Will AI replace Natural Sciences Managers?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 70 official task statements scored for Natural Sciences Managers (United States, SOC 11-9121), 40% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 49 out of 100 (range 43–55, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Natural Sciences Managers” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Track enrollment status of subjects and document dropout information such as dropout causes and subject contact efforts” (93/100, very high); “Compile water resource data, using geographic information systems (GIS) or global position systems (GPS) software” (93/100, very high); “Monitor water use, demand, or quality in a particular geographic area” (93/100, very 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 “Natural Sciences Managers” stay human?

About 35% 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: “Organize space for study equipment and supplies” (0/100, minimal); “Perform specific protocol procedures such as interviewing subjects, taking vital signs, and performing electrocardiograms” (0/100, minimal); “Supervise teams of workers who capture water from wells and rivers” (6/100, 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 “Natural Sciences Managers” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 40% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 35% 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 Natural Sciences Managers 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 70 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

Natural Sciences Managers

scheduling subjects for appointments, conferring with scientists, engineers and instructing research staff in scientific and procedural aspects of studies. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

This job is splitting in two: tracking enrollment status of subjects and documenting dropout information is work AI now does quickly and cheaply, and performing specific protocol procedures, interviewing subjects, taking vital signs and performing electrocardiograms is work it can't touch.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 40%
changing shape: 25%
staying human: 35%

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

Whole-job exposure score 49 out of 100 (43–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 70 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 natural sciences managers 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.

Which half fills your week decides your exposure. That is more in your control than it sounds.

Your week, as this page understands it

Plan, direct, or coordinate activities in such fields as life sciences, physical sciences, mathematics, statistics, and research and development in these fields. The job title says “natural sciences managers”. The real job is the part underneath: performing specific protocol procedures, interviewing subjects, taking vital signs and performing electrocardiograms. 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 natural sciences managers is not one task. It is 70 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is performing specific protocol procedures, interviewing subjects, taking vital signs and performing electrocardiograms, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 40%
changing shape: 25%
staying human: 35%

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 2026-08-04. 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.

6 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

27 tasks

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Performing hydrologic, hydraulic or water quality modeling
This is reading one thing and writing another: hydrologic, hydraulic or water quality in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Perform hydrologic, hydraulic, or water quality modeling.” (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: Water modeling runs on established software, with a specialist checking the assumptions.
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.
Designing or coordinating successive phases of problem analysis
This is reading one thing and writing another: successive phases of problem analysis in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Design or coordinate successive phases of problem analysis, solution proposals, or testing.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 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: Laying out analysis and testing phases follows documented method that tools plan well.
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 3/4.
Reviewing project activities and preparing and reviewing research
This is reading one thing and writing another: project activities in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Review project activities and prepare and review research, testing, or operational reports.” (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: Reviewing activity and drafting technical reports is exactly the kind of writing tools do well.
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.
Analyzing storm water systems to identify opportunities for water resource improvements
This is reading one thing and writing another: storm water systems in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Analyze storm water systems to identify opportunities for water resource improvements.” (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: Storm water analysis follows documented methods applied to data the utility already holds.
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

18 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Monitoring study activities to ensure compliance with protocols and with all relevant local
The software now makes the first pass at study activities, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Monitor study activities to ensure compliance with protocols and with all relevant local, federal, and state regulatory and institutional polices.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Checking activity against protocol and regulation is rule-following that software does thoroughly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying protocol problems, inform investigators of problems or assisting in problem resolution efforts, such as protocol revisions
The software now makes the first pass at protocol problems, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Identify protocol problems, inform investigators of problems, or assist in problem resolution efforts, such as protocol revisions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Spotting protocol problems from the data suits software well, with investigators deciding the fix.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recording adverse event and side effect data and conferring with investigators regarding the reporting of events to oversight agencies
The software now makes the first pass at adverse event, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Record adverse event and side effect data and confer with investigators regarding the reporting of events to oversight agencies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Adverse event records follow strict formats, though a qualified investigator decides what gets reported.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

25 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.

