Growth Product Design Evaluator – Experimentation
Part-Time W2 Contract | Fully Remote – U.S.
Pay: $160–$195/hour W2 depending on level of experience
Schedule: Approximately 2–3 hours per day, with flexibility around when the work is completed
Contract: Through the end of the year, with potential to extend
Employer: Russell Tobin, supporting a leading high-growth AI company
Russell Tobin is partnering with a leading AI technology company to hire a Growth Product Design Evaluator for a specialized, part-time engagement supporting its growth organization.
We are not looking for product design experience broadly. We are looking for designers who have developed strong instincts around incremental growth product design and experimentation — the work of evaluating whether relatively small changes to a page, flow, or interaction are likely to improve measurable product outcomes.
The growth team runs a high volume of experiments, many of which begin as AI-generated design treatments. Your role will be to review those treatments, determine what works and what does not, and clearly explain why.
Your evaluations will help train and improve an automated design reviewer, which means consistency, judgment, and clear reasoning matter more than speed or volume.
What This Role Is
This is primarily design evaluation and labeling work.
You will not be creating comps, owning product surfaces, or building new experiences from scratch. Instead, you will repeatedly review generated design treatments and use your product judgment, growth instincts, and experimentation experience to help improve them.
You should genuinely enjoy evaluating other people's—or AI-generated—work without needing to be the person creating the final design.
What You'll Do
- Review growth-oriented design treatments against a written design bar and set of guidelines
- Score and label treatments using an internal review tool
- Determine whether a proposed treatment is strong or weak and explain why
- Write short, useful critiques when a decision requires additional context
- Think beyond the options presented and identify stronger potential approaches when appropriate
- Flag recurring design mistakes, gaps in existing guidelines, and cases the current rules do not adequately address
- Apply consistent judgment across a high volume of similar evaluations
- Participate in a short weekly calibration session with the Head of Design for the growth organization
- Help translate strong product judgment into feedback that can improve an automated design-review system
Who We're Looking For
Direct growth or experimentation experience is essential.
You have worked directly on a growth, conversion, optimization, or experimentation-heavy product team.
Being adjacent to a growth team is not enough.
This is the strongest signal we are looking for, regardless of seniority. Incremental conversion and experimentation work requires a different set of instincts than brand design, marketing design, or primarily 0→1 product design.
You should also have:
- Hands-on experience running, supporting, or analyzing A/B tests yourself
- Experience using quantitative results to evaluate product or design decisions
- The ability to describe specific experiments you have worked on, including the metric being measured and the actual result
- Strong product judgment and the ability to reason through why one treatment may outperform another
- Comfort making predictions based on data and being proven wrong by experiment results
- The ability to give specific, actionable feedback rather than broad or subjective design commentary
- Strong written communication, particularly the ability to make a useful point briefly
- Comfort performing repetitive evaluation work with consistency and attention to detail
- No ego around reviewing, grading, or critiquing work created by someone—or something—else
What Strong Experience Looks Like
We are especially interested in candidates who can talk concretely about experiments they have worked on.
For example:
- What was the hypothesis?
- What did you change?
- What metric were you trying to move?
- How was the experiment structured?
- What actually happened?
- What did you learn from the result?
Strong candidates can connect their design decisions to specific metrics and measurable outcomes, rather than describing a redesign simply as a successful launch or portfolio win.
Nice to Have
- Experience writing or maintaining design guidelines, heuristics, quality bars, or review rubrics
- Experience working on high-volume experimentation programs
- Experience evaluating multiple treatment variations against consistent criteria
- Familiarity with AI-assisted product or design workflows
This Probably Isn't the Right Fit If
- Your background is primarily in brand, marketing, visual, or creative design
- Most of your experience is traditional product design without direct growth experimentation ownership
- You have collaborated with experimentation teams but have not personally run or analyzed A/B tests
- Your strongest examples focus on launches, redesigns, or portfolio work without measurable experiment outcomes
- You are primarily looking for an opportunity to create original designs, own a product area, or build a portfolio
- You would find several hours of recurring design evaluation and labeling frustrating or monotonous
#RTA
#LI-BK1
.png?format=webp)
.png?format=webp)
