Propulsion Systems Engineer - Expert

Mercor; New York (NY); On-site; USD 120,000 - 170,000; Full time

Job summary

Mercor is assembling a panel of energetic materials and propulsion experts to red-team frontier AI models. You will write prompts that sit on the line between routine professional questions and misuse, then judge model responses against a defined policy standard.

This is writing-intensive work: you must provide clear rationales for non-specialists and regularly read and write about misuse scenarios in the field. Prior technical writing or expert witness experience is valued.

Qualifications

• Experience designing, qualifying or testing propulsion and initiation systems with real hardware.
• Ability to write clear rationales for non-specialists.
• Experience writing prompts and evaluating AI model outputs.

Responsibilities

• Write challenging prompts across benign, dual-use, and adversarial levels.
• Evaluate model responses against a defined policy standard.
• Draft reference answers with technical reasoning.

Skills

Red-teaming experience

Propulsion systems knowledge

Technical writing

Evaluation of misuse scenarios

Job description

About 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.