Overseeing subject enrollment to ensure that informed consent is properly
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for subject enrollment, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Oversee subject enrollment to ensure that informed consent is properly obtained and documented.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 19 out of 100 (15–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Consent has to be taken and witnessed by a qualified person with the patient.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Hiring, supervising or evaluating engineers, technicians, researchers or other staff
The value here is that a specific person handles engineers, technicians, researchers or other staff and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Hire, supervise, or evaluate engineers, technicians, researchers, or other staff.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (24–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Hiring and appraising scientists rests on judging people, though tools help with shortlisting and paperwork.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assessing eligibility of potential subjects through methods
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for eligibility of potential subjects, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Assess eligibility of potential subjects through methods such as screening interviews, reviews of medical records, or discussions with physicians and nurses.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Eligibility rules are clear, but screening a real person involves judgment and a clinician's sign-off.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 60 tasks

Tracking enrollment status of subjects and documenting dropout information
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: enrollment status of subjects in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Track enrollment status of subjects and document dropout information such as dropout causes and subject contact efforts.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Tracking enrollment and dropouts is straightforward database work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Compiling water resource data, using geographic information systems, GIS) or global position systems, GPS) software
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: water resource data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Compile water resource data, using geographic information systems (GIS) or global position systems (GPS) software.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Compiling data in mapping software is exactly what these tools are built to do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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 water use, demand or quality in a particular geographic area
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: water use, demand or quality in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Monitor water use, demand, or quality in a particular geographic area.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Monitoring use, demand and quality is continuous data work software already does.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Preparing project proposals
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: project proposals in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Prepare project proposals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Project proposals follow set formats and draft well, with the technical case checked by a specialist.
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.
Preparing and administering budgets, approve and reviewing expenditures and preparing financial reports
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: this work in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Prepare and administer budgets, approve and review expenditures, and prepare financial reports.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Budgets, expenditure reviews and financial reports are standard finance work software already runs.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Registering protocol patients with appropriate statistical centers
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: protocol patients in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Register protocol patients with appropriate statistical centers as required.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Registering patients with statistical centers is a form-filling step software completes reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Maintaining required records of study activity
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: required records of study activity in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Maintain required records of study activity including case report forms, drug dispensation records, or regulatory forms.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Case report forms and regulatory records are structured record-keeping software already manages.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Scheduling subjects for appointments, procedures or inpatient stays as required by study protocols
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: subjects in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Schedule subjects for appointments, procedures, or inpatient stays as required by study protocols.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 79 out of 100 (75–83 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: Booking appointments against a protocol calendar is routine scheduling that software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Conducting cost-benefit studies for watershed improvement projects or water management alternatives
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: cost-benefit studies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Conduct cost-benefit studies for watershed improvement projects or water management alternatives.” (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: Cost-benefit studies are structured number work software does quickly.
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.
Coding, evaluating or interpreting collected study data
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: collected study data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Code, evaluate, or interpret collected study data.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 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: Coding and interpreting study data is exactly the kind of analysis software handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Developing or implementing policies, standards or procedures for the architectural, scientific or technical work performed to ensure regulatory compliance or operations enhancement
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: policies, standards or procedures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop or implement policies, standards, or procedures for the architectural, scientific, or technical work performed to ensure regulatory compliance or operations enhancement.” (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: Standards and procedures are written from documented regulations, though someone accountable adopts them.
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.
Participating in preparation and management of research budgets and monetary disbursements
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: preparation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Participate in preparation and management of research budgets and monetary disbursements.” (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: Budget preparation and tracking disbursements is standard finance work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing study-related documentation, such as protocol worksheets, procedural manuals, adverse event reports
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: study-related documentation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Prepare study-related documentation, such as protocol worksheets, procedural manuals, adverse event reports, institutional review board documents, or progress reports.” (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: Protocol worksheets, manuals and progress reports are structured documents tools draft 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.
Compiling and maintaining documentation on the health of a body of water
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: documentation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Compile and maintain documentation on the health of a body of water.” (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: Monitoring results arrive digitally, so keeping the record up to date and summarising it is well within software's reach.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing proposals, project reports, informational brochures or other documents on wastewater purification
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: proposals, project reports, informational brochures or other documents in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Write proposals, project reports, informational brochures, or other documents on wastewater purification, water supply and demand, or other water resource subjects.” (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: Proposals, reports and brochures on water topics are strong ground for writing tools.
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.
Developing plans to protect watershed health or rehabilitate watersheds
shifting to AI
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 · Core
Source: “Develop plans to protect watershed health or rehabilitate watersheds.” (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: Watershed protection plans follow documented practice and available data.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing or implementing standardized water monitoring and assessment methods
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: standardized water in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Develop or implement standardized water monitoring and assessment methods.” (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: Standard monitoring methods are documented and can be written up well by tools.
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.
Conducting technical studies for water resources on topics
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: technical studies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Conduct technical studies for water resources on topics such as pollutants and water treatment options.” (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: Technical studies of pollutants and treatment options are well-documented analysis work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing strategies for watershed operations to meet water supply and conservation goals or to ensure regulatory compliance with clean water laws or regulations
