Skip to content
man bot

Clerical support workers · code 4229

Client information workers not elsewhere classified

This unit group includes client information workers not included elsewhere in Minor Group 422: Client Information Workers. For instance, it includes workers who obtain and process information from clients needed to determine eligibility for services. In such cases tasks would include - (a) interviewing patients to obtain and process information required to provide hospital services; (b) interviewing applicants for public assistance to gather information pertinent to their application; (c) verifying the accuracy of information provided; (d) initiating procedures to grant, modify, deny or terminate assistance; (e) providing information and answering questions concerning benefits and claims procedures; (f) referring patients or applicants to other organizations if they are ineligible for services. Examples of the occupations classified here: - Eligibility interviewer - Eligibility specialist - Hospital admissions clerk

A good share of the tasks are affected. It ranks 335 of 427 for holding up against AI.

Also known as

  • hotel concierge

Job titles from the EU's ESCO list. Search for any of them on the jobs page and you'll end up here.

58.4
Holds up
against AI Exposed: Gradient 2

AI could take on 41.6 of 100, on average
so it holds up at 100 − 41.6 = 58.4

That's the whole sum, and you can check it against the ILO's study.

8.6
How hands-on
out of 100

From O*NET, matched to one US job

11.9
How fiddly
and cramped

finger skill 17.9 · hand skill 17.9 · cramped spaces 0 · averaged

Kind of hands-on work · hands-on under 50 Less than half hands-on

Less than half of this job is hands-on. Robots still matter, but for a smaller part of the work, so we don't sort it any further.

estimated O*NET 31.0 BLS occupational crosswalk chain ISCO-08 to 2010 SOC (Aug 2012, rev. Jun 2015); 2010 to 2018 SOC (Nov 2017); O*NET-SOC 2019 taxonomy data 0.7-work-setting measures chosen by Frey & Osborne (2017) · the grouping is a sorting, not a measurement

What this number leaves out This job rates 8.6 out of 100 for how hands-on it is. The score above only looks at AI tools, not robots, but for work this far from the physical that matters less.

The tasks behind the score

The score is the average of these. A job is really a bundle of tasks, and an average can hide how uneven that bundle is.

The task AI could do most of scores 60, while the average is 41.6. A big gap means some of this job is wide open to AI and some of it barely at all. That's quite different from a job where everything sits somewhere in the middle, even when the averages match.

  1. 60

    Verifying the accuracy of information provided

    Medium
  2. 56.5

    Providing information and answering questions concerning benefits and claims procedures

    Medium
  3. 38

    Initiating procedures to grant, modify, deny or terminate assistance

    Low
  4. 32.5

    Interviewing patients to obtain and process information required to provide hospital services

    Low
  5. 32

    Referring patients or applicants to other organizations if they are ineligible for services.

    Low
  6. 30.4

    Interviewing applicants for public assistance to gather information pertinent to their application

    Low

6 tasks · the High to Very Low labels are the ILO's

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.7-work-setting

Helped, or replaced?

The score above can't tell a tool that makes you faster from one that does the task instead of you. Jobs and Skills Australia looked at those two things separately, and this is their result, matched to this job.

2 Australian jobs match this one, and we've simply averaged them. Treat the numbers as a rough guide.

AI helps you
71
AI does it for you
67

Helping wins by 4 points.

estimated Our Gen AI Transition (Gen AI Capacity Study) September 2025 detailed data release data 0.7-work-setting matched to Australian jobs 5421, 5999

Compared with similar jobs

There are 29 jobs in the “Clerical support workers” group, averaging 46.1. This one is above that.