What a LifeChain answer looks like (35, career)

This is a worked example of a LifeChain judgement, not advice.

The situation

A 35-year-old has spent ten years in the same operations function and is worried that AI is eroding their role. They are asking whether to change industry.

Judgement

Basis: Specific human capital and task-based automation exposure

The three criteria

1. At least 30% of your weekly tasks are already automated or assisted by AI tools, measured over the last 3 months.METAI tools are used daily for drafting, reporting and triage, covering roughly 40% of weekly tasks.
2. You can name 2 or more measurable outcomes you owned end-to-end in the last 24 months, with a number attached (cost, cycle time, error rate, volume).NOT METoutcomes are described as responsibilities, not numbers; no end-to-end ownership with a measured result in the last 24 months.
3. You have had 3 or more conversations in the last 6 months with people in the target industry about what they hire for, and at least 1 has confirmed your experience maps to a live role.UNKNOWNUNKNOWN: no record of target-industry conversations in the last 6 months.

What is missing

Criterion 2 is not met: write one page listing 2 end-to-end outcomes with a before/after number for each, then use that page in 3 target-industry conversations within 30 days.

When this is wrong

This judgement does not apply if your employer has announced a role-level reduction or relocation affecting your function within the next 6 months, in which case the timeframe for deciding is set by that event, not by this test.

Why this beats a normal AI answer

A normal AI answer would list generic pros and cons of changing industry. This format forces a named principle, three measurable conditions, and a single next action, so the user can see exactly which condition failed and what would change the verdict.