Forensic Scientist — Nuclear Materials

Mercor; United States; Remote; USD 90,000 - 130,000; Full time

Job summary

Mercor is assembling a panel of nuclear materials and safeguards experts to red-team frontier AI models. You will write prompts across three levels, assess model responses, and craft reference answers with detailed reasoning.

The role emphasizes clear, evidence-based judgements on dual-use content. Ideal candidates bring expertise in detection, attribution, and signature analysis, plus strong scientific writing and ability to articulate complex methods for non-specialists.

Qualifications

• Characterised real nuclear material and signatures.
• Ability to judge routine vs. risky technical questions.
• Strong written reasoning and documentation skills.

Responsibilities

• Write prompts at benign, dual-use, and adversarial levels.
• Evaluate model responses against a policy standard.
• Provide reference answers and technical rationale.

Skills

Nuclear forensics

Radiochemical analysis

Mass spectrometry

Detection technology

Material signatures

Technical writing

Education

Nuclear science background

Job description

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.