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.
About Mercor: Propulsion & Effects EngineerCompany: MercorCompensation: $65-$75 per taskCommitment: ContractLocation: RemoteReferral Reward: Earn up to $250 per successful referral.Referral Link: https://t.mercor.com/tiTMpAbout 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 propulsion analysis that qualifies a motor for flight describes a capability; the same safe-and-arm logic that keeps a system inert is the part someone would want to defeat. A model that refuses a routine performance or qualification 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 engineering half of the domain: we're looking for people who have designed, qualified or tested propulsion and initiation systems, with real hardware and real test data behind them. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same effects model that sizes a safety standoff also sizes an intent. 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):
Munitions or warhead design and effects engineering
Solid, liquid or hybrid propulsion system design, test and qualification
Terminal effects modelling — blast, fragmentation, penetration
Fuzing, safe-and-arm and initiation system engineering
Test range engineering and instrumentation for propulsion or ordnance
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: Commercial Blasting EngineerCompany: MercorCompensation: $65-$75 per taskCommitment: ContractLocation: RemoteReferral Reward: Earn up to $250 per successful referral.Referral Link: https://t.mercor.com/gLklCAbout 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 design that breaks rock for a highway cut is a description of directed energy release; the same magazine and transport rules that keep a crew safe are a map of where material sits and how it moves. A model that refuses a routine vibration-compliance 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 licensed practitioners who handle, store and move specialty materials as a daily responsibility, and who sign for them. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same inventory and transport detail that satisfies an auditor is what a diversion would exploit. 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):
Licensed blaster or blasting engineer — mining, quarrying, construction or demolition
Blast design and vibration control — timing, burden, seismograph monitoring, regulatory limits
Magazine management, inventory reconciliation and transport of specialty materials
Storage compatibility, security and regulatory compliance for a commercial licensee
Training, certification or auditing of blasting crews
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: Chemical Defense ResearcherCompany: MercorCompensation: $65-$75 per taskCommitment: ContractLocation: RemoteReferral Reward: Earn up to $250 per successful referral.Referral Link: https://t.mercor.com/45J50About the work
Mercor is assembling a panel of chemistry and chemical safety 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 toxicology that sets a countermeasure dose describes an exposure someone might intend; the same decontamination data that protects responders tells you what defeats it. A model that refuses a routine countermeasure or PPE 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 chemical threats from the defensive side in an institutional setting — countermeasures, protection, detection, verification. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same agent properties that drive a treatment protocol drive a threat assessment. 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):
Chemical defence research at USAMRICD, DoD, CDC or an allied national institute
Toxicology of chemical warfare agents and medical countermeasure development
Decontamination, protection and detection research for chemical threats
CWC-related work — verification, destruction, designated laboratory analysis
Consequence assessment and medical management of chemical exposure
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.
