Systems Engineer III

We need to output HTML fragment with sections: h3 headings for sections present: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. We must only include sections that have real specific content. We need to parse the job posting. Given posting: Title: Senior Systems Engineer (implied). Summary: Job Description Role: We are seeking an experienced Senior Systems Engineer... In this role, you will: ... (list). Then "Key Responsibilities" bullet list. Then "Basic Qualifications" list. Then "Preferred Qualifications" list. Then "Physical Demands" (maybe not a section we need). Then "Clearance Level No Clearance". Then "The Salary Range For This Role Is $100,500 - $153,250". Then "Benefits: AV offers an excellent benefits package including medical, dental vision, 401K with company matching, a 9/80 work schedule and a paid holiday shutdown." Then more about company etc. Also "ITAR Requirement" etc. Also "About AV" etc. We need to produce sections: About the role (maybe from summary?), Responsibilities (Key Responsibilities), Requirements (maybe Basic Qualifications?), Qualifications (Preferred Qualifications?), Skills (maybe combine?), Benefits, Pay, Schedule. We must not repeat job title as heading. Must not include Job ID etc. Must preserve all substantive info, not invent. We need to decide which sections to include. We have content for: - About the role: The initial paragraph describing role and what you will do. Could be considered "About the role". It includes: "We are seeking an experienced Senior Systems Engineer to perform systems engineering activities for a family of Unmanned Systems supporting defense and commercial applications. In this role, you will: Perform systems engineering across the full systems engineering V, including requirements decomposition, functional analysis (using MBSE), and verification and validation planning and execution. Collaborate with mechanical, electrical, software, and integration teams to develop, review, and implement system architectures and requirements. Contribute to process and tool improvements and share technical knowledge with team members." That's substantive. - Responsibilities: The "Key Responsibilities" bullet list. - Requirements: Could be "Basic Qualifications". That's a list of qualifications needed. - Qualifications: Could be "Preferred Qualifications". That's also a list. - Skills: Might be derived from both basic and preferred? But we already have Requirements and Qualifications sections. The instruction says use sections like Skills if there is specific content. We could combine skills from both? But we already have Requirements and Qualifications; maybe we can omit Skills if no distinct skills section. However we have many skill-like items in basic qualifications: proficiency in MBSE using SysML, experience with requirements management tools, etc. Those are qualifications. Could treat them as Skills. But we already have Requirements and Qualifications; maybe we can put Skills as a separate section summarizing technical skills: MBSE, SysML, Cameo, Jama, verification, etc. However we must not invent or summarize away detail; we must preserve ALL substantive information. If we create a Skills section, we need to take content from somewhere else and not duplicate? The instruction: "Preserve ALL substantive information; do NOT invent or summarize away detail." It doesn't forbid reorganizing content into appropriate sections as long as we keep all info. So we can move bullet points under appropriate headings. But we must not lose any info. So we can create sections: About the role (summary paragraph), Responsibilities (key responsibilities), Requirements (basic qualifications), Qualifications (preferred qualifications), Benefits, Pay, Schedule. Skills maybe not needed if we already have Requirements and Qualifications covering skills. However the instruction says "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." So we could combine Requirements and Qualifications into one "Requirements" section that includes both basic and preferred? But they differentiate basic vs preferred. Might be better to have two sections: Requirements (basic) and Qualifications (preferred). That's two sections. We also have Pay: salary range given. So we need a Pay section with that info. Schedule: The benefits mention "a 9/80 work schedule". That's a schedule detail. Also maybe we could include schedule section with that info. The benefits also mention paid holiday shutdown. But schedule is specifically 9/80 work schedule. So we can create a Schedule section with that detail. Benefits: we have benefits paragraph. We also have Physical Demands, Clearance Level, ITAR Requirement, About AV, EEO etc. Those are boilerplate or extra info. The instruction says remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate, duplicated lines, and application instructions. So we should remove sections like Physical Demands, Clearance Level, ITAR Requirement, About AV, EEO statements, etc. However we need to preserve ALL substantive information. Are those considered substantive? The instruction says remove boilerplate like EEO, legal, etc. So we can drop them. Physical Demands maybe not boilerplate but could be considered extra; but it's not listed as boilerplate to remove. However it's not a standard section heading we have; we could include it under maybe Requirements? But it's not a qualification. It's about physical demands. The instruction says we should include a section only when posting has real, specific content for it. It does have physical demands content. But we don't have a standard heading for Physical Demands; we could maybe include it under Requirements? But that might be mixing. However we could create a section "Physical Demands" but we only have headings list: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. Physical Demands is not in that list, so we should not create a heading outside the list. So we must either drop it or incorporate into existing allowed headings if appropriate. The instruction: "Use

