A number you can argue with.
Every career in the catalogue carries a 0 to 100 rating for how much of its work a machine can already do. This page is how that number is built, so you can decide whether to believe it.
- 3,562 careers rated
- 42 mean rating
- 713 in the high band
| Score | Careers |
|---|---|
| 0 to 4 | 29 |
| 5 to 9 | 22 |
| 10 to 14 | 116 |
| 15 to 19 | 290 |
| 20 to 24 | 542 |
| 25 to 29 | 297 |
| 30 to 34 | 305 |
| 35 to 39 | 195 |
| 40 to 44 | 253 |
| 45 to 49 | 279 |
| 50 to 54 | 264 |
| 55 to 59 | 156 |
| 60 to 64 | 101 |
| 65 to 69 | 130 |
| 70 to 74 | 128 |
| 75 to 79 | 151 |
| 80 to 84 | 163 |
| 85 to 89 | 86 |
| 90 to 94 | 54 |
| 95 to 99 | 1 |
3,562 rated careers, averaging 43. The right hand tail is thin: the catalogue runs out well before the scale does.
Measured by task, not by job title.
A job title is a bundle of tasks, and automation does not take bundles, it takes tasks. Every career record splits its work into what a machine can already do, what it helps with, and what it cannot touch, and the rating is what falls out of that split. That is why the lists are published next to the number: the number is a summary of them, not a separate opinion.
- 01task split
The task split, in the open
What a machine does, assists or cannot touch, with the named tasks under each, from the role's own record.
- 02score drivers
Six drivers, each shown
Three push a rating up and three pull it down, and all six are printed, so a surprise traces to its cause.
- 03market context
Read against Kenya
What the technology can do, beside whether employers here hire, pay and adopt it, not folded into it.
- 04exposure bands
Bands, not false precision
Low below 40, moderate to 65, high above. A 62 is not meaningfully different from a 58.
- 05distribution
Placed in the distribution
Every score is plotted against all rated careers and its sector's mean, because 58 means little alone.
- 06next moves
Where to go from here
Each record ends with the nearest moves, ranked by skills shared, and what to learn to stay ahead.
How to actually read one.
The rating is a starting point for a decision, not the decision. It tells you which parts of the work are already done by machines and where the boundary is moving, so you can plan against the direction rather than a single number.
Read the band first
Low, moderate and high are what a plan should actually respond to. The band is the headline; the number behind it is the detail, and the detail is what the rest of the rating breaks down.
01 · Calibrated Exposure Spectrum (0–100)
Score: 58 (Moderate)
Low Exposure
< 40 / 100 Index
✓ Durable Task Core
Moderate Band
40–70 / 100 Index
▲ Shifting Frontier
High Exposure
> 70 / 100 Index
⚠ High Routine Load
Starting Posture · Measures automatable task volume, not job elimination
What it does not claim.
The rating is useful because its boundaries are stated. These are the things it is not.
- 01 · predictive scopeout of scope
It does not predict a job ending.
It measures how much of today's task list is automatable; roles change shape first.
- 02 · empirical basisout of scope
It is not a measurement.
It applies published research to recorded tasks, and the newest study is from 2023.
- 03 · geographic sourceout of scope
The research is not Kenyan.
It is global at source; each record's market notes carry local adoption.
- 04 · update cadenceout of scope
It is not a live index.
Ratings move when the catalogue is reviewed, and show what they were built from.
- 05 · employer varianceout of scope
It cannot see your employer.
The same role at two organisations faces very different timelines.
- 06 · task coverageout of scope
It rates the tasks listed.
A short or dated task list is rated as written, which is why the split is published.
Common questions.
If yours is not here, ask. We answer in writing so the answer is quotable, and we correct the record when we get one wrong.
Ask usRead the ratings for yourself.
The whole index is open, sorted either way, with the reasoning attached to every entry.