Finance Program Coordinator — AI Training Data Operations

$40–60/hrrate as listed

Coordinate a team of finance-domain raters producing training data for a frontier AI lab, tracking throughput, quality signals, and escalations against weekly deadlines. This is a W-2 role through Cincinnatus LLC placed with the client lab, requiring roughly 35 hours per week on weekdays.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

You sit between finance subject matter experts, rater teams, and the program leads who own the training-data roadmap. Day to day that means running task queues, checking that finance-specific evaluation tasks are moving on schedule, and spotting where instructions are being interpreted inconsistently across raters. You'll build and maintain the operational scaffolding — trackers, escalation paths, spot-check routines — and write status updates that give program leads a clear read on throughput and quality without them having to dig.

A meaningful share of the job is triage. Raters working on financial reasoning, statements analysis, valuation, or markets content will surface edge cases: ambiguous guidelines, disputed ground truth, questions about what counts as a defensible answer. You resolve what you can with your own finance background and route the rest to SMEs with enough context that they can answer quickly. Over time you're expected to notice patterns and feed them back into guideline revisions.

What the screen looks for

Real coordination history. Mercor's screen probes for specific teams you ran, how many contributors, what the deadline and quality bars were, and what you did when they slipped.
Finance depth that holds up. You won't be doing the analysis yourself, but you need enough domain fluency to judge whether a rater's objection is legitimate. Expect follow-ups that go a layer deeper than your first answer.
Career progression. The listing is explicit about wanting a visible arc — analyst into senior analyst into coordination or program work.
Written clarity. Status updates and feedback are core deliverables, so communication samples and structured verbal answers carry weight.

Logistics and pay

Remote, weekday-aligned, and structured around a real 35+ hour weekly commitment — this is not a flexible side engagement. Employment is W-2 through Cincinnatus LLC, which acts as employer of record and provides payroll and benefits while you work embedded in the client lab's extended workforce. Observed pay for this posting sits in the $40–60/hr range; actual offers depend on experience and the specific placement, and nothing here is a guarantee.

What they look for

5–10 years in finance or finance operations
Direct experience coordinating raters, analysts, or reviewers against deadlines and quality bars
Demonstrable career progression into program or project coordination
Strong written communication for status reporting and rater feedback
Workflow design: task tracking, escalation paths, quality checks
Availability for 35+ hours/week on weekdays

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Do you have at least 5 years of professional experience in finance or finance operations?
Finance experience · required
Have you directly managed, led, or coordinated a team of contributors, raters, analysts, or similar for at least one project?
Team coordination experience · required
Are you able to commit to at least 35 hours per week during US weekday business hours?
Weekday availability · required
Can you document a clear career progression in finance or operations (e.g., from Analyst to Senior Analyst to Coordinator or similar)?
Career progression · preferred

0 of 4 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 12 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether they've actually managed throughput and quality simultaneously under pressure, not just attended coordination meetings. Can they name concrete metrics and explain what broke or almost broke.
A strong answer: A clear narrative with specific team size, timeline pressure, quality metric (error rate, accuracy, consistency), what went wrong mid-project, and how they intervened to fix it—showing they own the outcome, not just report on it.
Where people lose it: Talking about a project they *participated in* rather than one they *coordinated*; or giving credit entirely to the team without explaining what the coordinator actually did to unblock or redirect work.