Fire & Life Safety Reviewer — Vulcan

What you would do

• Source real plan sets, site photos, and inspection documents to create realistic fire safety review scenarios
• Write the correct answer and full technical reasoning explaining egress, fire access, alarm, or sprinkler design decisions
• Create problems at multiple difficulty levels: code-compliant baselines, dual-use scenarios, and genuinely unsafe designs
• Document your reasoning so AI systems learn the distinction between waivers-in-practice and genuine code violations
• Collaborate with peer reviewers in your discipline to validate task accuracy before release

Who they want

• Current or recent fire marshal authorization, NICET Level III+ credentials, or PE specializing in fire safety systems
• 3+ years in plan review or inspection seat; 8+ years strongly preferred
• Fluency with IBC, IFC, and NFPA standards in your jurisdiction
• US-based, with ability to work independently on task development
• Skill reading mark-ups on plan sets, understanding hydraulic calculations, and interpreting device layouts

Main skills

What the interview asks about

1. 1.Knowing what gets waved in practice

   The model must learn that rigid code citation misses real-world practice; you distinguish between standards that are enforced strictly and those where discretion is routine.

   For example: “An occupancy with an 85-foot travel distance to the nearest exit exceeds the 75-foot maximum by 10 feet. In your jurisdiction, when would an inspector approve this, and when would they require redesign? Walk me through the decision.”

2. 2.Recognizing precursor vs misuse knowledge

   Your expertise in identification and case defense overlaps with knowledge that could enable harm; you judge whether a model response is legitimate professional work or inappropriately detailed.

   For example: “You're reviewing an AI response about precursor chemicals used in fire suppression systems versus their other industrial applications. How do you frame the boundary between appropriate casework and inappropriate instruction?”

3. 3.Spotting multi-system design failures

   Codes address individual systems; experienced reviewers spot failures only visible when systems are analyzed together, catching interdependencies a checklist approach would miss.

   For example: “A plan shows egress doors nominally compliant and alarm coverage meeting requirements. But the sprinkler shutoff is inside the protected room, behind the locked egress door. What's the safety failure?”

4. 4.Writing clear, non-specialist explanations

   Your task justifications train models that serve architects and engineers who may not have your specialist depth; unclear reasoning teaches AI to be unclear.

   For example: “A design uses a 3-hour fire-rated barrier to create a separation between two occupancies. Explain in 2-3 sentences why this meets code and what specific NFPA standard it satisfies, in language an architect without fire protection training could understand.”

A task you may get

Bring a real plan review case from your work: a drawing you approved or rejected, the specific codes cited, and the reasoning you documented in your decision.

How to prepare

• Gather 2-3 recent plan reviews you've completed or supervised, with marked-up plans and your decision documentation
• Review the most recent editions of IBC and NFPA standards relevant to your specialty
• Prepare examples of where your jurisdiction's practice differs from strict code interpretation
• Collect photos or sketches of field conditions where inspection revealed design-to-practice gaps

The facts

Pay

$45–60/hr

Hours

Hourly, 40 hours a week

Where

Remote · Remote (US)

Open to

USA

Field

Other Engineering

Posted

9/15/2026

Places left

6

We wrote this page from the public Mercor listing. It may be out of date, so read the full posting before you apply.