AI Proof Career Score

Email for your private report link

Required for paid report delivery. Your email sends the private tokenized report link; scores and outcomes are not included in the email body.

Name (optional)

Used only to label your assessment record.

Current role, job family, or business context (optional)

Example: executive assistant, therapist, analyst, operations manager, educator, designer, founder, or customer support lead. This context is stored with the submission but does not change the score.

What best describes the work product you are most often paid to produce?

Choose the option closest to your current day-to-day work, not the work you hope to be doing later.

Mostly standardized digital outputs: summaries, emails, reports, templates, tickets, content variations, or routine analysis. A mix of routine knowledge work and periodic judgment-heavy decisions, with human review usually required before anything important is used. Context-specific recommendations where the value is interpreting tradeoffs, constraints, and incomplete information for other people. Physical, field, care, craft, operational, or site-specific work where digital tools support the job but do not define the core value. Workflow coordination: I combine people, tools, data, vendors, customers, and approvals to move outcomes across a process.

Roughly how much of your week is spent on tasks that follow a repeatable pattern?

Examples include recurring reports, formatting, data cleanup, routine customer replies, meeting notes, scheduling, standard research, or repeated drafting.

More than 70%; most of my work could be described as recurring task execution with similar inputs and outputs. About 50-70%; there is variation, but a large share follows a familiar pattern every week. About 30-50%; repetitive work exists, but it is balanced by judgment, prioritization, or stakeholder work. About 10-30%; recurring tasks are present, but most of my value comes from context-specific decisions or relationships. Less than 10%; the work changes materially by case, person, site, negotiation, risk, or situation.

How easily could a competent outsider write instructions for your recurring work?

This measures how much of the job is proceduralized versus dependent on tacit context or judgment.

They could document most of it from screenshots, templates, examples, and a few interviews. They could document the routine parts, but exceptions and edge cases would still require experience. They could document the sequence, but not the judgment needed to know when to deviate from it. They would need deep domain context, relationships, or situational knowledge before the instructions were safe to use. There is no stable sequence; the work is mostly diagnosis, negotiation, prioritization, or improvisation under constraints.

How much does your value depend on people trusting your judgment personally?

Think about clients, patients, executives, students, colleagues, regulators, customers, or the public.

Very little; if the output is correct and timely, the individual behind it usually does not matter. Somewhat; people prefer a reliable person, but the work can be transferred without much trust loss. Moderately; trust affects adoption, but my work can still be evaluated through objective deliverables. Strongly; people rely on my judgment, discretion, relationship history, or ability to handle sensitive context. Extremely; the work is inseparable from credibility, presence, authority, care, persuasion, or institutional responsibility.

What level of decision authority do you currently have?

This is not about job title alone. It is about whether you own choices, tradeoffs, or outcomes.

I mostly complete assigned tasks and have limited say over priorities, tools, scope, or final decisions. I make small execution decisions but rely on others for priorities, design, approval, and risk tradeoffs. I own a defined workstream or deliverable and make practical decisions within clear boundaries. I own outcomes across people, process, or budget and am accountable for tradeoffs rather than just outputs. I set direction, allocate resources, negotiate constraints, and redesign how work is done when conditions change.

Which statement best describes your current use of AI tools at work?

Include chatbots, copilots, automation tools, AI search, transcription, coding assistants, image/video tools, or workflow agents.

I rarely or never use AI tools for this work. I use AI occasionally for simple drafts, summaries, brainstorming, or formatting, but it is not part of a repeatable workflow. I use AI regularly for productivity, but I still rely on manual review and have not redesigned my workflow around it. I use AI deliberately with prompts, examples, verification steps, and clear boundaries for where it should and should not help. I have built or adopted repeatable AI-assisted workflows that improve speed, quality, handoffs, or decision support.

When you use AI or automated tools, how do you verify the output?

This measures whether AI increases your leverage or creates quality, legal, reputational, or accuracy risk.

I mostly accept outputs if they sound reasonable or save time. I skim outputs and correct obvious issues, but I rarely compare against primary sources or known standards. I review important outputs carefully and check factual or numerical claims when the stakes are meaningful. I use source checks, test cases, examples, rubrics, or expert review before relying on AI-generated work. My role does not currently involve AI outputs, but I have a clear standard for when automated output would need human review.

How visible is your contribution to the larger business or organizational outcome?

People with clearer outcome visibility can reposition faster than people whose value is hidden inside isolated tasks.

