Nuclear Engineer - Fully Remote

Mercor; Greater London; Remote; GBP 60,000 - 90,000; Full time

Job summary

Mercor is assembling a panel of nuclear domain experts to red-team frontier AI models, testing the misuse potential of technical requests and how models respond to legitimate questions while refusing dangerous ones.

The role emphasizes writing-intensive tasks, defending judgments with clear rationales, and drawing on safeguards and nonproliferation experience to guide analysis and reporting.

Qualifications

• This is writing-intensive work; every judgment must have 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 read and write about misuse scenarios in your field for extended periods.
• You can pause or step away at any point without penalty.

Responsibilities

• Write challenging single-turn prompts in three levels: benign, dual-use, and adversarial.
• Evaluate responses against a defined policy standard and judge whether they were handled correctly.
• Write the reference answer and the technical reasoning for why it is acceptable or not.

Skills

Nuclear domain knowledge

Technical writing

Red-teaming experience

Policy analysis

Education

Nuclear engineering or related degree

Job description

About the work

Mercor is assembling a panel of nuclear domain 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.

Background we're looking for

We're looking for fuel-cycle depth plus some exposure to how material is controlled, accounted for, or diverted. Safeguards and nonproliferation experience is the strongest signal. The red-teaming task is to write prompts that pull a model past the boundary; the plausible research framing, the question that looks academic until you know what it's actually asking for - and then to explain in writing why the response was or wasn't acceptable. Examples of relevant backgrounds (Ideally w/Red-teaming experience):Safeguards Analyst / IAEA or Euratom Inspector - material accountancy, inspection regimes, Additional Protocol.Nuclear Engineer, Fuel Cycle - enrichment, reprocessing and criticality, end to end.Nuclear Security Engineer (national laboratory) - MPC&A, insider threat, physical protection design.Nuclear Forensics Scientist - radioxenon monitoring, attribution, detection and characterisation.Nonproliferation Analyst - export control, NSG trigger lists, acquisition and smuggling pathways.

What the work requires

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.