US dataswitch to UK
Microbiologists
isolating and maintaining cultures of bacteria or other microorganisms in prescribed or developed media, supervising biological technologists and technicians and other scientists and using a variety of specialized equipment. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: isolating and maintaining cultures of bacteria or other microorganisms in prescribed or developed media is work software can't reach.
What shifts is preparing technical reports and recommendations: the paper around the work, not the work.
Your week, as this page understands it
Investigate the growth, structure, development, and other characteristics of microscopic organisms, such as bacteria, algae, or fungi. Includes medical microbiologists who study the relationship between organisms and disease or the effects of antibiotics on microorganisms. The job title says “microbiologists”. The real job is the part underneath: isolating and maintaining cultures of bacteria or other microorganisms in prescribed or developed media. 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 microbiologists is not one task. It is 14 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is isolating and maintaining cultures of bacteria or other microorganisms in prescribed or developed media, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 8%
- changing shape
- 0%
- staying human
- 92%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 18 out of 100 (12–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 14 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 microbiologists 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.
- 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 taskTasks 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 technical reports and recommendations
This is reading one thing and writing another: technical reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare technical reports and recommendations, based upon research outcomes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Turning research results into a written report with recommendations is exactly the kind of drafting 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
0 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.
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.
Staying human
13 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.
Isolating and maintaining cultures of bacteria or other microorganisms in prescribed or developed media
This work happens in the physical world: cultures of bacteria, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Isolate and maintain cultures of bacteria or other microorganisms in prescribed or developed media, controlling moisture, aeration, temperature, and nutrition.” (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: Growing and keeping cultures alive means physically handling plates, media and incubators.
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 3/4.
Supervising biological technologists and technicians and other scientists
This work happens in the physical world: biological technologists, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Supervise biological technologists and technicians and other scientists.” (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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Running a laboratory team depends on being present and on personal judgment about people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Using a variety of specialized equipment
This work happens in the physical world: a variety of specialized equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Use a variety of specialized equipment, such as electron microscopes, gas and high-pressure liquid chromatographs, electrophoresis units, thermocyclers, fluorescence-activated cell sorters, and phosphorimagers.” (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: Operating electron microscopes and chromatographs is hands-on instrument 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.
Examining physiological, morphological and cultural characteristics
This work happens in the physical world: physiological, morphological and cultural characteristics, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Examine physiological, morphological, and cultural characteristics, using microscope, to identify and classify microorganisms in human, water, and food specimens.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 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: Software is increasingly good at classifying what is on a slide, but the specimen work happens at the microscope.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring and performing tests on water
This work happens in the physical world: tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Monitor and perform tests on water, food, and the environment to detect harmful microorganisms or to obtain information about sources of pollution, contamination, or infection.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 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: Testing water, food and the environment means collecting and processing physical samples, though reading results is computational.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Studying growth, structure, development and general characteristics of bacteria and other microorganisms to understand their relationship to human, plant and animal health
This work happens in the physical world: growth, structure, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Study growth, structure, development, and general characteristics of bacteria and other microorganisms to understand their relationship to human, plant, and animal health.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Reviewing what is already published is quick for software, though the growth studies themselves need laboratory work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Investigating the relationship between organisms and disease
This work happens in the physical world: the relationship, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Investigate the relationship between organisms and disease, including the control of epidemics and the effects of antibiotics on microorganisms.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: The literature review and data analysis suit software well, but the underlying experiments still need someone at the bench.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing laboratory services for health departments
This work happens in the physical world: laboratory services, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide laboratory services for health departments, community environmental health programs, and physicians needing information for diagnosis and treatment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 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: Providing laboratory services means bench work under a qualified person's name, even though the reporting side is easier to automate.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Observing action of microorganisms upon living tissues of plants
This work happens in the physical world: action of microorganisms upon living tissues of plants, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Observe action of microorganisms upon living tissues of plants, higher animals, and other microorganisms, and on dead organic matter.” (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: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Watching how microbes act on living tissue means observing the actual samples at the bench.
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 4 tasks
Studying the structure and function of human
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the structure, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Study the structure and function of human, animal, and plant tissues, cells, pathogens, and toxins.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Software can summarize and model what is known about cells and toxins, but the studies rely on laboratory work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Researching use of bacteria and microorganisms to develop vitamins
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: use of bacteria, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Research use of bacteria and microorganisms to develop vitamins, antibiotics, amino acids, grain alcohol, sugars, and polymers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Software can scan the literature and propose routes, but developing a working microbial process needs laboratory experiments.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing new products and procedures
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: new products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Develop new products and procedures for sterilization, food and pharmaceutical supply preservation, or microbial contamination detection.” (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 rating behind it: Suggesting new sterilization or detection ideas is easy; proving one actually works takes long laboratory validation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting chemical analyses of substances
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: chemical analyses of substances, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Conduct chemical analyses of substances such as acids, alcohols, and enzymes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Running chemical analyses is bench work, even though interpreting the numbers afterwards is computational.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $87,990a 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
- 18,940in 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: technical reports in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: preparing technical reports and recommendations. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where cultures of bacteria get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Start with what does not change: isolating and maintaining cultures of bacteria or other microorganisms in prescribed or developed media 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, 0% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 92% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 14 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 technical reports and recommendations 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 technical reports, 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 cultures of bacteria are 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 isolating and maintaining cultures of bacteria or other microorganisms in prescribed or developed media. 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 microbiologists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was medical scientists, except epidemiologists: only about 7% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 18/100 here, with only 8% of the task list in the top band, and “isolate and maintain cultures of bacteria or other microorganisms in prescribed 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.
Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already study growth, structure, development, and general characteristics of bacteria and other microorganisms to…, and their equivalent is to prepare and analyze organ, tissue, and cell samples to identify toxicity, bacteria, or…. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Food Science Technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already supervise biological technologists and technicians and other scientists, and their equivalent is to provide assistance to food scientists or technologists in research and development, production technology…. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $52,130 against your $87,990, 40.8% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Biological Scientists, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already supervise biological technologists and technicians and other scientists, and their equivalent is to supervise biological technicians and technologists and other scientists. 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.
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 14 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 isolating and maintaining cultures of bacteria or other microorganisms in prescribed or developed media 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 Biochemists and biomedical scientists 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 Biochemists and biomedical scientists, Natural and social science professionals n.e.c., Other researchers, unspecified discipline and Biological scientists. 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 microbiologists, 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 microbiologists. 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 microbiologists 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 Microbiologists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 14 official task statements scored for Microbiologists (United States, SOC 19-1022), 8% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 18 out of 100 (range 12–25, 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 “Microbiologists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prepare technical reports and recommendations, based upon research outcomes” (66/100, high); “Investigate the relationship between organisms and disease, including the control of epidemics and the effects of antibiotics on microorganisms” (29/100, low); “Study growth, structure, development, and general characteristics of bacteria and other microorganisms to understand their relationship to human, plant, and…” (29/100, 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 “Microbiologists” stay human?
- About 92% 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: “Isolate and maintain cultures of bacteria or other microorganisms in prescribed or developed media, controlling moisture, aeration, temperature, and nutrition” (0/100, minimal); “Use a variety of specialized equipment, such as electron microscopes, gas and high-pressure liquid chromatographs, electrophoresis units, thermocyclers, fluo…” (0/100, minimal); “Observe action of microorganisms upon living tissues of plants, higher animals, and other microorganisms, and on dead organic matter” (8/100, 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 “Microbiologists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 8% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 92% 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 Microbiologists 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 14 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.
- 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.