Vetto
Investment Consultant Expert - Reviewer
Weâre 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 isnât to âpick the best asset.â Itâs to think like a real advisor and spot what makes a client situation real, high-stakes, and action-changing â then upgrade weak scenarios so they actually test the model. âźď¸ AI is not allowed. If we spot AI use, weâll block the application. â ď¸ This application form must be completed entirely in English. đ¨ 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 YOUâLL DO IN THE APPLICATION (QUICK SCREENING TEST) You will review two pre-generated finance tasks. For each task, youâll answer simple 1â5 ratings and give a short justification. Then, for the 2nd task, youâll rewrite it to make it stronger. WHAT âSTRONGâ MEANS (SIMPLE DEFINITION) A strong task includes one decisive constraint that can make âreasonableâ 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 (1â5) IN THE FORM Youâll give 3 ratings per task: ⢠Overall Quality (1â5) How clear and testable the task is (can you judge PASS/FAIL)? ⢠Knife / Hidden Context Strength (1â5) Is there a decisive constraint that flips the strategy â or is the âhidden contextâ just background that doesnât change the recommendation? ⢠Checklist Quality (1â5) 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 â not âask questions.â) Youâll also write a short justification (2â4 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) â more realistic + naturally sets up the decision pressure ⢠Prompt (user message) â natural, human, does not reveal the Knife ⢠Hidden Context (1â3 bullets) â must include exactly 1 decisive Knife ⢠Checklist (4â6 items) â 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: Donât âleakâ the Knife in the prompt (no âIMPORTANTâ, no all-caps, no âthe key detail isâŚâ). IF SELECTED (PROJECT WORK) Youâll 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 âreasonableâ 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 WEâRE LOOKING FOR ⢠You can recognize whatâs realistic vs. generic in client situations ⢠You understand what truly changes the recommendation (APR, liquidity, taxes/eligibility, ruin risk, concentration) ⢠You can upgrade a âfineâ scenario into a strong test without making it artificial Originally posted on Himalayas