My work is a small task within a larger chain, and I rarely see how it affects revenue, risk, customers, or strategy. I understand the immediate next step, but not the broader economics, customer impact, or operational consequences. I can explain how my work affects a team metric, customer experience, internal quality, or delivery timeline. I can connect my work to revenue, cost, risk, retention, compliance, trust, or strategic execution. I regularly use that outcome knowledge to redesign workflows, prioritize work, or influence decisions beyond my own tasks.

How directly do you manage relationships with people who depend on the work?

This includes customers, clients, patients, students, vendors, executives, regulators, partners, or cross-functional teams.

Almost never; I receive work through systems, tickets, managers, or templates and hand off outputs without much interaction. Occasionally; I clarify requirements but do not own the relationship or ongoing trust. Regularly; I coordinate with stakeholders and adjust work based on their needs or constraints. Frequently; relationship management, expectation-setting, and trust are central to my value. I am a primary trusted point of contact for sensitive, high-value, or high-consequence decisions.

How deep is the domain knowledge required to do your work well?

This measures whether your expertise is shallow and general-purpose or built from specialized context.

A motivated beginner could produce acceptable work quickly with examples, templates, and AI assistance. Someone with general professional skills could learn most of it within a few weeks. It requires months of context, but much of the work is still learnable through documentation and supervision. It requires years of domain exposure, pattern recognition, risk awareness, or institutional knowledge. It requires specialized credentials, scarce expertise, lived operational judgment, or accountability that cannot be quickly substituted.

How much of your work is constrained by regulation, professional standards, safety, confidentiality, or liability?

This does not mean the work is immune to AI. It measures whether human accountability and governance are structurally important.

Very little; the work can be evaluated mainly by speed, output quality, or cost. Some; there are policies or quality standards, but mistakes are usually reversible and low consequence. Moderate; errors can create customer, legal, financial, or reputational issues requiring review. High; the role requires judgment under rules, confidentiality, safety, or professional accountability. Very high; human accountability, documentation, auditability, or licensed responsibility is central to the role.

Which description best matches your current position in the work system?

Choose based on actual influence, not title prestige.

Entry-level or execution-focused: I complete defined tasks and am evaluated mainly on throughput and accuracy. Specialized contributor: I do skilled work, but others decide priorities, scope, and final use. Senior contributor: I advise others, handle exceptions, and improve quality or process in my area. Manager or owner: I coordinate people/processes and am accountable for outcomes, risk, or delivery. Strategic operator: I define problems, allocate resources, create systems, and decide what work should exist at all.

How much access do you have to the data, tools, and systems needed to improve your work with AI?

AI resilience depends partly on whether you can safely integrate tools into real workflows.

I have little access, unclear permission, or no safe way to use work data with AI tools. I have basic public tools, but my work systems are disconnected or restricted. I have some approved tools and enough access to improve personal productivity. I have approved tools, relevant data, and permission to improve team workflows responsibly. I influence tool selection, data access, workflow design, or governance for AI-enabled work.

How quickly do you usually learn new tools, workflows, or methods when your role changes?

This measures adaptation capacity rather than current AI expertise alone.

Slowly; I tend to avoid new systems until required and need step-by-step support. Gradually; I can learn new tools, but only after someone else proves their value and gives a clear process. Steadily; I learn when there is a practical reason and can apply new tools to my own work. Quickly; I test tools, compare methods, and adapt workflows before they become mandatory. Very quickly; I translate new tools into systems, training, templates, or operating practices for others.

Which skill stack best describes your strongest professional value?

Choose the one that most consistently gets you paid, promoted, trusted, or referred.

Single-tool execution: I am mainly valued for using a specific software, platform, procedure, or format. Task specialization: I am good at a narrow set of tasks, but the skill does not transfer easily beyond my current role. Functional expertise: my skills transfer across roles in the same field, team, or department. Cross-functional capability: I combine analysis, communication, systems thinking, and stakeholder management. Marketable problem-solving: I can package my expertise into strategy, implementation, training, advisory, or leadership value.

How is your organization approaching AI adoption?

If self-employed, answer based on your clients, market, or business environment.

AI is being used mainly to cut costs or reduce headcount, with limited communication or worker involvement. AI adoption is happening informally; people use tools quietly and policies or training are unclear. AI is being explored cautiously, with some training, guardrails, or pilots but limited workflow redesign. AI is being used to augment teams, improve workflows, and train people rather than simply replace tasks. I control my environment enough to decide how AI is adopted, priced, governed, or integrated into my work.

What usually happens if your work contains a serious error?

Higher consequence can increase human accountability, but only if the role actually owns review and judgment.

