard information in computer files.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Watching file use and controlling access is continuous monitoring tools already do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
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.
Conferring with users to discuss issues
The software now makes the first pass at users, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Confer with users to discuss issues such as computer data access needs, security violations, and programming changes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 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: Working out what access a user really needs comes from talking to them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Training users and promoting security awareness to ensure system security and to improve server and network efficiency
The software now makes the first pass at users, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Train users and promote security awareness to ensure system security and to improve server and network efficiency.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (46–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Awareness training material is easily produced by software, though sessions still land better from a colleague.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing violations of computer security procedures and discussing procedures with violators to ensure violations are not
The software now makes the first pass at violations of computer security procedures, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Review violations of computer security procedures and discuss procedures with violators to ensure violations are not repeated.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (36–44 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high 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: Talking to someone who broke the rules so it does not happen again is a human conversation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating implementation of computer system plan with establishment personnel and outside vendors
The software now makes the first pass at implementation of computer system plan, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Coordinate implementation of computer system plan with establishment personnel and outside vendors.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Getting a plan implemented across departments and outside vendors depends on persuading the people involved.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
0 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.
Nothing in this job’s scored task list landed in this group. That is the measurement, not an editorial choice, and it is worth knowing either way.
Show the other 1 task
Encrypting data transmissions and erecting firewalls to conceal confidential information as it is being transmitted and to keep out tainted digital transfers
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: data transmissions in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Encrypt data transmissions and erect firewalls to conceal confidential information as it is being transmitted and to keep out tainted digital transfers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Encryption and firewall configuration is well documented and increasingly scripted, though someone owns the change.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $129,180a 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
- 190,650in 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: computer security in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: developing plans to safeguard computer files against accidental or unauthorized modification and documenting computer security and emergency measures policies. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what violations of computer security procedures run 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
The exposed part of your job is the biggest part, and I am not going to dress that up: developing plans to safeguard computer files against accidental or unauthorized modification is work today's tools do quickly and cheaply, and that is not coming back.
So, given all that: 64% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 36% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 0% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 11 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
What you have that the software does not is reviewing violations of computer security procedures and discussing procedures with violators to ensure violations are not, plus the years of knowing when something looks wrong before you can say why. That is the raw material for everything below.
This week: one thing
Sit on the machine's side of the desk. Pick one real piece of computer security you would normally do yourself, let whatever software you already have take the first pass at it, and then go through what it produced and write down every single thing it got wrong. One evening this week. Do not fix anything yet. Just catch it.
- What you end up holding
- a written list of the machine’s mistakes, in your handwriting
- How long it takes
- an evening, or an hour if you pick one job rather than one client
If you can’t run software on your employer’s or your clients’ data: Do the same hunt on paper. Take one printed piece of computer security, work through it the way you always do, and mark every point where you made a call rather than followed a rule. Same evening, same list, nothing to log into and nobody to ask permission from. That list is the same artifact: it is the judgment written down.
Over the next 90 days
Change one sentence about what you do. Not on a CV. Out loud, to whoever pays you. From “my job is developing plans to safeguard computer files against accidental or unauthorized modification” to “I check what the software does and tell you what it means.” Your error list from this week is what makes that sentence true instead of a claim, so use it: show it once, to one person, inside the next ninety days. Same skills, priced as judgment rather than as typing.
Over the next 12 months
Walk toward the end of this job that answers for things, and get it recognised. Pick the one part of reviewing violations of computer security procedures and discussing procedures with violators to ensure violations are not you are already best at, and spend the year making it formal: a qualification, a named responsibility, a specialism people ask for by name. Price it honestly: that is evenings, it is months rather than weeks, and the seats are competitive because everyone in your position is looking at the same door. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to information security analysts (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was business operations specialists, all other: only about 3% of its durable work is work you already do, it is under the same pressure this job is and it pays 35.7% less. I am not going to pretend that is comfortable news: 64% of your own task list is already in the top exposure band. But the answer on this evidence is not a sideways jump into a job with the same problem. It is to walk toward the end of this one that answers for things. “confer with users to discuss issues” is the part that stays with a person, and spending a year getting formally recognised for it beats a standing start somewhere else.
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.
Business Operations Specialists, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already document computer security and emergency measures policies, procedures, and tests, and their equivalent is to test security measures for final acceptance and implement or provide procedures for ongoing…. 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. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 60% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (62/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $83,050 against your $129,180, 35.7% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Computer Programmers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already confer with users to discuss issues, and their equivalent is to collaborate with computer manufacturers and other users to develop new programming methods. 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. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 66% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (66/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $100,390 against your $129,180, 22.3% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Computer and Information Research Scientists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already train users and promote security awareness to ensure system security and to improve…, and their equivalent is to maintain network hardware and software, direct network security measures, and monitor networks to…. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 37,200 of those jobs against 190,650 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 20% as many seats.
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: 64% of its task weight, across 11 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
“It’s too late for me to become something else”
You are not starting from zero, and the page shows why: reviewing violations of computer security procedures and discussing procedures with violators to ensure violations are not is work the software cannot do and you already do it. The move above is a repricing of what you know, not a new career. Nobody who has just left college has that.
“I should learn to code”
Almost certainly not. The value in your job is moving toward checking, deciding and answering for the output, not toward writing the software. A weekend of Python will not change your position; the error list from this week will.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Cyber security professionals 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 Cyber security professionals. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for information security analysts, 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 64% 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 information security analysts. 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 information security analysts 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 Information Security Analysts?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 11 official task statements scored for Information Security Analysts (United States, SOC 15-1212), 64% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 64 out of 100 (range 59–70, band: high). 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 “Information Security Analysts” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Monitor current reports of computer viruses to determine when to update virus protection systems” (83/100, very high); “Develop plans to safeguard computer files against accidental or unauthorized modification, destruction, or disclosure and to meet emergency data processing n…” (75/100, high); “Modify computer security files to incorporate new software, correct errors, or change individual access status” (75/100, 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 “Information Security Analysts” stay human?
- About 0% 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: “Review violations of computer security procedures and discuss procedures with violators to ensure violations are not repeated” (40/100, partial); “Coordinate implementation of computer system plan with establishment personnel and outside vendors” (40/100, partial); “Confer with users to discuss issues such as computer data access needs, security violations, and programming changes” (49/100, partial). 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 “Information Security Analysts” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 64% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 0% 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 Information Security Analysts 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 11 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 2026-08-04.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
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.