About Mercor: Safeguards Analyst / IAEA or Euratom InspectorCompany: MercorCompensation: $65-$75 per taskCommitment: ContractLocation: RemoteReferral Reward: Earn up to $250 per successful referral.Referral Link: https://work.mercor.com/explore?listingId=list_AAABoKHaeKs87ms6Eq9CAbNsAbout 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 material-balance calculation that closes an inspector's account can be used to hide what is missing from it; the same fuel-cycle step that supplies a power reactor is the one a proliferation pathway runs through. A model that refuses a routine accountancy 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 verified nuclear material rather than read about it — inspection regimes, accountancy, and the judgment calls that come with an unresolved discrepancy. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same material-balance figure that closes an account can be used to conceal a diversion. 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):
IAEA, Euratom or state-system (SSAC/RSAC) inspector — inspection planning, verification, reporting
Material accountancy — facility declarations, inventory change reports, MUF evaluation and resolution
Additional Protocol implementation — declarations, complementary access, information analysis
Safeguards instrumentation and containment/surveillance — NDA measurement, seals, unattended monitoring
Safeguards-by-design work or safeguards policy analysis at a laboratory, regulator or ministry
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: Nuclear Security EngineerCompany: MercorCompensation: $65-$75 per taskCommitment: ContractLocation: RemoteReferral Reward: Earn up to $250 per successful referral.Referral Link: https://t.mercor.com/uPKyBAbout 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 material-balance calculation that closes an inspector's account can be used to hide what is missing from it; the same protection assessment that hardens a facility maps its weaknesses. A model that refuses a routine material-accounting 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 been responsible for keeping nuclear material where it belongs — material control and accountability, physical protection, and the assessments that test both. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same vulnerability assessment that closes a gap also describes it. 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):
Material control and accountability (MC&A) programme design, operation or assessment at a national laboratory or licensee
Physical protection system engineering — sensors, barriers, delay, response force, performance testing
Vulnerability assessment and adversary path analysis for nuclear facilities
Insider threat and human reliability programme work
Nuclear security policy, training or international assistance 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: 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.
