Editorial and Media Practice Reviewer

About this role

## The role We're hiring working editorial and media 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 Three roles. Apply to the one that's actually yours: - **Editors.** 4+ years editing other people's copy to a house style, with responsibility for what published. - **News Analysts, Reporters and Journalists.** 4+ years reporting and filing your own stories, with sourcing you had to stand behind. - **Film and Video Editors.** 4+ years cutting finished pieces on a professional timeline, delivered to a client or a broadcast spec. We want people who know the field cold: anyone who has killed a story that would not stand up, sent copy back with a sourcing problem flagged, or caught a legal or factual issue before it published. Less of a fit are content marketers writing their own copy without an editorial chain, and peop