About Mercor: Forensic Scientist — Nuclear MaterialsCompany: MercorCompensation: $65-$75 per taskCommitment: ContractLocation: RemoteReferral Reward: Earn up to $250 per successful referral.Referral Link: https://t.mercor.com/z1zsYAbout the work
Mercor is assembling a panel of nuclear materials and safeguards experts to red-team frontier AI models. The goal is to test whether a model can correctly judge the misuse potential of a technical request — answering legitimate questions fully while refusing genuinely dangerous ones.
You will:
Write challenging single-turn prompts in your domain, labelled across three levels: benign, dual-use, and adversarial.
Evaluate the responses that come back against a defined policy standard, and judge whether each was handled correctly.
Write the reference answer — what a correct response looks like, and the technical reasoning for why.
This domain lives on the dual-use line more than most. The same signature that attributes a sample is the one someone would want to suppress; the same detection limit that catches material moving can be read as a threshold to stay under. A model that refuses a routine measurement-methodology question is failing as badly as one that answers a question it shouldn't. Drawing that line reliably is why we need practitioners rather than generalists.
Background we're looking for
We're looking for people who have characterised real nuclear material — detection, attribution, and the analytical work behind a defensible conclusion. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same signature that identifies a source tells you what to hide. You will be writing prompts that sit exactly on that line, then judging whether the model held it.
Examples of relevant backgrounds (ideally with red-teaming experience):
Nuclear forensics casework or international exercise participation — sample characterisation and attribution
Radiochemical and mass-spectrometric analysis — isotopics, age dating, impurity and process signatures
Detection and interdiction technology — portal monitors, handheld identification, search operations
Material signature libraries, reference materials and attribution methodology
Pre- or post-detonation forensics research at a national laboratory or agency
What this role demands beyond technical depth
This is writing-intensive work. Every judgment you make needs a written rationale that a non-specialist can follow. Prior technical writing, published research, or expert witness experience is a strong signal; please include a sample or link. You will also be reading and writing about misuse scenarios in your field for sustained periods. We brief experts on this in advance, and you can pause or step away at any point without penalty.
Before you apply
Your work here will not involve, and must not draw on, classified or export-controlled information, or anything covered by an NDA or prepublication review obligation. If you hold such obligations you may still be a good fit; tell us in your application and we will scope the work accordingly.
We consider all qualified applicants without regard to legally protected characteristics and provide reasonable accommodations upon request.
About Mercor: Nonproliferation AnalystCompany: MercorCompensation: $65-$75 per taskCommitment: ContractLocation: RemoteReferral Reward: Earn up to $250 per successful referral.Referral Link: https://t.mercor.com/wV8dGAbout the work
Mercor is assembling a panel of nuclear materials and safeguards experts to red-team frontier AI models. The goal is to test whether a model can correctly judge the misuse potential of a technical request — answering legitimate questions fully while refusing genuinely dangerous ones.
You will:
Write challenging single-turn prompts in your domain, labelled across three levels: benign, dual-use, and adversarial.
Evaluate the responses that come back against a defined policy standard, and judge whether each was handled correctly.
Write the reference answer — what a correct response looks like, and the technical reasoning for why.
This domain lives on the dual-use line more than most. The same control list that stops a shipment tells a procurement agent what to avoid declaring; the same pathway analysis that informs policy is a roadmap read from the other direction. A model that refuses a routine export-classification question is failing as badly as one that answers a question it shouldn't. Drawing that line reliably is why we need practitioners rather than generalists.
Background we're looking for
We're looking for people who have worked proliferation questions professionally — export control, treaty implementation, or programme analysis — and who can tell a compliance question from a circumvention question. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same control list that blocks a transfer also names what to route around. You will be writing prompts that sit exactly on that line, then judging whether the model held it.
