Support Operations Expert - Fully Remote | Upto $120/hr

Obsidian; San Francisco (CA); Remote; USD 34,440 - 68,880; Part time

Job summary

Obsidian is seeking expert Evaluators in Customer success / support operations for a remote, hourly engagement. Candidates should have 5+ years of relevant experience and must be fluent in English. The role involves reviewing AI-generated documents for accuracy, providing structured feedback, and requires proficiency in Microsoft Office and Google Workspace.

Ideal applicants will have an advanced degree. This position focuses on ensuring quality in AI-generated work products based on established rubrics.

Qualifications

• 5+ years of relevant professional experience in Customer success / support operations.
• Native or professional fluency in English.
• Highly proficient in Microsoft Office and Google Workspace, especially Slides.

Responsibilities

• Evaluate AI-generated artifacts against domain‑specific quality rubrics.
• Identify factual, aesthetic, and presentation errors.
• Provide clear, structured written feedback.

Skills

Customer success / support operations

Fluency in English

Microsoft Office proficiency

Google Workspace proficiency

Education

Advanced degree (Master's or higher)

Tools

Microsoft Office

Google Workspace

Job description

About the role

We are hiring expert Evaluators in Customer success / support operations to review and assess AI-generated work products (documents, spreadsheets, and slide decks) for accuracy, rigor, and domain quality. You will apply deep subject‑matter expertise to grade outputs.

This is a remote, hourly engagement.

Requirements (must have)

• 5+ years of relevant professional experience in Customer success / support operations.
• Native or professional fluency in English.
• Highly proficient in Microsoft Office and Google Workspace, especially Slides (Google Slides / PowerPoint).

Preferred (nice to have)

• Advanced degree (Master's or higher) from a reputable institution.

What you’ll do

• Evaluate AI-generated artifacts against domain‑specific quality rubrics.
• Identify factual, aesthetic, and presentation errors.
• Provide clear, structured written feedback.