Nuclear Forensics Expert - Safeguards

Obsidian; Paris; Sur place; EUR 60 000 - 90 000; Plein temps

Résumé du poste

Mercor is assembling a panel to red-team frontier AI models focused on nuclear materials and safeguards, crafting prompts and evaluating responses for safety and accuracy. The role emphasizes precise, written justifications and defensible conclusions in a highly technical domain.

Ideal candidates will have backgrounds in nuclear material detection, attribution, and analytical work, with strong technical writing and experience communicating complex concepts clearly.

Qualifications

• Background in nuclear material detection, attribution and analytical work behind defensible conclusions.
• Ability to distinguish routine professional questions from high-risk inquiries and justify judgments in writing.
• Prior technical writing, published research, or expert witness experience is a strong signal.

Responsabilités

• Write challenging prompts in benign, dual-use and adversarial categories.
• Evaluate model responses against policy standards and document judgments.
• Draft reference answers with detailed technical reasoning.

Connaissances

Nuclear forensics

Radiochemical analysis

Detection technology

Material signature attribution

Technical writing

Outils

Mass-spectrometry

Portal monitors

Handheld ID equipment

Description du poste

About 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.