Manufacturing Operations Reviewer

Official role description

The role

We're hiring working manufacturing professionals to audit AI work product in their own field, not to produce it.

You'll see an AI agent's complete attempt at a realistic task from your job: the task as written, what the agent did, the files it produced, and the scoresheet an AI grader filled in afterwards. You bring the judgment of someone who does this work for a living, and answer four questions:

1. Is this a real task? Would it come up in this job, described this way? Realistic, borderline, or contrived. 2. Is the domain content right? Are the standards, figures, regulations and constraints accurate and consistent, or is something subtly wrong in a way only a practitioner would catch? 3. Does the grading hold up? The grader answered eleven yes/no questions about the finished work: correct format, fabricated figures, requirements met, terminology, and so on. You go through them with the files open and say where you disagree, and why. 4. Is the score defensible? Band the work yourself. Could a practitioner use it? Accept it? Then check the reported score against your band.

About an hour per item. You never perform the task or redo the agent's work.

Who we're looking for

Five roles. Apply to the one that's actually yours: • Buyers and Purchasing Agents. 5+ years placing real POs and negotiating with suppliers you were accountable for. • First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers. 5+ years running a shift or a line, owning the schedule and the people on it. • Mechanical Engineers. 4+ years designing parts or systems that got built. PE a plus. • Industrial Engineers. 3+ years doing capacity, throughput, layout or time studies that changed how a plant ran. • Shipping, Receiving and Inventory Clerks. 4+ years owning receiving, cycle counts and inventory accuracy in a real warehouse or plant.

We want people who know the field cold: anyone who has done a root-cause investigation, run a PPAP or first-article inspection, owned a cycle-count variance, or had to explain to an operator why a method sheet was wrong. Less of a fit are people whose experience is entirely planning software rather than the floor, and engineers who only ever ran simulations.

Also required: near-native business English, because you write a short reason for every judgment, and enough comfort with a spreadsheet or PDF to check whether the numbers in it reconcile.