New

Engineering Experts — Planning AI Project

Global

🏢 About Vetto

Vetto is a global platform that connects top-tier professionals to strategic Artificial Intelligence projects around the world. Our mission is to build trust, quality, and long-term value within the AI ecosystem, for both exceptional talent and companies operating at the forefront of technology.

📖 About the project

We're recruiting engineering experts to review and improve real-world technical scenarios used to train AI planning assistants in an educational context. The AI model will act as a tutor — explaining engineering topics, solving problems step by step, and teaching concepts to university-level students. Your job is to think like a senior engineer and educator: map decision trees, identify alternative hypotheses, justify conclusions with concrete data, and ensure the reasoning is both technically sound and clear enough to teach.

👤 Who can apply

  • Mechanical, Civil, Electrical, Chemical, Industrial, Software, or Aerospace Engineers
  • Any engineer with hands-on experience diagnosing problems, designing solutions, or running technical analyses
  • Professionals who routinely make data-driven decisions in their field
  • Final-year undergraduate engineering students with solid technical foundation are also welcome to apply

Instructions

In this application, you will answer questions following the instructions below. If selected, you will be invited to review real engineering case scenarios as part of the project.

For the reasoning case, present a real technical engineering problem you diagnosed or solved — a failure, root cause analysis, dimensioning decision, process issue, etc. You may anonymize it. We are not evaluating whether your conclusion was right. We are evaluating how you think.

The case is structured in 3 parts:
Part 1 — The Problem: describe the technical problem and what data or information you had available at the start.

Part 2 — Your Journey: you will answer 3 identical steps. For each step, describe what you analyzed or decided and what specific evidence drove that decision. You must also present 2 discarded alternatives per step — hypotheses you considered but ruled out — and explain what concrete data eliminated each one. "It wasn't the case" is not a valid answer.

Part 3 — Conclusion: describe the final diagnosis or solution and how the evidence you gathered led to it.

Compensation

Payment will be US$ 60 per approved task, converted and paid in your local currency. Each task takes approximately 80 minutes, which corresponds to an effective rate of about US$ 45 per hour. 

Refer People -> Earn Money

If you'd like to refer someone, you can earn $20 USD for each approved referral. To participate: click "Refer & Earn" to share your personal referral link.

‼️ AI is not allowed. If we spot AI use, we'll block the application.
⚠️ This application form must be completed entirely in English or Portuguese.

Apply for this job

*

indicates a required field

Phone
Resume/CV

Accepted file types: pdf, doc, docx, txt, rtf


Resume/CV

Accepted file types: pdf, doc, docx, txt, rtf

Select...
Select...
Select...
Select...

Less than 2 years / 2–5 years / 5–10 years / More than 10 years

What was the context? What data, measurements, or information did you have available at the start?

What specific measurement, calculation, test, or standard drove that decision?

Discarded alternative 1: what hypothesis did you consider but rule out? What concrete data eliminated it?

Discarded alternative 2: what other hypothesis did you consider but rule out? What concrete data eliminated it?

Starting now from the first step output, answer:
What specific measurement, calculation, test, or standard drove that decision?

Discarded alternative 1: what hypothesis did you consider but rule out? What concrete data eliminated it?

Discarded alternative 2: what other hypothesis did you consider but rule out? What concrete data eliminated it?

Starting now from the second step output, answer:
What specific measurement, calculation, test, or standard drove that decision?

Discarded alternative 1: what hypothesis did you consider but rule out? What concrete data eliminated it?

Discarded alternative 2: what other hypothesis did you consider but rule out? What concrete data eliminated it?

How did the evidence you gathered across the steps lead to this conclusion?