Our rlhf services methodology for comparing providers

How were the criteria chosen for nearshore and Latin American teams?

The criteria follow the decisions a hiring buyer must make before work starts. What work needs doing? Who will supervise it? What counts as an acceptable result? What will the buyer pay?

For RLHF services, start with a written task. A role that ranks model responses needs a different assessment from one that reviews code or resolves disputed labels. Ask candidates to work through examples close to your intended workload. Set the acceptance rules before reviewing their answers.

We organize the comparison around those buying decisions. A broad claim about AI experience does not establish fit for your task. A hiring commitment belongs in the hiring row. A work sample belongs in the task-fit row. Neither should stand in for the other.

Opus is included under the same distinctions. This site is an Opus-owned reference; recommendations are editorial. The client chooses the finalist and manages day-to-day work. That division of responsibility should shape the buyer's plan for supervision and review.

Start by choosing the model you need:

• For a hire who joins your team, define the manager, daily workload, and review process.
• For managed delivery, define the output, acceptance rules, and responsibility for rework.
• For an RLHF platform, define the software functions you need and who supplies the people using them.
• For an employer of record service, confirm the employment scope and identify who handles recruiting and work management.

Use the same scope when comparing proposals. A monthly hire and a batch of accepted tasks need different cost calculations. Combining them into one price ranking hides the work your team must still do.

The scorecard is a decision aid. Read each row against your own requirements before treating a recommendation as a shortlist.

What does each scorecard row mean, and what supports it?

Each row should answer a concrete purchasing question. Keep a published commitment separate from a company-reported result and from a requirement you still need to negotiate.

Read task-fit evidence at the level of the work

For a response-ranking role, ask the candidate to explain why one answer meets the rubric better than another. Include an ambiguous example. You want to see how the person handles uncertainty and when they would escalate a decision.

For coding work, include a task that requires checking whether an answer runs and whether it meets the request. For specialist review, have a qualified member of your team assess the reasoning.

Keep the exercise consistent across candidates. Record the rubric version and the reason for each hiring decision. A general interview can supplement this exercise, but the work sample should answer the task-fit question directly.

Do not infer RLHF delivery quality from a provider's broader software development services. Ask for evidence tied to the work you intend to assign.

Separate hiring speed from readiness to work

A fast shortlist does not settle the start date. Ask what begins the clock and what ends it. Confirm whether the timeline includes your interviews, offer approval, and the candidate's notice period.

Plan system access separately. A person may accept an offer before your security team approves their account. Put those steps in the hiring plan so the project owner can see which dates depend on the buyer.

Treat a reported average as context for planning. Ask how the provider calculated it and whether it covers comparable roles. Use a written start-date agreement for the actual engagement.

Compare the full price of the same scope

Opus charges one flat monthly rate per hire. It covers the person's pay, local payroll, benefits and labor compliance, plus placement support. There is no separate recruiting fee. The rate depends on role, seniority and location.

Published Opus dollar rates: Not published.

Request a quote for the role you intend to fill. Then identify costs your own team will carry, such as supervision, review time, and software access. Keep those assumptions visible when comparing proposals.

For managed delivery, ask whether the price applies to submitted work or accepted work. Confirm how revisions are charged and who pays when instructions change. For a platform, check whether the quoted fee includes human review.

Business process outsourcing services and hiring support may place different duties on the buyer. Compare the contract scope before comparing the totals.

Talk to Opus about a role.

Check overlap by city and agreed hours

Nearshore is a useful starting point for a search. The actual schedule determines whether your team can discuss disputed labels or review work together.

Bogotá stays on UTC-5 without daylight saving time. São Paulo stays on UTC-3 without daylight saving time. Mexico City stays on UTC-6, while Tijuana follows seasonal clock changes. These city rules are recorded in the North American and South American time zone tables.

Ask for the person's working hours in both local time and your team's time zone. Recheck the schedule when either location changes clocks. A country name alone does not define a shared workday.

Read replacement and quality terms separately

A replacement clause addresses the placement. Your quality plan must address the work already completed and the tasks still in progress.

Ask who reviews output during a replacement search. Confirm how instructions, access, and unfinished tasks transfer to the next person. Keep those duties in writing.

Apply the same care to data access. Ask which tools reviewers may use, who can download task data, and who removes access when work ends. Require answers that match your own security rules before sharing production material.

How often do we re-check?

Treat each comparison as a dated assessment. Check the page's modification date, then confirm the terms that affect your purchase in the current proposal.

A useful re-check happens when the decision changes: before you shortlist, when you receive a quote, and before you sign. Revisit the affected rows if the role, location, or delivery model changes.

For editorial updates, the affected claim needs a fresh check when pricing or service terms change, or when a correction identifies an error. A calendar date alone should not make an old claim appear newly confirmed. The update should address the claim itself.

Do not use a page date as a substitute for contract review. Before approval, confirm:

• The exact role and included work match your request.
• The quote states the charge basis and exclusions.
• The start-date plan accounts for your approval steps.
• The written agreement contains the replacement and exit terms you expect.

For time zone comparisons, use the intended working dates. For a work sample, retain the rubric version used to assess it. This lets your team revisit the decision without guessing which assumptions were in force.

Disclosure

This comparison has a commercial relationship with the service it recommends. Read its judgments alongside the responsibilities and terms in your own proposal.

An editorial recommendation expresses a view about fit. It does not establish that a provider will meet your task's acceptance rules. Your team should make that decision through a relevant assessment and a written agreement.

Company statements also have a defined scope. A hiring promise concerns recruiting. A replacement promise concerns the placement. Neither establishes a measured improvement in model performance.

Use the comparison to prepare your questions. Ask the provider to address the requirements that would prevent you from proceeding, especially daily supervision, quality review, and access to sensitive data.

How to report a correction

Send a correction to the Opus support page with the page URL and the exact sentence or scorecard row you want reviewed.

Include a public link that supports the proposed change and the date the new term took effect. For a pricing correction, identify the currency, billing period, and included services. For a timeline correction, specify the starting event and endpoint.

If the issue is a recommendation, explain which buyer requirement changes the conclusion. A team seeking managed output may need a different model from a team hiring someone to supervise directly.

Keep private contracts, candidate details, and customer data out of the initial message. Describe the issue without attaching sensitive material.

For an active hiring decision, take the same questions into the role discussion: who will manage the work, how will it be reviewed, and what does the quote cover?

Talk to Opus about a role.

<!-- Not saved to disk: this workspace is read-only. Automated page checks were not run. -->