The occupation pages are a reference: you look something up. These are the other thing — an argument that cuts across every verified record we hold, about a question people actually ask.
One rule makes this different from an opinion page, and it is enforced by a test rather than by good intentions: every section must cite a verified record or a task judgement. A section with no citation fails the build. The citations are printed under each section and link straight to the record, with its source, its scope and who verified it.
There is no single number, and the honest reason is not that the data is missing — it is that almost every published figure counts something other than a job. Here is each one we could check, and what it actually counts.
Read →Not how hard the task is. Not how well-paid. The property that predicts whether a task moved is whether something other than a human being can say 'that is wrong, try again' — and say it a thousand times overnight without getting tired.
Read →We refuse to answer this with a number, and that refusal is enforced by a test that fails the build. This is the argument behind it: every ingredient a year-estimate would need is either unmeasured, reversible, or decided by someone who has not decided yet.
Read →Most writing about AI and work describes technology arriving and jobs changing afterwards. In the verified record the commonest sequence runs the other way: a rule creates a duty, the duty lands on a named role, and somebody's job description grows a paragraph before anything is deployed.
Read →Adoption is narrower than the coverage suggests and lands in the same three places. The interesting question is not which function buys the tool — it is which role inherits the work the tool creates, because in the verified record that role is almost never the one that chose it.
Read →
LO