Evidence and Quality Assurance Lead

EVIDENCE & QUALITY ASSURANCE LEAD INTERN — WORKING LEADERSHIP ROLE

ABOUT PROJECT GUARDIAN

Project Guardian is a structured, multidisciplinary internship initiative operated by Morsby, Gorman, McCarthy LLC. The program focuses on developing research, implementation strategy, partnership frameworks, and funding-readiness materials for a proposed Kenya-centered infrastructure pilot within a broader global infrastructure initiative.

The internship is designed to expose participants to the intersection of infrastructure planning, public policy, international development, research, evidence evaluation, program management, risk, communications, and public-private partnership strategy.

Project Guardian remains a research, planning, and educational initiative. Participation does not authorize an intern to represent the company, implement infrastructure activities, provide regulated professional services, certify technical conclusions, or make commitments to external parties.

PROGRAM TERMS

• Program period: October 26, 2026–February 5, 2027

• Planned holiday pause: December 19, 2026 through January 3, 2027
• No routine assignments or meetings are expected during the holiday pause
• Fully remote and asynchronous-first
• Participants ordinarily contribute 5–10 hours per week
• Work exceeding 10 hours in a week requires advance written approval and may not exceed approximately 15 hours
• Scheduling will reasonably accommodate academic calendars, examinations, religious observances, disabilities, approved accommodations, and previously disclosed obligations
• The internship is unpaid
• Academic credit may be available only when approved by the participant’s institution
• Academic credit is not guaranteed and is not required to participate
• Participation does not promise or imply future paid employment, compensation, travel, continued engagement, or appointment to a permanent position

The program has a defined and limited duration. Hours may be reduced, assignments may be rescheduled, and participation may be modified when necessary to protect the participant’s academic obligations or comply with institutional requirements.

EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE

This is a structured, project-based learning experience. Participants receive defined learning objectives, supervised assignments, written instructions, access to relevant background materials, milestone-based feedback, reasonable revision opportunities, and exposure to multidisciplinary infrastructure, policy, research, funding, evidence, and program-management work.

Assignments are designed to develop transferable skills through bounded educational projects rather than to substitute for regular paid staff. Interns will not be used to fill routine vacancies or independently perform functions requiring licensed, regulated, or otherwise specially authorized professionals.

The company may derive value from accepted internship work, but educational development, supervision, feedback, and demonstrable learning remain essential features of the program. Assignments may be revised or discontinued when adequate supervision, educational value, appropriate authorization, or safe and responsible execution cannot be maintained.

Participants may produce portfolio-appropriate work, subject to confidentiality, intellectual-property, attribution, security, privacy, and release requirements. No project material may be included in a portfolio or shared externally without prior written authorization.

Academic credit may be available only when approved by the participant’s institution. Participants are responsible for initiating their institution’s academic-credit or internship-authorization process. Morsby, Gorman, McCarthy LLC will reasonably consider requests for learning agreements, supervisor confirmations, progress evaluations, final evaluations, hour verification, or comparable institutional documentation.

Institutional cooperation remains subject to review of the requested terms, administrative capacity, applicable requirements, and company authorization. The company cannot guarantee that it will execute every institution-specific agreement or accept requirements that materially alter the program, create unsupported representations, or impose obligations it cannot responsibly fulfill.

ROLE PURPOSE

The Evidence and Quality Assurance Lead Intern develops and applies the internal standards used to evaluate whether Project Guardian’s research, analysis, claims, citations, calculations, visualizations, and major deliverables are adequately supported, transparent, internally consistent, and ready to advance to the next stage of review.

This is a working educational leadership position. The selected participant will coordinate bounded quality-review activities and assist other participants while also personally reviewing sources, claims, data, calculations, drafts, and priority deliverables.

Because the program produces multidisciplinary work, the Lead will apply a documented, risk-based review process. Consequential claims, calculations, recommendations, and external-facing materials will receive greater attention than low-risk internal working materials.

