What the work actually involves

This is expert evaluation work dressed in the language of design practice. On a typical task you'll be given an electrical design problem — a distribution single-line with a fault duty question, a motor starting scenario with voltage dip limits, a protection coordination case with a relay curve that doesn't quite clear, a transformer or cable sizing decision under stated ambient and derating conditions — and asked either to solve it yourself with the reasoning shown, or to review a model's attempt and mark exactly where the engineering goes wrong. Work is task-based and asynchronous: you claim items, work them, and submit written reasoning alongside calculations.

The distinction that matters is between an answer that is numerically wrong and an answer that is wrong in method. Reviewers are paid to catch the second kind: a short-circuit figure that came out plausible because two errors cancelled, a coordination interval that ignores CT saturation, a cable size that satisfies ampacity but fails voltage drop at the far end, an assumption about utility contribution that was never stated. Vague criticism ("insufficient detail") is worth little; the useful output names the clause, the standard, or the calculation step.

What the screening looks for

  • Hands-on design history, not coursework. Which voltage classes, which facility types, whose standards — IEC, IEEE, NEC — and what you personally stamped, sized, or coordinated.
  • Calculation depth under follow-up. Expect the AI screener to push a second and third question into whatever you claim: base MVA, X/R assumptions, decrement, instantaneous settings, derating factors.
  • Trade-off judgment. Real design has competing constraints; screens reward candidates who can defend a choice against the alternative rather than recite the code minimum.
  • Written clarity. Your evaluation rationale is the deliverable, so it has to read like a design-review comment, not a hunch.

Logistics

Fully remote and asynchronous, no fixed shifts. Short-term project with defined duration; observed rates for this listing sit at $70–85/hr, which reflects what the platform has posted rather than any guarantee for a given candidate. Most contributors treat it as part-time alongside employment — meaningful weekly commitment (often 10–20 hours) matters more than availability at particular clock times, and consistency over the project window is valued more than a burst of activity.