Will AI replace Protective Service Workers, All Other?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 21 official task statements scored for Protective Service Workers, All Other (United States, SOC 33-9099), 19% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 31 out of 100 (range 26–37, band: low). 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 “Protective Service Workers, All Other” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain documentation or reports on security-related incidents or investigations” (75/100, high); “Prepare written reports on investigations” (75/100, high); “Recommend new or improved processes or equipment to reduce risk exposure” (64/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Protective Service Workers, All Other” stay human?

About 68% 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: “Respond to critical incidents, such as catastrophic events, violent weather, or civil disorders” (0/100, minimal); “Apprehend shoplifters in accordance with guidelines” (0/100, minimal); “Testify in civil or criminal court proceedings” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Protective Service Workers, All Other” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 19% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 68% 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 Protective Service Workers, All Other 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 21 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

Protective Service Workers, All Other

investigating known or suspected internal theft, conducting store audits to identify problem areas or procedural deficiencies and monitoring compliance with standard operating procedures for loss prevention. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: maintaining documentation or reports on security-related incidents or investigations. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 19%
changing shape: 13%
staying human: 68%

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

Whole-job exposure score 31 out of 100 (26–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 21 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 protective service workers, all other is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, apprehending shoplifters in accordance with guidelines, stays yours. The tools change hands, the accountability doesn't.

Your week, as this page understands it

All protective service workers not listed separately. The job title says “protective service workers” or “all other”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: apprehending shoplifters in accordance with guidelines. 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 protective service workers, all other is not one task. It is 21 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is apprehending shoplifters in accordance with guidelines, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 19%
changing shape: 13%
staying human: 68%

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

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

2 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

4 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.

Maintaining documentation or reports on security-related incidents or investigations
This is reading one thing and writing another: documentation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Maintain documentation or reports on security-related incidents or investigations.” (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: Writing up and keeping incident and investigation records is document work software drafts to an acceptable standard.
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.
Preparing written reports on investigations
This is reading one thing and writing another: written reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Prepare written reports on investigations.” (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: Turning investigation notes into a written report is a task software handles to a usable standard.
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.
Recommending methods to reduce potential financial fraud losses
This is reading one thing and writing another: methods in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Recommend methods to reduce potential financial fraud losses.” (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: Recommending anti-fraud measures is analysis and write-up, an area where software produces strong first drafts.
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.
Recommending new or improved processes or equipment to reduce risk exposure
This is reading one thing and writing another: new or improved processes or equipment in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Recommend new or improved processes or equipment to reduce risk exposure.” (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: Reviewing risks and proposing better processes or equipment is written analysis software drafts 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.

Changing shape

3 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.

Identifying and reporting merchandise or stocking shortages
The software now makes the first pass at merchandise, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Identify and report merchandise or stock shortages.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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: Spotting stock shortages is a comparison between records and counts, which inventory systems do well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring compliance with standard operating procedures for loss prevention
The software now makes the first pass at compliance, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Monitor compliance with standard operating procedures for loss prevention, physical security, or risk management.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Checking that procedures are being followed is largely records and exception reporting, with some on-site verification.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting employee background investigations and reviewing reports with operational or human resources managers
The software now makes the first pass at employee background investigations, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Conduct employee background investigations and review reports with operational or human resources managers.” (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: Background checks pull together records and write them up, which software does well, though managers review the findings.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

14 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.

Investigating known or suspected internal theft
This work happens in the physical world: known, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Investigate known or suspected internal theft, external theft, or vendor fraud.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Transaction data points to suspects, but confirming theft or vendor fraud still needs watching, searching and interviewing in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Implementing or monitoring processes to reduce property or financial losses
The ratings behind this row put processes well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Implement or monitor processes to reduce property or financial losses.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Loss-reduction processes can be designed and tracked on a screen, though putting them in place happens in the store.
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 2/4.
Verifying proper functioning of physical security systems
This work happens in the physical world: proper functioning of physical security systems, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Verify proper functioning of physical security systems, such as closed-circuit televisions, alarms, sensor tag systems, or locks.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Some system health can be checked remotely, but confirming cameras, alarms and locks actually work means testing them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Show the other 11 tasks