Examples of relevant backgrounds (ideally with red-teaming experience):
Export control licensing, classification or enforcement — dual-use lists, catch-all controls, end-user screening
Treaty and agreement implementation — NPT, CTBT, safeguards agreements, bilateral cooperation agreements
Proliferation pathway and programme analysis at a laboratory, agency, ministry or research institute
Sanctions, procurement network or illicit trade analysis
Open-source and technical analysis of nuclear programmes
What this role demands beyond technical depth
This is writing-intensive work. Every judgment you make needs a written rationale that a non-specialist can follow. Prior technical writing, published research, or expert witness experience is a strong signal; please include a sample or link. You will also be reading and writing about misuse scenarios in your field for sustained periods. We brief experts on this in advance, and you can pause or step away at any point without penalty.
Before you apply
Your work here will not involve, and must not draw on, classified or export-controlled information, or anything covered by an NDA or prepublication review obligation. If you hold such obligations you may still be a good fit; tell us in your application and we will scope the work accordingly.
We consider all qualified applicants without regard to legally protected characteristics and provide reasonable accommodations upon request.
About Mercor: Hazardous Device Specialist / Public Safety ProfessionalCompany: MercorCompensation: $65-$75 per taskCommitment: ContractLocation: RemoteReferral Reward: Earn up to $250 per successful referral.Referral Link: https://t.mercor.com/hhkmYAbout the work
Mercor is assembling a panel of energetic materials and propulsion experts to red-team frontier AI models. The goal is to test whether a model can correctly judge the misuse potential of a technical request — answering legitimate questions fully while refusing genuinely dangerous ones.
You will:
Write challenging single-turn prompts in your domain, labelled across three levels: benign, dual-use, and adversarial.
Evaluate the responses that come back against a defined policy standard, and judge whether each was handled correctly.
Write the reference answer — what a correct response looks like, and the technical reasoning for why.
This domain lives on the dual-use line more than most. The same assessment that tells a technician how to approach a device tells someone else how it was meant to work; the same compatibility data that keeps a magazine safe describes what stays stable elsewhere. A model that refuses a routine storage or render-safe question is failing as badly as one that answers a question it shouldn't. Drawing that line reliably is why we need practitioners rather than generalists.
Background we're looking for
We're looking for public safety professionals who have assessed real devices — the render-safe and post-incident side, held under certification and command accountability. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same assessment that makes a device safe explains how it was built. You will be writing prompts that sit exactly on that line, then judging whether the model held it.
Examples of relevant backgrounds (ideally with red-teaming experience):
Certified bomb technician or hazardous device operator — device assessment and render-safe procedures
Military EOD with civilian public-safety, training or instruction experience
Bomb squad commander or training officer — team qualification, equipment and protocols
Post-blast investigation and device reconstruction
CBRNE technical response — standoff assessment, robotics and disruption tools
What this role demands beyond technical depth
This is writing-intensive work. Every judgment you make needs a written rationale that a non-specialist can follow. Prior technical writing, published research, or expert witness experience is a strong signal; please include a sample or link. You will also be reading and writing about misuse scenarios in your field for sustained periods. We brief experts on this in advance, and you can pause or step away at any point without penalty.
Before you apply
Your work here will not involve, and must not draw on, classified or export-controlled information, or anything covered by an NDA or prepublication review obligation. If you hold such obligations you may still be a good fit; tell us in your application and we will scope the work accordingly.
We consider all qualified applicants without regard to legally protected characteristics and provide reasonable accommodations upon request.
About Mercor: Specialty Materials Chemist — Pyrotechnics or PropulsionCompany: MercorCompensation: $65-$75 per taskCommitment: ContractLocation: RemoteReferral Reward: Earn up to $250 per successful referral.Referral Link: https://t.mercor.com/y8BngAbout the work
Mercor is assembling a panel of energetic materials and propulsion experts to red-team frontier AI models. The goal is to test whether a model can correctly judge the misuse potential of a technical request — answering legitimate questions fully while refusing genuinely dangerous ones.
You will:
Write challenging single-turn prompts in your domain, labelled across three levels: benign, dual-use, and adversarial.
Evaluate the responses that come back against a defined policy standard, and judge whether each was handled correctly.
Write the reference answer — what a correct response looks like, and the technical reasoning for why.
