Senior Red teaming, project

The work

Attacks a system deliberately to find how it breaks before someone else does.

A defined outcome with a defined end. The scope is agreed before you start, and changing it is a new conversation rather than a favour.

The bar

You have owned delivery of this work, end to end, on something that reached real users.

Why this one is hard to judge. Claims are easy and evidence is often confidential, which makes references and method the only real signal.

What we ask to see

• A finding you reported that was reproducible, prioritised and fixed
• Written authorisation for the work, or a description of the scope you operated under
• A finding you decided not to publish, and why

One solid item beats five vague ones. A referee we can actually call beats a link to a landing page.

What gets an application declined

• The only evidence offered is a certification, a course, or a job title
• Every piece of evidence is under an NDA and no sanitised version or referee is offered
• The work described is entirely a demonstration, a proof of concept, or a hackathon
• More than six disciplines are claimed, which we read as a signal that none has been assessed

If we decline you, the reason is written down and sent to you. The software refuses a decline without one.

What it pays

Nothing is published for this discipline in the UK advertised market, so there is no figure to give you and we are not going to invent one.

A red teaming reading exists, but it is dominated by security red teaming rather than model red teaming, on a sample of 56 advertisements with no published spread. It is here for completeness and should not be used to price a model evaluation engagement.