LO
Project manager — 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
● 3 verified events for this occupation, plotted at the date it happened — the parts of the line near a marker are anchored to something checkable.
Starts at 30 because scheduling software, shared trackers and dashboards had already taken over much of the arithmetic of plans before this chart begins. It rises as generative tools began drafting the writing around projects — status reports, minutes, summaries — and as meeting and tracking tools started producing those documents themselves; by 2024 the profession's own body found summarising and reviewing content was the most common use among project professionals who already use these tools. It flattens because negotiating trade-offs, deciding what to cut and leading a team through a problem did not become cheaper when the documents did.
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
- 2026-09-27
- Basis of the task judgements
- 3 evidence-backed · 3 platform inference · 0 not enough evidence
- Verified events
- 3