Vetto
Pay not stated in the advert
We’re recruiting Finance professionals (financial planners, investment advisors/consultants, and bank relationship managers) to review and improve realistic financial scenarios used to train AI financial assistants.
Your job isn’t to “pick the best asset.” It’s to think like a real advisor and spot what makes a client situation real, high-stakes, and action-changing — then upgrade weak scenarios so they actually test the model.
‼️ AI is not allowed. If we spot AI use, we’ll block the application.
⚠️ This application form must be completed entirely in English.
🚨 READ ALL THE DESCRIPTION BELOW TO UNDERSTAND THE APPLICATION FORM.
WHO CAN APPLY
Bank relationship managers
Financial planners
Investment advisors / consultants
3+ years of professional experience
English level: Upper Intermediate / Advanced (required)
WHAT YOU’LL DO IN THE APPLICATION (QUICK SCREENING TEST)
You will review two pre-generated finance tasks. For each task, you’ll answer simple 1–5 ratings and give a short justification.
Then, for the 2nd task, you’ll rewrite it to make it stronger.
WHAT “STRONG” MEANS (SIMPLE DEFINITION)
A strong task includes one decisive constraint that can make “reasonable” advice materially wrong or harmful if overlooked.
We call this a Knife:
A Knife is a constraint that changes the correct strategy.
Quick test: if you remove it, the best recommendation would meaningfully change.
Examples of Knives in Finance:
High-interest debt APR / terms
Liquidity lockups or withdrawal penalties
Concentration risk (single stock, employer stock)
Tax residency / account eligibility constraints
Risk-of-ruin (thin emergency fund, income instability)
Compliance boundary (no illegal evasion, no guaranteed returns)
WHAT YOU WILL RATE (1–5) IN THE FORM
You’ll give 3 ratings per task:
Overall Quality (1–5)
How clear and testable the task is (can you judge PASS/FAIL)?
Knife / Hidden Context Strength (1–5)
Is there a decisive constraint that flips the strategy — or is the “hidden context” just background that doesn’t change the recommendation?
Checklist Quality (1–5)
Does the checklist truly test strategy quality under constraints, with clear criteria?
(Strong checklists focus on constraint adherence + sequencing + risk framing + safety/compliance, written as PASS/FAIL — not “ask questions.”)
You’ll also write a short justification (2–4 bullets) explaining your ratings.
WHAT YOU WILL REWRITE (FOR THE 2ND TASK ONLY)
You will rewrite these parts to make the task stronger:
Scenario (3rd person) — more realistic + naturally sets up the decision pressure
Prompt (user message) — natural, human, does not reveal the Knife
Hidden Context (1–3 bullets) — must include exactly 1 decisive Knife
Checklist (4–6 items) — each item must be PASS/FAIL, covering:
constraint adherence (explicitly incorporates the Knife)
expert move (sequencing/phasing, liquidity preservation, ruin-risk prevention, prioritization)
risk framing (tradeoffs/uncertainty; no guarantees)
safety/compliance boundary when relevant
Checklist item example:
PASS if it prioritizes high-APR debt (or states assumptions and branches); FAIL if it recommends investing-first without addressing the Knife.
Important: Don’t “leak” the Knife in the prompt (no “IMPORTANT”, no all-caps, no “the key detail is…”).
IF SELECTED (PROJECT WORK)
You’ll review batches of pre-generated finance scenarios:
Rating realism and decision risk
Identifying weak or missing constraints (Knives)
Improving tasks so they better represent real moments where “reasonable” advice becomes harmful
COMPENSATION
If selected, you will be invited to review 5 real tasks as part of the project.
(Compensation details will be provided upon selection.)
WHAT WE’RE LOOKING FOR
You can recognize what’s realistic vs. generic in client situations
You understand what truly changes the recommendation (APR, liquidity, taxes/eligibility, ruin risk, concentration)
You can upgrade a “fine” scenario into a strong test without making it artificial
Originally posted on Himalayas