The Lead’s role is to identify concerns, document corrections, provide educational feedback, and recommend internal readiness. The position does not grant authority to certify legal, engineering, accounting, investment, safety, cybersecurity, medical, regulatory, or other professional conclusions.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

By the end of the internship, the participant should be able to:

• Develop proportionate evidence and quality-assurance standards for multidisciplinary project work
• Evaluate sources for authority, relevance, currency, independence, methodology, and limitations
• Determine whether a citation actually supports the proposition attributed to it
• Distinguish verified facts from estimates, assumptions, inferences, scenarios, opinions, and unresolved questions
• Review calculations, tables, comparisons, and quantitative claims for transparency and reproducibility
• Establish risk-based priorities for reviewing major claims and deliverables
• Document errors, corrections, dispositions, and unresolved concerns in an auditable manner
• Provide clear, constructive, specific, and educational revision guidance
• Preserve appropriate independence while collaborating respectfully with authors and workstream leaders
• Identify and escalate potential plagiarism, fabricated sourcing, conflicts of interest, misleading presentation, or material evidence gaps
• Evaluate AI-assisted work without treating AI-generated output as an authoritative source
• Recognize when an issue requires qualified legal, technical, financial, regulatory, or other professional review
• Reflect on review quality, calibration, recurring errors, and opportunities for process improvement

PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES

• Develop and maintain practical evidence, citation, fact-checking, calculation-review, and quality-assurance standards
• Establish risk tiers and review priorities for claims, analyses, visuals, recommendations, and deliverables
• Review substantive claims for source quality, accuracy, relevance, currency, independence, methodology, and appropriate qualification
• Verify that citations and source records support the propositions attributed to them
• Review important calculations, tables, summaries, comparisons, charts, and quantitative claims for internal consistency and reproducibility
• Maintain source-provenance, version-control, methodology, and calculation-support records for priority materials
• Identify unsupported assertions, conflicting evidence, missing assumptions, inappropriate causal claims, and material uncertainty
• Distinguish confirmed findings from estimates, inferences, scenarios, assumptions, and unresolved questions
• Verify significant Kenya-specific claims using credible local, regional, governmental, academic, or otherwise appropriate sources when available
• Avoid treating the absence of easily accessible evidence as proof that a local condition, institution, or stakeholder position does not exist
• Independently evaluate material developed with generative AI tools; AI-generated output may not serve as evidence or replace an authoritative source
• Maintain quality-control checklists, review records, source logs, correction queues, exception records, and readiness statuses
• Classify reviewed work according to documented statuses such as ready to advance, ready with minor corrections, revision required, or blocked by a material issue
• Coordinate review assignments, peer checks, sampling, and calibration activities across relevant teams
• Return work with specific, respectful, constructive, and actionable revision guidance
• Verify whether required corrections have been addressed before recommending advancement
• Record unresolved disagreements and the evidentiary basis for the Lead’s recommendation
• Escalate significant factual, methodological, ethical, reputational, authorship, or conflict-of-interest concerns
• Disclose personal conflicts or limitations that could affect the independence or reliability of a review
• Protect confidential, personal, restricted, and predecisional information encountered during review
• Produce substantive research, analytical, methodological, or written work in addition to leadership duties
• Cross-train team members and maintain usable review instructions and handoff records to preserve continuity

The Lead is not expected to personally verify every item produced by a large multidisciplinary cohort. The educational objective is to design and apply a proportionate review system, prioritize material risks, document limitations, and escalate matters requiring specialized expertise.

SUPERVISION, INDEPENDENCE, AND FEEDBACK

The Evidence and Quality Assurance Lead Intern reports primarily to the Program Director and coordinates routine operating matters through the Deputy Program and Operations Manager. The Executive Sponsor or another expressly designated company supervisor retains final authority.

The Lead must collaborate with authors, analysts, editors, and workstream leaders while preserving the ability to report material evidence-integrity concerns accurately. Serious unresolved concerns involving fabricated sourcing, methodological integrity, ethics, conflicts, or material misrepresentation may be escalated directly to the Executive Sponsor.

