Radiological Safety Expert - Redteaming

Mercor; Sydney; On-site; AUD 90,000 - 120,000; Full time

Job summary

Mercor is assembling a panel of radiological safety experts to red-team frontier AI models, focusing on misuse potential and safe handling of dual-use scenarios. You will write prompts across benign, dual-use, and adversarial levels, and judge model responses against a policy standard.

Role requires clear written reasoning and hands-on experience with radiation safety, licensing, or security considerations. No NDA/export constraints apply; remote work not implied.

Qualifications

• Background includes radiation safety leadership with source custody or licensing.
• Ability to distinguish routine professional questions from dual-use attempts.
• Written technical writing or expert witness experience is preferred.
• Strong writing skills to justify judgments for non-specialists.

Responsibilities

• 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.

Job description

About the work

Mercor is assembling a panel of radiological 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 while 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 isotope underpins cancer therapy and industrial radiography; the same shielding calculation protects a worker and conceals a source. A model that refuses a routine dose 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 held responsibility for radioactive material, not just worked near it; source custody, licensing, or the security and response side. What matters most is being able to tell a routine professional question from one that's fishing for something else: the same shielding calculation protects a worker and conceals a source, They will be writing prompts that sit exactly on that line, then judging whether the model held it. Examples of relevant backgrounds (Ideally w/Red-teaming experience):Radiation Safety Officer (broad-scope licensee) — holds the licence of record; acquisition, inventory, transfer and disposal.Health Physicist (DOE site or national lab) — survey, assay, contamination control and dose planning in high-hazard facilities.Source Security / Vulnerability Assessment Specialist — has assessed how Category 1 and 2 sources get stolen, shielded or moved.Radiological Emergency Response Specialist — FRMAC, CBRN response, dispersal and contamination modelling.Nuclear Medicine Physicist / Cyclotron RSO — medical isotope production and handling; the legitimate-use half of the dual-use line.

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.