Propulsion & Effects Engineer - Remote AI Red Teaming

What You'll Do7

• Write single-turn prompts in propulsion, effects, or initiation engineering, with each prompt labelled benign, dual-use, or adversarial.
• Evaluate model answers against a defined policy standard and judge whether the response handled the request as it should.
• Draft reference answers that show a correct response, including the technical reasoning behind each call.
• Separate routine professional questions from requests that seek misuse potential, using your own hardware and test experience.
• Document every judgment in language a non-specialist can follow, since the work is writing-intensive.
• Flag refusals of safe technical questions and answers to unsafe ones as failures of the same standard.
• Keep all prompt and evaluation material free of classified, export-controlled, NDA-covered, or prepublication-review content.

Requirements7

• Hands-on work designing, qualifying, or testing propulsion or initiation systems, backed by real hardware and test data.
• Depth in at least one relevant area: munitions or warhead design, solid, liquid, or hybrid propulsion, terminal effects, fuzing and safe-and-arm, or test range engineering and instrumentation.
• Ability to tell a routine performance or qualification question from one that fishes for misuse potential.
• Strong technical writing. Prior published research, expert witness work, or a writing sample is a strong signal.
• Comfort reading and writing about misuse scenarios in your field for long stretches. You can pause or step away at any time without penalty.
• Red-teaming experience helps, but it is not mandatory.
• No reliance on classified or export-controlled information. If you hold an NDA or prepublication review obligation, disclose it in your application.

Who Should Apply

Engineers who have taken propulsion, fuzing, or effects systems through design, test, and qualification will fit this panel best. The role rewards people who can explain the dual-use line in plain language and back it with hardware experience, not just theory. Candidates with only classroom knowledge, no test data, or no writing sample tend to score low because the task depends on real programs and clear rationale. This work is less suitable for generalists who avoid misuse scenario writing or who cannot disclose NDA and export-control obligations. A common rejection reason is a weak reference answer that skips the technical reasoning behind a benign or adversarial label.

Salary Insight