Supervision is expected to include:

• Written role expectations and review assignments
• Access to approved evidence, citation, correction, and quality standards
• Regular progress, workload, calibration, and capacity check-ins
• Guidance on risk-based review priorities and the boundaries of the role
• Written or documented feedback on review quality and substantive work
• Reasonable revision opportunities when educationally appropriate
• Sample-based calibration with other reviewers
• A midpoint review or equivalent developmental checkpoint
• A final performance and learning review
• Institution-required evaluations or hour verification when previously approved and administratively feasible

The participant is expected to communicate promptly when evidence is unavailable, an assignment exceeds their expertise, a conflict may affect independence, workload becomes unmanageable, or additional guidance is required.

EXPECTED OUTPUTS

Expected outputs may include:

• Evidence and quality-assurance standards
• Risk-based review and prioritization framework
• Source, citation, provenance, methodology, and version-control protocol
• Claim, calculation, reproducibility, visual-accuracy, and consistency checklists
• Quality-review, correction, exception, and disposition logs
• Written review notes and revision recommendations
• Approval-readiness assessments for major internal deliverables
• Reviewer-calibration notes or sample-review comparisons
• Summaries of recurring quality problems and recommended corrective measures
• Research-gap, uncertainty, and professional-review referrals
• Substantive contributions to project research, methodology, and documentation
• A final reflection or learning summary identifying outcomes, challenges, revisions, and transferable lessons

Output scope may be adjusted according to program priorities, participant availability, educational needs, supervisory capacity, evidence quality, and applicable institutional requirements.

PERFORMANCE AND LEARNING ASSESSMENT

Performance will be assessed using factors such as:

• Accuracy, completeness, and proportionality of reviews
• Ability to identify material concerns without overstating minor issues
• Quality of source, citation, calculation, and methodology evaluation
• Transparency in documenting uncertainty, limitations, and unresolved questions
• Constructiveness, specificity, and professionalism of revision guidance
• Reliability and timely communication
• Responsiveness to calibration and supervisory feedback
• Documentation, source-management, file-management, and handoff discipline
• Appropriate preservation of review independence and disclosure of conflicts
• Ethical judgment, confidentiality, attribution, and responsible AI practices
• Demonstrated progress toward the stated learning objectives

The internship is developmental. Feedback or requested revision does not automatically signify failure. However, material misrepresentation, fabricated or altered evidence, plagiarism, concealment of conflicts, confidentiality violations, unauthorized external activity, or inability to satisfy essential participation requirements may result in narrowed duties, reassignment, suspension, or discontinuation.

PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS

Strong candidates may include advanced undergraduate students, graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, recent graduates, alumni, faculty members participating in an eligible structured capacity, early-career professionals, or applicants with comparable evidence-intensive experience.

Exceptional juniors may be considered when supported by unusually strong role-relevant work, careful judgment, and demonstrated readiness.

Strong candidates will demonstrate:

• Strong research, analytical, and written-communication skills
• Careful attention to detail without losing sight of the project’s purpose and material risks
• Experience evaluating sources, citations, evidence, research methods, data, calculations, or analytical claims
• Ability to identify uncertainty, unsupported conclusions, contradictory evidence, and internal inconsistencies
• Sound judgment when distinguishing material errors from minor editorial matters
• Ability to prioritize reviews according to consequence, likelihood, and external significance
• Ability to provide clear, respectful, and actionable feedback
• Reliability in documenting reviews and following corrections through completion
• Willingness to disclose potential conflicts and preserve the integrity of quality findings
• Ability to recognize the limits of personal expertise and request specialized review
• Ability to work respectfully across disciplines, institutions, cultures, and time zones
• Familiarity with shared documents, spreadsheets, citation systems, research databases, or collaborative review tools
• Responsible use of AI-assisted tools, including disclosure, verification, attribution, and human review

Experience in research methods, policy analysis, economics, public administration, infrastructure, development studies, law, data analysis, academic publishing, evaluation, auditing, or a related field may be helpful but is not required.

No single academic major guarantees or precludes selection. Academic standing or title alone will not substitute for availability, execution quality, communication, ethical conduct, documentation discipline, or continuity readiness.