It is usually easy to fix and has little effect beyond rework or a delayed task. It may inconvenience others, but errors are normally caught by someone or something downstream. It can affect customer trust, costs, decisions, or team performance, so review matters. It can create legal, financial, safety, reputational, or operational consequences requiring accountable judgment. My role is specifically to prevent, detect, explain, or take responsibility for high-consequence errors.

How much of your work requires persuading, negotiating, coaching, calming, teaching, or aligning people?

This measures interpersonal value that is harder to replace with task automation alone.

Almost none; I mostly produce outputs independently or follow instructions. Occasionally; I clarify details or answer questions but rarely need to change minds. Regularly; I need people to understand, accept, or act on my work. Frequently; persuasion, trust-building, teaching, or conflict navigation is a major part of the role. Constantly; my core value is creating alignment under uncertainty, emotion, stakes, or disagreement.

How often do you define the problem before solving it?

AI is strongest when the task is already framed. Resilience improves when your role decides what question should be asked.

Rarely; problems arrive already defined and I execute the requested task. Sometimes; I can spot issues, but I usually work inside someone else's frame. Often; I clarify goals, assumptions, constraints, and quality standards before execution. Very often; people rely on me to diagnose what is actually going on before choosing a path. My main value is framing ambiguous situations, making tradeoffs explicit, and deciding what should be built, changed, or stopped.

How much does your work change from case to case?

AI exposure is higher when inputs, constraints, and success criteria are predictable.

Very little; the same kinds of inputs usually require the same kinds of outputs. Some; there are recurring patterns with occasional exceptions. Moderate; the work has repeatable components, but context changes the answer. High; people, constraints, risk, timing, or local conditions regularly change what good work looks like. Very high; no two situations are alike enough for a generic workflow to handle without substantial judgment.

How much coordination across people, teams, or systems does your work require?

Coordinating across messy systems tends to be more resilient than producing isolated deliverables.

Minimal; I can complete most work alone using clear inputs and expected outputs. Limited; I coordinate handoffs but rarely manage dependencies or conflict. Moderate; I track dependencies, clarify ownership, and keep work moving across a team. High; I align multiple stakeholders, resolve conflicts, and adapt plans as reality changes. Very high; I operate across teams, vendors, customers, leaders, constraints, and shifting priorities.

How portable is your professional reputation?

A portable reputation can protect income when tasks shift, organizations reorganize, or tools change.

Low; most people outside my immediate manager or team would not know my work or trust me independently. Limited; my reputation is mostly internal and tied to my current role or employer. Moderate; I have recognizable value inside my organization, field, or network. Strong; people seek me out for a specific capability, judgment, portfolio, track record, or relationship. Very strong; my reputation, audience, credentials, client base, or body of work creates opportunities beyond one employer.

If your current role changed substantially, how easily could you move into an adjacent role?

This measures realistic mobility, not optimism alone.

It would be difficult; my experience is narrow and I am not sure what adjacent role would fit. Possible but uncertain; I would need significant retraining, credentials, or help translating my experience. Moderately possible; I can name a few adjacent roles but would need to close skill gaps. Likely; my skills already map to several nearby roles, clients, teams, or industries. Very likely; I have already moved across roles or can package my expertise in multiple ways.

Which statement best describes how your compensation or job security is justified?

This helps identify whether your pay is tied to replaceable output volume or harder-to-substitute responsibility.

Mostly by task volume, speed, availability, or producing standard outputs at acceptable quality. By reliable execution of a defined function, with limited direct tie to revenue, risk, or strategic outcomes. By specialized competence, team reliability, and consistent delivery in a known area. By owning outcomes that affect revenue, risk, customer trust, compliance, operations, or strategy. By scarce expertise, leadership, relationships, proprietary judgment, or the ability to create new value streams.

How ready are you to act on your AI career risk in the next 90 days?

This measures whether the result is likely to translate into behavior, not just awareness.

Not ready; I feel overwhelmed, skeptical, or unsure where to start. Slightly ready; I could spend time learning, but I do not have a clear plan or accountability. Moderately ready; I can choose one skill, tool, or workflow to improve this month. Ready; I can commit to a weekly learning and workflow-improvement plan with measurable outputs. Highly ready; I already have a role-repositioning plan, portfolio goal, workflow automation target, or training path.

Consent I understand this is an educational career-planning screen based on self-reported work characteristics. It is not an employment guarantee, financial advice, legal advice, hiring decision tool, or prediction that any specific job will or will not be replaced by AI. I answered based on my current work rather than an aspirational future role.

AI-Proof Career Score: Risk & Resilience Report