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: strategies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop strategies for watershed operations to meet water supply and conservation goals or to ensure regulatory compliance with clean water laws or regulations.” (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: Watershed strategies draw on documented regulations and data, so tools draft strong options.
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.
Determining scientific or technical goals within broad outlines provided by top management and making detailed plans to accomplish these goals
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: scientific in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Determine scientific or technical goals within broad outlines provided by top management and make detailed plans to accomplish these goals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 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 broad management aims into detailed technical plans is documented planning work tools support strongly.
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 3/4.
Maintaining contact with sponsors to schedule and coordinate site visits or to answer questions about issues
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: contact in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Maintain contact with sponsors to schedule and coordinate site visits or to answer questions about issues such as incomplete data.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 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: Sponsor correspondence and visit scheduling are routine coordination tasks for software.
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 3/4.
Arranging for research study sites and determining staff or equipment availability
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: research study sites in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Arrange for research study sites and determine staff or equipment availability.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 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: Arranging sites and checking staff and equipment availability is coordination work software handles.
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 3/4.
Developing advertising and other informational materials to be used in subject recruitment
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: other informational materials in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Develop advertising and other informational materials to be used in subject recruitment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 62 out of 100 (55–69 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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Recruitment adverts draft well, though a review board must approve what patients actually see.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Ordering drugs or devices necessary for study completion
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at drugs, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Order drugs or devices necessary for study completion.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Ordering study drugs and devices is a documented process, though a qualified person authorizes it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Communicating with laboratories or investigators regarding laboratory findings
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at laboratories, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Communicate with laboratories or investigators regarding laboratory findings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Passing on and flagging laboratory findings is structured communication software handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Collaborating with investigators to prepare presentations or reports of clinical study procedures
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at investigators, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Collaborate with investigators to prepare presentations or reports of clinical study procedures, results, and conclusions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Study reports and presentations are built from the trial data and draft 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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recommending new or revised policies
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at new or revised policies, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Recommend new or revised policies, procedures, or regulations to support water resource or conservation goals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Policy drafting draws on published regulation and precedent, which software handles well, with specialists judging what will work here.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising or assisting in obtaining patents or meeting other legal requirements
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at obtaining patents, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Advise or assist in obtaining patents or meeting other legal requirements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Patent and compliance work is well documented, though a qualified professional signs the filings.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in the development of study protocols
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at the development of study protocols, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Participate in the development of study protocols including guidelines for administration or data collection procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Protocol drafting follows established templates, with qualified investigators owning the science.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Contacting outside health care providers and communicating with subjects to obtain follow-up information
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at outside health care providers, 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 · Core
Source: “Contact outside health care providers and communicate with subjects to obtain follow-up information.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 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: Chasing follow-up information is largely routine contact work, though patients respond better to a familiar person.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting own research in field of expertise
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at own research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Conduct own research in field of expertise.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Tools speed up literature work and analysis, but original research still needs the scientist.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Contacting industry representatives to ensure equipment and software specifications necessary for successful study completion
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at industry representatives, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Contact industry representatives to ensure equipment and software specifications necessary for successful study completion.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Chasing suppliers about equipment specifications is correspondence, though it depends on their answers.
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 2/4.
Reviewing proposed study protocols to evaluate factors
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at proposed study protocols, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Review proposed study protocols to evaluate factors such as sample collection processes, data management plans, or potential subject risks.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Reviewing a protocol for risks and data plans needs an experienced researcher, even though the documents are digital.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing or evaluating designs for water detention facilities
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at designs, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Review or evaluate designs for water detention facilities, storm drains, flood control facilities, or other hydraulic structures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Reviewing hydraulic designs needs a qualified engineer to stand behind the verdict.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying methods for distributing purified wastewater into rivers
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at methods, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Identify methods for distributing purified wastewater into rivers, streams, or oceans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Discharge methods are documented, but a qualified engineer signs off what actually gets built.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Instructing research staff in scientific and procedural aspects of studies
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at research staff, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Instruct research staff in scientific and procedural aspects of studies including standards of care, informed consent procedures, or documentation procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (35–49 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Training material drafts easily, but teaching staff the practical side happens with them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing scientific literature
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at scientific literature, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Review scientific literature, participate in continuing education activities, or attend conferences and seminars to maintain current knowledge of clinical studies affairs and issues.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 41 out of 100 (34–48 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: Tools summarize the literature quickly, but keeping your own knowledge current is your own work.
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 4/4.
Recruiting personnel or overseeing the development or maintenance of staff competence
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at personnel, 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 · Core
Source: “Recruit personnel or oversee the development or maintenance of staff competence.” (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: Recruiting and developing specialists depends on judging and motivating people.
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.
Planning or directing research, development or production activities
staying human
The ratings behind this row put research, development or production activities well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Plan or direct research, development, or production activities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Directing research means steering people and priorities, even though plans and reports draft easily.
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 3/4.
Developing innovative technology or training staff for its implementation
staying human
The ratings behind this row put innovative technology well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Develop innovative technology or train staff for its implementation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: New technology development and hands-on training of staff still lean on people.
