LO
Financial adviser / financial planner — how we know
The page itself gives the judgements. This one gives what they rest on: which technologies bear on the work, how the estimate moved since language models reached the public, and the method behind both.
Which technologies matter here#
Four separate signals. They are deliberately not added together — a job exposed to two technologies is not twice as exposed.
How it got here#
The index is not a static number. This is where it would have sat at each capability checkpoint since ChatGPT — reconstructed, and labelled as such.
—— this stretch contains a verified event- - - no event in this stretch — reconstruction only0 = no task exposed, 100 = every task exposed
Starts at 28 because online brokerage, risk questionnaires and the first robo-advisers were already selling simple portfolios before this chart begins, and rises as banks turn managed portfolios for beginners into products bought online, and as language tools start drafting advice records and answering clients' questions — the simple accounts and the paperwork. It stays in the middle of the range because what is left is judgement across a client's whole situation and a relationship that clients lean on most when markets fall, and because a regulator that lets firms advise through algorithms still requires a reasonable basis for every recommendation.
A flat line is not a forecast of safety. It says which tasks automation has reached so far — the occupations that moved least here are the ones where the constraint is physical or regulatory, and both of those can change.
Method and sources#
- Assessment date
- 2026-09-25
- Basis of the task judgements
- 1 evidence-backed · 5 platform inference · 0 not enough evidence
- Verified events
- 1