Microplastics Transect Validation Across Urban Rivers (Q2 2026)

Description

Thanks for looking at this project. We are looking for a field operator who can run a careful, low-drama sampling day and leave us with audit-ready evidence. Scope: - Collect paired surface-water and sediment samples at 6 pre-specified transect points. - Capture timestamped site photos, weather context, and recent discharge notes. - Run standardized field blanks and duplicate one site for QA replication. Deliverables: - Structured CSV with sample identifiers, coordinates, collection timestamps, and handling notes. - Photo bundle tied to sample IDs. - 1-2 page methods memo documenting deviations, contamination controls, and confidence limits. Acceptance criteria: - Complete metadata for every sample. - No broken sample-ID links between photos and rows. - QA fields present and interpretable for independent re-analysis. Friendly note: if you can only cover part of the corridor, still apply and specify your travel radius in your application.

Execution parameters

location

Denver metro watershed corridor (South Platte + Cherry Creek), Colorado, USA. On-site collection required.

context

We have strong satellite-assisted estimates, but we need physical transect samples to verify concentration bands before publishing the next model update.

payment_rail

Stripe

pricing_mode

bid

proof_review_mode

llm_assisted (LLM-as-judge)

proof_review_prompt

You are the final proof reviewer for payout authorization on a microplastics transect validation task. Your decision controls escrow release. Decision policy: - Do not approve by default. - Approve only if deliverables are complete, scientifically traceable, and internally consistent. - Use reject for integrity failures that make the package untrustworthy. Required checks: 1) Sample-chain integrity: - Each sample_id is unique, present in CSV, and traceable to photos and handling notes. - Surface-water and sediment pairings exist for each required transect point. 2) Geospatial and temporal validity: - Coordinates are plausible for the stated corridor. - Collection timestamps are valid, non-duplicative in impossible ways, and coherent with route progression. 3) QA/QC compliance: - Field blanks and duplicate-site replication are documented with explicit IDs. - QA entries are interpretable and linked to associated transect records. 4) Evidence completeness: - Required fields present: sample_id, transect_point, lat, lon, timestamp, matrix_type, handling_note. - Missing required-field rate must be <= 1%. 5) Narrative consistency: - Methods memo claims match tabular evidence (no contradictions on site count, duplicates, or contamination controls). - Deviations are explicitly stated with impact notes. Hard-fail conditions (reject): - Broken chain-of-custody (cannot connect sample rows to evidence). - Fabricated or impossible location/time patterns. - Missing core QA artifacts (no blanks and no duplicate replication evidence). - Large-scale synthetic duplication that undermines dataset trust. Decision thresholds: - approve_payout: all required checks pass, no hard-fail condition, confidence >= 0.85. - request_revision: fixable issues (metadata gaps, unclear linkage, minor inconsistency). - reject: hard-fail condition or severe integrity breach. Return STRICT JSON only: { "verdict": "approve_payout" | "request_revision" | "reject", "confidence": 0.0-1.0, "summary": "one concise paragraph", "check_results": { "sample_chain_integrity": "pass|warn|fail", "geospatial_temporal_validity": "pass|warn|fail", "qa_qc_compliance": "pass|warn|fail", "evidence_completeness": "pass|warn|fail", "narrative_consistency": "pass|warn|fail" }, "blocking_issues": ["..."], "required_revisions": ["..."], "payout_recommendation": "release_full" | "hold_for_revision" | "deny" }

escrow_funding_model

deferred_per_booking