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 3/4.
Conferring with scientists, engineers, regulators or others to plan or review projects or to provide technical assistance
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles scientists, engineers, regulators and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Confer with scientists, engineers, regulators, or others to plan or review projects or to provide technical assistance.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Technical discussions with scientists and regulators depend on standing and give-and-take.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conferring with health care professionals to determine the best recruitment practices for studies
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles health care professionals and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Confer with health care professionals to determine the best recruitment practices for studies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Recruitment advice comes from clinicians who know their own patients and colleagues.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing client relationships and communicating with clients to explain proposals
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles client relationships and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop client relationships and communicate with clients to explain proposals, present research findings, establish specifications, or discuss project status.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (28–36 allowing for uncertainty): low 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: Client relationships are built person to person, even when the findings themselves are easy to write up.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting or overseeing the conduct
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for the conduct, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Conduct, or oversee the conduct of, investigations on matters such as water storage, wastewater discharge, pollutants, permits, or other compliance and regulatory issues.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Investigating discharges and permits usually needs someone on site and a qualified person accountable.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Interpreting protocols and advising treating physicians on appropriate dosage modifications or treatment calculations based on patient characteristics
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for protocols, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Interpret protocols and advise treating physicians on appropriate dosage modifications or treatment calculations based on patient characteristics.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (24–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Dosage advice can be calculated from the protocol, but a qualified clinician has to make the call.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Making presentations at professional meetings to further knowledge in the field
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles presentations and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Make presentations at professional meetings to further knowledge in the field.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Slides prepare easily, but presenting to peers at a conference is done by a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Presenting water resource proposals
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles water resource proposals and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Present water resource proposals to government, public interest groups, or community groups.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The proposal writes itself, but facing a community meeting is a person's job.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Soliciting industry-sponsored trials through contacts and professional organizations
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles industry-sponsored trials and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Solicit industry-sponsored trials through contacts and professional organizations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (24–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Winning sponsored trials depends on personal contacts and reputation in the field.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Preparing for or participating in quality assurance audits conducted by study sponsors
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for this work, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Prepare for or participate in quality assurance audits conducted by study sponsors, federal agencies, or specially designated review groups.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Audit preparation is document work, but auditors want qualified staff answering on the day.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing technical expertise to assist communities in the development or implementation of storm water monitoring or other water programs
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles technical expertise and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Provide technical expertise to assist communities in the development or implementation of storm water monitoring or other water programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Helping a community set up a program depends on working with local people over time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing the requisition, collection, labeling, storage or shipment of specimens
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the requisition, collection, labeling, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Direct the requisition, collection, labeling, storage, or shipment of specimens.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 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: Specimens have to be physically collected, labeled and shipped, though the paperwork is easy.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying and characterizing specific causes or sources of water pollution
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: specific causes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Identify and characterize specific causes or sources of water pollution.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 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: Pinning down where pollution comes from usually needs fieldwork as well as data.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Informing patients or caregivers about study aspects and outcomes
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Inform patients or caregivers about study aspects and outcomes to be expected.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Patients want a person to explain what taking part in a study will mean for them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing for stewardship of plant or animal resources or habitats
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: stewardship of plant, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Provide for stewardship of plant or animal resources or habitats, studying land use, monitoring animal populations, or providing shelter, resources, or medical treatment for animals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (7–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Looking after habitats and animals means being out on the land with them.
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 2/4.
Negotiating for water rights with communities or water facilities to meet water supply demands
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for water rights, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Negotiate for water rights with communities or water facilities to meet water supply demands.” (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: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Abstraction agreements are settled through negotiation between people, and the licensing responsibility sits with named, accountable parties.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Conducting or overseeing the conduct
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the conduct, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Conduct, or oversee the conduct of, chemical, physical, and biological water quality monitoring or sampling to ensure compliance with water quality standards.” (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: Water sampling and monitoring is done out at the water.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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 2/4.
Dispensing medical devices or drugs
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: medical devices, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Dispense medical devices or drugs, and calculate dosages and provide instructions as necessary.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Handing over drugs or devices to a patient is a physical act a qualified person performs.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supervising teams of workers who capture water from wells and rivers
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: teams of workers who capture water, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Supervise teams of workers who capture water from wells and rivers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high 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: Supervising crews working at wells and rivers means being out there with them.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Performing specific protocol procedures, interviewing subjects, taking vital signs and performing electrocardiograms
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: specific protocol procedures, interviewing subjects, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Perform specific protocol procedures such as interviewing subjects, taking vital signs, and performing electrocardiograms.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Taking vital signs and running an electrocardiogram is done with the patient in front of you.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Organizing space for study equipment and supplies
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: space, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Organize space for study equipment and supplies.” (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: Physically organizing space for equipment and supplies is done on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $167,220a 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: 108,690in 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: enrollment status of subjects in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: tracking enrollment status of subjects and documenting dropout information and performing hydrologic, hydraulic or water quality modeling. What it cannot do is be answerable: specific protocol procedures, interviewing subjects need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

