[Hiring] Investment Consultant Expert - Reviewer @Vetto

Role Description

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.

Qualifications

• Bank relationship managers
• Financial planners
• Investment advisors / consultants
• 3+ years of professional experience
• English level: Upper Intermediate / Advanced (required)

Requirements

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.
• 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.

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

• 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?

WHAT YOU WILL REWRITE (FOR THE 2ND TASK ONLY)

• 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…”).

Benefits

• 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