Coordinating with risk management, human resources or other departments to assist in company programs, investigations or training
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles risk management, human resources or other departments and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Coordinate with risk management, human resources, or other departments to assist in company programs, investigations, or training.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Working across risk, HR and operations depends on colleagues trusting each other during sensitive cases.
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 2/4.
Conducting store audits to identify problem areas or procedural deficiencies
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: store audits, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Conduct store audits to identify problem areas or procedural deficiencies.” (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: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Audit checklists and findings can be generated, but the walk-round of the store has to be done in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collaborating with law enforcement agencies to report or investigate crimes
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles law enforcement agencies and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Collaborate with law enforcement agencies to report or investigate crimes.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Case papers can be prepared automatically, but police deal with a named person they can question and rely on.
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 2/4.
Training establishment personnel in loss prevention activities
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: establishment personnel, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Train establishment personnel in loss prevention activities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Training material is easy to produce, but delivering it to staff who will act on it happens in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing work of contract security officers or other loss prevention agents
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: work of contract security officers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Direct work of contract security officers or other loss prevention agents.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Directing contract officers means posting real people to real places and being the person they answer to.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Identifying and reporting safety concerns to maintain a safe shopping and working environment
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: safety concerns, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Identify and report safety concerns to maintain a safe shopping and working environment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Noticing a hazard needs eyes on the floor; only the reporting afterwards is desk work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inspecting buildings, equipment or access points to determine security risks
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: buildings, equipment or access points, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Inspect buildings, equipment, or access points to determine security risks.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Spotting a weak door or blind spot means walking the building and looking at it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Performing covert surveillance of areas susceptible
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: covert surveillance of areas susceptible, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Perform covert surveillance of areas susceptible to loss, such loading docks, distribution centers, or warehouses.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Covert surveillance is a person watching a place, and what counts as suspicious is largely unwritten judgment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Testifying in civil or criminal court proceedings
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: civil, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Testify in civil or criminal court proceedings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Giving evidence in court means the person who saw it standing there and answering questions.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Apprehending shoplifters in accordance with guidelines
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: shoplifters, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Apprehend shoplifters in accordance with guidelines.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Stopping and detaining a shoplifter is a physical act by a person on the shop floor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Responding to critical incidents, such as catastrophic events, violent weather or civil disorders
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: critical incidents, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Respond to critical incidents, such as catastrophic events, violent weather, or civil disorders.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Responding to a fire, storm or disturbance means physically being there and acting.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $42,540a 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: 81,500in 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: written reports in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: maintaining documentation or reports on security-related incidents or investigations and preparing written reports on investigations. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where shoplifters get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

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

Start with what does not change: apprehending shoplifters in accordance with guidelines is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 19% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 13% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 68% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 21 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Maintaining documentation or reports on security-related incidents or investigations is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.

This week: one thing

Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to written reports, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.

What you end up holding: a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
How long it takes: ten minutes

If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether shoplifters are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.

Over the next 90 days

Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near identifying and reporting merchandise or stocking shortages. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.

Over the next 12 months

On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

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

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

I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to protective service workers, all other (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was managers, all other: only about 5% of its durable work is work you already do and the 3.3× pay gap is the market pricing a barrier. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 31/100 here, with only 19% of the task list in the top band, and “investigate known or suspected internal theft, external theft, or vendor fraud” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.

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

3 moves I checked and rejected

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

Managers, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already investigate known or suspected internal theft, external theft, or vendor fraud, and their equivalent is to investigate or interview individuals suspected of shoplifting or internal theft. 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. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $141,900 against your $42,540 is 3.34× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 5% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
First-Line Supervisors of Transportation and Material Moving Workers, Except Aircraft Cargo Handling Supervisors
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already identify and report safety concerns to maintain a safe shopping and working environment, and their equivalent is to maintain a safe working environment by monitoring safety procedures and equipment. 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.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Financial Specialists, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already testify in civil or criminal court proceedings, and their equivalent is to testify in court regarding investigation findings. 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 →

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: 19% of its task weight, across 21 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like apprehending shoplifters in accordance with guidelines arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United States figures

The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Police community support officers 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 Police community support officers. 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 protective service workers / all other, 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 19% 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 protective service workers / all other. 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 protective service workers / all other 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 protective service workers / all other 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 protective service workers / all other 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 protective service workers / all other 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 Protective Service Workers, All Other?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 21 official task statements scored for Protective Service Workers, All Other (United States, SOC 33-9099), 19% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 31 out of 100 (range 26–37, band: low). 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 “Protective Service Workers, All Other” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain documentation or reports on security-related incidents or investigations” (75/100, high); “Prepare written reports on investigations” (75/100, high); “Recommend new or improved processes or equipment to reduce risk exposure” (64/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Protective Service Workers, All Other” stay human?: About 68% 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: “Respond to critical incidents, such as catastrophic events, violent weather, or civil disorders” (0/100, minimal); “Apprehend shoplifters in accordance with guidelines” (0/100, minimal); “Testify in civil or criminal court proceedings” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Protective Service Workers, All Other” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 19% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 68% 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 Protective Service Workers, All Other 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 21 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

Worth knowing about these figures

The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
2 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: onet-db (im-rt)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.