Professional Design Experts

$80–180/hrrate as listed

Mercor is staffing professional designers to make judgment calls about visual quality and product taste for an AI research project run by a major AI lab. The work centers on evaluating and producing design artifacts — slides, documents, graphics, PDFs — and articulating why one version reads better than another.

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

This is taste work made explicit. You'll be asked to look at design outputs — a deck slide, a formatted report, a graphic, a PDF layout — and render judgments a trained designer would consider obvious but a model does not: hierarchy that actually guides the eye, spacing that isn't accidental, type pairings that hold up at real sizes, color that survives a projector and a phone screen. Depending on the task stream, you may also produce reference artifacts yourself so the research team has a ground truth to compare against.

The hard part is usually not the decision but the explanation. Expect to write short, specific rationales: not "this looks cleaner," but which alignment broke, which contrast ratio failed, why the chart's axis choice misrepresents the data. Consistency matters as much as correctness — your judgments should be reproducible across a long queue of similar comparisons.

What the screen looks for

A real professional track record where visual presentation was part of the job — in-house design, agency, brand, editorial, presentation design, or a role where you owned the deck and document standards
Working fluency in Figma, Sketch, or Adobe Creative Suite, plus genuine command of Slides, Sheets, Docs, and PDF workflows (the everyday formats, not just portfolio pieces)
Ability to critique under follow-up: the AI screen will push on your reasoning and look for whether it holds together
Native or near-native English, since the deliverable is largely written argument

Logistics

Fully remote and asynchronous, with a stated minimum of 15 hours per week — treat that as a floor, not a target, since task volume fluctuates with the research team's needs. Eligibility is limited to candidates based in the United States, United Kingdom, or Canada. Observed rates on Mercor for this listing run $80–180/hr, set by portfolio depth and seniority; nothing about rate or hour volume is guaranteed, and engagements are project-scoped rather than open-ended.

What they look for

Professional design experience where visual presentation was a core responsibility
Proficiency in Figma, Sketch, or Adobe Creative Suite
Fluency with Google Slides, Sheets, Docs, and PDF production
Ability to write clear, specific design critique and rationale
Native or near-native English proficiency
Based in the US, UK, or Canada

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.

Are you a native or near-native English speaker?
English proficiency · required
Are you currently based in the United States, United Kingdom, or Canada?
Location · required
Can you commit a minimum of 15 hours per week to this project for at least the next 3–4 months?
Weekly availability · required
Do you have professional experience with at least one of the following: Figma, Sketch, or Adobe Creative Suite (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign)?
Design tool experience · required
Have you held a role that involved designing graphics, documents, or other files for professional purposes?
Professional design background · required
Are you proficient with Google Slides, Sheets, and Docs for professional work?
Google Workspace proficiency · preferred

0 of 6 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 10 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 candidate has real experience translating taste judgment into design choices, not just executing existing briefs—core to evaluating AI outputs on aesthetic grounds.
A strong answer: Describe a specific project (document, presentation, website, brand asset), identify the aesthetic choice you owned (color, layout, typography, hierarchy), explain why you made it over alternatives, and show evidence it mattered to the outcome (stakeholder feedback, adoption, business result).
Where people lose it: Staying vague about what they actually decided (e.g., 'I made it look good') or crediting the choice to a client brief rather than their own taste judgment—this role needs people who can argue *why* one design is better, not just follow specs.