APPLICATION MATERIALS

Applicants should submit through this Handshake posting:

• Resume or CV
• Cover letter or short statement explaining their interest and relevant evidence-review, research, audit, evaluation, or quality-assurance experience
• One relevant research, analytical, methodological, audit, fact-checking, data, or quality-review sample; clearly labeled classroom work is acceptable
• Availability, time zone, current location, anticipated scheduling conflicts, and any academic-credit or institutional requirements

Applicants should identify their individual contribution to collaborative work. Confidential material should not be submitted unless the applicant has authorization to share it. Redacted samples are acceptable when they still permit meaningful evaluation.

References will be requested selectively when necessary to verify experience, resolve conflicting information, or assess a sensitive responsibility.

SELECTION PROCESS

Initial evaluation will be conducted asynchronously. Applications will be reviewed for role alignment, evidence of readiness, communication quality, availability, ethical judgment, and ability to benefit from and contribute to the educational experience.

Shortlisted candidates may complete a bounded role-specific exercise requiring them to audit a short analytical passage containing mixed-quality sources, unsupported claims, citation problems, and methodological limitations, and then provide a prioritized correction plan.

The exercise is for candidate evaluation and will not be used as uncompensated production work for an active external project.

Live conversations will be reserved for finalists or situations requiring clarification. References will be requested selectively. Reasonable accommodations may be requested during the application and selection process.

ELIGIBILITY AND INSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS

Final participation is conditional upon eligibility, documentation, supervisory capacity, confidentiality requirements, access clearance, and any applicable university, academic-credit, work-authorization, insurance, export-control, location-specific, or other program requirements.

Applicants must not begin program work until all required reviews, agreements, and approvals applicable to their participation are complete.

International participation, academic credit, and institution-sponsored participation may require additional review. Selection for the role does not override a participant’s institution, immigration status, work authorization, location-based restrictions, or other applicable requirements.

If an institution requires special documentation or terms, the request must be reviewed before participation begins. The company may approve, propose revisions to, or decline requirements that it cannot accurately represent or responsibly administer.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY, CONFIDENTIALITY, AND RESPONSIBLE TECHNOLOGY USE

Participants may receive access only to information reasonably necessary for their approved assignments. They must follow applicable confidentiality, privacy, sourcing, attribution, document-control, and access instructions.

Participants must not:

• Fabricate, alter, conceal, or misrepresent evidence, citations, calculations, methods, review results, or correction status
• Submit plagiarized or improperly attributed work
• Treat AI-generated output, search snippets, unsourced summaries, or secondary commentary as authoritative evidence without appropriate verification
• Upload confidential, restricted, personal, or unpublished information into unapproved systems
• Share project materials, personal information, credentials, review records, or internal communications without authorization
• Represent estimates, assumptions, scenarios, draft findings, partnerships, or approvals as established facts
• Approve their own substantive work without the required independent review
• Include project work in a portfolio without written release approval

AI-assisted tools may be used only when permitted for the assignment. Their use must be disclosed when requested, and all material claims, citations, calculations, summaries, and outputs remain subject to human verification.

REPORTING AND AUTHORITY LIMITATIONS

The Lead may apply approved internal quality standards, request information necessary for an assigned review, return work for correction, document unresolved concerns, and recommend whether a deliverable is ready to advance internally.

Final substantive approval, risk acceptance, external disclosure, and publication authority remain with authorized program leadership. A readiness recommendation does not guarantee final approval.

The Lead’s work is an internal educational research and quality assessment. It does not constitute legal advice, an audit opinion, engineering validation, financial or investment advice, accounting assurance, safety certification, cybersecurity certification, regulatory approval, or any other licensed professional determination.

The Lead may not independently:

• Contact government officials, universities, funders, prospective partners, media, communities, or other external stakeholders
• Publish findings, corrections, or project materials
• Issue public statements or speak on behalf of the company
• Make financial, contractual, procurement, hiring, disciplinary, or institutional commitments
• Represent that a government, institution, community, company, funder, or partner supports the project
• Change approved project scope, conclusions, public positioning, program terms, or funding requests
• Release confidential, restricted, draft, or externally controlled information
• Override an authorized professional determination
• Perform or certify legal, engineering, accounting, investment, medical, safety, cybersecurity, regulatory, or other licensed professional work

The internship does not promise travel, external representation, future employment, compensation, or authority to act on behalf of Morsby, Gorman, McCarthy LLC.