Really, if you want to discount all the fields I've named on principle because to you those jobs are not 'fundamentally new types' then computer programmer also doesn't qualify as a fundamentally new type of job.
Assembly line worker wasn't a profession in 1912 either, it only became one in 1913 when the assembly line was invented.
Classes of professions have not been invented since about 500 years ago, typically the classes of professions that are recognized haven't changed much at all, and yet, you'd be hard pressed to find 'tour-operator', 'social media strategist', 'geneticist', 'nuclear reactor operator' and so on in a list of jobs from the early 1900's. And by that reasoning 'computer scientist' is just a sub-class of scientist, actually one of the oldest professions we have.
'Fundamentally' is a cheat, there are no new 'types' of jobs, there are only jobs that did not exist before and there are jobs that nobody holds anymore.
Bringing up Lovelace however is quite pedantic and I think you know that very well.
Assembly line worker did not require any new skills. Instead it required a subset af the previous skills people had whether welders, blacksmiths, carpenters, painters etc.
So you haven't really pointed to any new jobs and no fundamentally new type of jobs isn't a cheat.
Furthermore I am not really sure what you are trying to prove. Even if I had missed a few (which I haven't) it wouldn't change the facts.