This domain lives on the dual-use line more than most. The same formulation work that qualifies a propellant or a display composition sits next to something nobody should be helped with; the same sensitivity data that protects a production line reads as a specification from the other side. A model that refuses a routine thermal-stability question is failing as badly as one that answers a question it shouldn't. Drawing that line reliably is why we need practitioners rather than generalists.
Background we're looking for
This is the chemistry half of the domain: we're looking for people who have formulated, synthesised and tested specialty energetic materials in a licensed or government facility, not modelled them from a distance. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same sensitivity result that sets a safe handling limit is what someone else would want to design around. You will be writing prompts that sit exactly on that line, then judging whether the model held it.
Examples of relevant backgrounds (ideally with red-teaming experience):
Formulation chemist for pyrotechnics, propellants or specialty energetic materials
Synthesis and characterisation of energetic compounds in a licensed or government facility
Performance and sensitivity testing — calorimetry, thermal stability, small-scale safety testing
Scale-up and process safety for energetic material production
Solid or liquid rocket propellant development — binders, oxidisers, burn-rate modifiers
What this role demands beyond technical depth
This is writing-intensive work. Every judgment you make needs a written rationale that a non-specialist can follow. Prior technical writing, published research, or expert witness experience is a strong signal; please include a sample or link. You will also be reading and writing about misuse scenarios in your field for sustained periods. We brief experts on this in advance, and you can pause or step away at any point without penalty.
Before you apply
Your work here will not involve, and must not draw on, classified or export-controlled information, or anything covered by an NDA or prepublication review obligation. If you hold such obligations you may still be a good fit; tell us in your application and we will scope the work accordingly.
We consider all qualified applicants without regard to legally protected characteristics and provide reasonable accommodations upon request.
About Mercor: Federal Certified Materials Specialist / Incident AnalystCompany: MercorCompensation: $65-$75 per taskCommitment: ContractLocation: RemoteReferral Reward: Earn up to $250 per successful referral.Referral Link: https://t.mercor.com/4wuVCAbout the work
Mercor is assembling a panel of energetic materials and propulsion experts to red-team frontier AI models. The goal is to test whether a model can correctly judge the misuse potential of a technical request — answering legitimate questions fully while refusing genuinely dangerous ones.
You will:
Write challenging single-turn prompts in your domain, labelled across three levels: benign, dual-use, and adversarial.
Evaluate the responses that come back against a defined policy standard, and judge whether each was handled correctly.
Write the reference answer — what a correct response looks like, and the technical reasoning for why.
This domain lives on the dual-use line more than most. The same residue analysis that identifies what was used is a description of what to use; the same diversion indicators that catch a bad licensee tell someone how not to be caught. A model that refuses a routine forensic identification question is failing as badly as one that answers a question it shouldn't. Drawing that line reliably is why we need practitioners rather than generalists.
Background we're looking for
We're looking for people who have worked scenes and casework under a national certification — identifying materials after the fact, and inspecting the licensees who hold them. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same residue signature that closes a case describes a recipe in reverse. You will be writing prompts that sit exactly on that line, then judging whether the model held it.
Examples of relevant backgrounds (ideally with red-teaming experience):
Federally certified explosives specialist or national equivalent — scene and materials analysis
Forensic laboratory identification of energetic materials and post-blast residues
Post-incident analysis and reporting for an agency or laboratory
Regulatory inspection of licensees and permittees — storage, records and diversion indicators
Expert testimony or casework on energetic materials
What this role demands beyond technical depth
This is writing-intensive work. Every judgment you make needs a written rationale that a non-specialist can follow. Prior technical writing, published research, or expert witness experience is a strong signal; please include a sample or link. You will also be reading and writing about misuse scenarios in your field for sustained periods. We brief experts on this in advance, and you can pause or step away at any point without penalty.
Before you apply
Your work here will not involve, and must not draw on, classified or export-controlled information, or anything covered by an NDA or prepublication review obligation. If you hold such obligations you may still be a good fit; tell us in your application and we will scope the work accordingly.
We consider all qualified applicants without regard to legally protected characteristics and provide reasonable accommodations upon request.
