I can see how the Four Noble Truths can be seen as tasks, as SN 56.11 contains these verses:
“This noble truth of suffering should be completely understood"
“This noble truth of the origin of suffering should be given up"
“This noble truth of the cessation of suffering should be realized"
“This noble truth of the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering should be developed”
However, there is much more than simply tasks to be performed. In the same sutta the Buddha says:
“Now this is the noble truth of the origin of suffering. It’s the craving that leads to future lives, mixed up with relishing and greed, chasing pleasure in various realms.”
All over the EBTs kamma and rebirth are baked into Dependent Origination. For instance, in this discussion alone the Venerable Brahmali writes in post 9:
"I am not convinced bhava always implies rebirth. I agree that it does in certain contexts, most obviously in suttas such as AN 3.75 and AN 3.76. In these suttas bhava is virtually defined as the kamma made in one existence together with the consequent rebirth in a subsequent one. And there are other contexts where this definition of bhava is also appropriate.
When it comes to dependent origination, however, I am not so sure. In this case rebirth is already accounted for by jāti, and it makes no sense to me why bhava should refer to the same thing. Here I would therefore understand bhava in a narrower sense, as only referring to the kamma that is produced by living in a certain way. What I am proposing, I suppose, is that bhava can be divided up into two sub-categories: a broad bhava that includes rebirth, and a narrower version of the term that relates only to existence in a specific life and perhaps includes intermediate existence. (And the range of translations you suggest further down actually matches this twofold classification quite well.)"
I speculate that, because Batchelor rejects kamma and rebirth, he uses the term the “Four Noble Tasks” to effectively sterilize the Four Noble Truths from kamma and rebirth.