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

Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Tracking enrollment status of subjects and documenting dropout information is going; performing specific protocol procedures, interviewing subjects, taking vital signs and performing electrocardiograms is not.

So, given all that: 40% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 25% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 35% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 70 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

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

This week: one thing

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

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

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

Over the next 90 days

Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (performing specific protocol procedures, interviewing subjects, taking vital signs and performing electrocardiograms) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.

Over the next 12 months

Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles performing specific protocol procedures, interviewing subjects, taking vital signs and performing electrocardiograms, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to natural sciences managers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was social science research assistants: only about 5% of its durable work is work you already do, it is under the same pressure this job is and it pays 62.9% less. Your own job splits about 40/60: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “oversee subject enrollment to ensure that informed consent is properly obtained and…”, and let the exposed end go.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Social Science Research Assistants
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already oversee subject enrollment to ensure that informed consent is properly obtained and documented, and their equivalent is to obtain informed consent of research subjects or their guardians. 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. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 72% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (63/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $61,990 against your $167,220, 62.9% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Architectural and Engineering Managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already determine scientific or technical goals within broad outlines provided by top management and…, and their equivalent is to establish scientific or technical goals within broad outlines provided by top management. 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 →
Hydrologic Technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already perform hydrologic, hydraulic, or water quality modeling, and their equivalent is to prepare, install, maintain, or repair equipment used for hydrologic study. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $64,790 against your $167,220, 61.3% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 2,840 of those jobs against 108,690 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 3% as many seats.
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: 40% of its task weight, across 70 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

If you run a team doing this job

If you run a team doing this job, the conversation you owe them is the one on this page, and sooner than feels comfortable. Show them the ledger rather than a reassurance: the rows moving toward the software are tracking enrollment status of subjects and documenting dropout information, and the rows that are not are where you want your people visible. Ask each of them to do the this-week move and bring the list to your next one-to-one. It turns a rumour into a piece of work, and it tells you which parts of your team's week are actually at stake. And say the thing out loud that a team lead usually leaves unsaid: a shrinking team is your exposure too, so do the move yourself as well.

You are reading the United States figures

The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Research and development (r&d) managers 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 Research and development (r&d) managers. 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 natural sciences managers, 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 40% 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 natural sciences managers. 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 natural sciences managers 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 natural sciences managers 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 natural sciences managers 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 natural sciences managers 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 Natural Sciences Managers?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 70 official task statements scored for Natural Sciences Managers (United States, SOC 11-9121), 40% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 49 out of 100 (range 43–55, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Natural Sciences Managers” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Track enrollment status of subjects and document dropout information such as dropout causes and subject contact efforts” (93/100, very high); “Compile water resource data, using geographic information systems (GIS) or global position systems (GPS) software” (93/100, very high); “Monitor water use, demand, or quality in a particular geographic area” (93/100, very 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 “Natural Sciences Managers” stay human?: About 35% 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: “Organize space for study equipment and supplies” (0/100, minimal); “Perform specific protocol procedures such as interviewing subjects, taking vital signs, and performing electrocardiograms” (0/100, minimal); “Supervise teams of workers who capture water from wells and rivers” (6/100, 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 “Natural Sciences Managers” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 40% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 35% 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 Natural Sciences Managers 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 70 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.
6 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.

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.