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It says e.g., implying those are examples, but likely we should only use those headings. It says "include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it — never emit a heading followed by filler/placeholder text". So we can only use those headings. So we must map content to those headings. Physical Demands could go under Requirements? Not really. Could go under Skills? Not really. Could be omitted? But we must preserve ALL substantive information. If we omit physical demands, we lose info. However maybe physical demands is considered boilerplate? Not exactly. But maybe it's okay to omit because it's not in the list of allowed headings and we cannot create new headings. The instruction says "Use

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." The "e.g." suggests those are examples, not an exhaustive list. But later: "include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it — never emit a heading followed by filler/placeholder text". It doesn't forbid other headings, but the examples given are those. However the instruction earlier: "Use

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." So we could use other headings if needed, but they gave examples. Safer to stick to those headings. If we cannot fit Physical Demands, maybe we can incorporate into Responsibilities or Requirements as a bullet? But it's not a responsibility or requirement; it's a demand. Could be considered a requirement (ability to work in office and manufacturing environment). That could be a qualification. So we could add it under Requirements as a bullet: "Ability to work in an office and manufacturing environment; required to sit and stand for long periods; talk, hear, and use hands and fingers to operate a computer and telephone keyboard." That seems plausible as a requirement. So we can incorporate physical demands into Requirements. Clearance Level: "No Clearance" but earlier they said ability to obtain and maintain a US DoD Secret security clearance. Actually Basic Qualifications includes ability to obtain and maintain a US DoD Secret security clearance. Then later "Clearance Level No Clearance" contradictory? Probably a mistake; but we have the clearance requirement in Basic Qualifications. So we keep that. ITAR Requirement: This is substantive but not in allowed headings. Could be placed under Requirements? It's a requirement: must be US person, etc. Could be added under Requirements as bullet. But we already have Requirements section for basic qualifications; we could add ITAR requirement there. However the instruction says preserve ALL substantive information. So we need to include ITAR info somewhere. We could add a bullet under Requirements: "Must qualify as a U.S. person under ITAR/EAR; able to obtain export license if needed." Or we could create a separate section "Requirements" that includes both basic qualifications and ITAR etc. That's okay. About AV: company description; could be considered "About the role"? Not exactly. Could be omitted as boilerplate? It's more marketing. Might be considered boilerplate but not EEO. The instruction says remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate, duplicated lines, and application instructions. About AV is not explicitly listed, but could be considered company overview, maybe not required. However it's substantive about the company. But we already have About the role section; we could incorporate company description there? The About the role currently is about the role; we could add a sentence about company? But that might be mixing. However we could keep About AV as a separate section but not in allowed headings. Could we treat it as "About the role"? Not really. Might be better to omit it as it's not required for the job posting core. The instruction says preserve ALL substantive information; but maybe company description is considered boilerplate? Not sure. Safer to keep it? But we cannot create a heading outside allowed list. Could we put it under "About the role" as a paragraph? The About the role currently is about the role; we could add a paragraph about the company after the role description. That would still be under About the role heading. That would preserve the info. So we can merge About AV content into About the role section. EEO statements: remove. Thus final sections: About the role (includes role description and company overview), Responsibilities (key responsibilities), Requirements (basic qualifications + physical demands + ITAR requirement + clearance?), Qualifications (preferred qualifications), Benefits, Pay, Schedule. We need to ensure we don't repeat job title as heading. We'll not include any heading for Senior Systems Engineer. We need to output only HTML fragment, no /. Use

for each section heading. Use

• for lists. Use

  for prose. We need to preserve all substantive information: let's extract details. About the role: original paragraph: "We are seeking an experienced Senior Systems Engineer to perform systems engineering activities for a family of Unmanned Systems supporting defense and commercial applications. In this role, you will: Perform systems engineering across the full systems engineering V, including requirements decomposition, functional analysis (using MBSE), and verification and validation planning and execution.Collaborate with mechanical, electrical, software, and integration teams to develop, review, and implement system architectures and requirements.Contribute to process and tool improvements and share technical knowledge with team members." Note there are missing spaces after periods; we should preserve as is but we can format nicely. We'll keep the sentences. Add company overview from About AV: "AV isn’t for everyone. We hire the curious, the relentless, the mission-obsessed. The best of the best. We don’t just build defense technology—we redefine what’s possible. As the premier autonomous systems company in the U.S., AV delivers breakthrough capabilities across air, land, sea, space, and cyber. From AI-powered drones and loitering munitions to integrated autonomy and space resilience, our technologies shape the future of warfare and protect those who serve. Founded by legendary innovator Dr. Paul MacCready, AV has spent over