Jobs are bundles of tasks, and tools reach some tasks further than others. Your job is to X-ray one real job: list its tasks, score how far a tool reaches into each one and how far the four questions say it should, compare what you found with a published source, and write a one-page brief that says what you found, and what you don't know. The score isn't a prediction. It's a way to see where to look.
New in this project: the reach scale, the gap, comparing with published data, and the brief. The Deep Dive has practice labs and videos. Open each item below when you reach that step.
Where did your information come from? Use your 3.2.3 notes. No real names, and no employer, customer, patient or client details.
One card per task. Fill in what you know, score the tool's reach with evidence, and answer the four questions. The page works out the level and the gap. Aim for 6 to 10 tasks, and use at least 5. Rows you don't start are ignored.
Complete at least one task row to see your results.
Look up the job on O*NET OnLine or in the Occupational Outlook Handbook (or name another published source). Copy the title and the outlook sentence exactly as written, and record the date you looked.
Complete your task rows first.
The page assembles your one-page brief from your rows, your comparison and what you write here. Read the preview as you go.
CAREER BRIEF: … Source: a published job description (…). The job: … Where tools reach: … What stays with a person: … Published data: I checked … for "…" (accessed …). Of my 0 tasks, 0 listed there, 0 listed in different words, and 0 not listed. The source says: “…” (? to ?). My findings …. … If I were starting in this field: I would build …. First step: … What I don't know: … This rests on one description, 0 tasks, and scores from a simplified model.
Every person, office, tool and number in this example is invented, and its “published source” is invented too. It's built by the same code as yours.
CAREER BRIEF: dental office scheduler (invented)
Source: one interview with Worker A.
The job: A scheduler keeps the appointment book full and the front desk running, and handles patients, phones and forms.
Where tools reach: "Enter insurance details and flag missing forms". A tool does most of it. Evidence (the worker said): The software fills in most fields from the form photo, and Worker A checks only the ones it marks red. The four questions point to level 2 ("AI drafts, a person reviews each"), so this task is a pressure point.
What stays with a person: "Calm upset patients at the desk". The four questions point to level 4 ("A person does it"), because each case needs judgment, it depends on trust, and no one would catch a mistake. A mistake costs the patient's trust, and nobody else would catch it, so a person stays in charge.
Across 7 tasks: 1 pressure point, 3 matched, 3 with room for help. 1 of 6 reach scores above zero is a guess of my own. Pressure points in time-heavy tasks: "Enter insurance details and flag missing forms".
Published data: I checked an invented guide for "Dental Front Desk Scheduler" (accessed October 2026). Of my 7 tasks, 1 listed there, 3 listed in different words, and 3 not listed. It lists 1 task I didn't have. The source says: “Employment is projected to change little over the decade (invented example).” (2024 to 2034). My findings partly fit with this. The invented guide expects little change in the number of jobs, and my table shows one pressure point in a time-heavy task, which a count of jobs wouldn't show.
If I were starting in this field: I would build checking a tool's output against the paper form (Steer). First step: Double-check the flagged list against the paper forms once a week.
“The tool is fast, but I'm the one who catches what it misses.” (Worker A)
What I don't know: I talked to one worker at one office about seven tasks, so this may not match other offices, and one of my reach scores is only a guess. This rests on one worker, 7 tasks, and scores from a simplified model. A projection describes a whole occupation, not one workplace, and it is not a forecast.Swap briefs with a partner. They read your brief and your table, and answer five questions about your work. Then you reply.
Hand in your Task X-Ray Worksheet (or your table), your brief, and your peer review. The page sends nothing, and it never talks to a chatbot.
| Part | Meets the project | Strong |
|---|---|---|
| Tasks | At least 5 tasks you could film, from your notes or a description, each with a time and a strand. | Six to ten tasks in the worker's own words, with the time-heavy ones identified. |
| Scores | Each reach score has a named source, and all four questions are answered. | Evidence comes from the worker or a source, and guesses are marked as guesses. You can say why the gap came out the way it did. |
| Published data | A named source, the date, the title and outlook copied as written, and every task compared. | You noticed what the source leaves out and what your worker's tasks add. |
| Fit | A choice and a reason in 8 words or more. | You say how the findings fit without claiming one proves the other. |
| Brief | One page: the job, a task where tools reach, one that stays with a person, the totals, the source, a skill and a first step. | A reader who never saw your table could repeat what you found. |
| Honesty | Limits in 15 words or more. | You say what one worker, a few tasks and a simplified model can't tell you. Nothing promises a job's future. |
| Care | An alias, no private details, a quote only with permission, and a peer review with a reply. | You changed something because of the review, or can say why you didn't. |
🛠 Project 3.2.4 · Unit 3 of 3 · 11 Weeks