Identify and rank 20–30 real, verifiable, highly relevant candidates for a hybrid Social Engineering Analyst contract in Vienna, Virginia or Pensacola, Florida — prioritizing hands-on enterprise phishing simulations, smishing/custom social engineering, awareness-program operations, campaign configuration/launch/QA, metrics and stakeholder coordination. Score each out of 100 with the supplied framework, rank the top 10, flag the best three for immediate outreach, and add no generic or fabricated candidates.
26 public-profile prospects were fully evidence-reviewed from live web sourcing on 2026-10-30; 23 scored at least 70 points out of 100 and form the qualified priority pool, while 3 fell below 70 after stricter review and sit on a separate low-priority watchlist. Every row carries its own public source link; 25 are LinkedIn public profiles and one is an AeroLeads profile.
Gold names mark the three immediate-outreach picks; the hairline under rank 10 separates the top 10 from the rest of the qualified pool. Hover a bar for the verified evidence behind it.
25 of the 26 prospects list Northern Virginia, Washington DC or Maryland locations plausible for a three-day Vienna hybrid schedule — including all three immediate-outreach picks (Washington DC metro and Arlington). Public evidence does not confirm onsite commitment for any of them; treat location as commute plausibility only.
One prospect lists Pensacola: Jon Runnels (rank 10, score 80), Information Security Manager at Ascension, running simulated-phishing and awareness programs at very large scale. He is the only Florida Panhandle candidate who survived evidence filtering.
| # | Name | Title / employer | Location | Score | Priority | Verified phishing execution | Tools | Source |
|---|
Method: live public-web sourcing on 2026-10-30 across title, tool, campaign, Northern Virginia/DC and Florida Panhandle searches; 180 candidate-like mentions across three search tracks were deduplicated and evidence/geography-filtered to 26 scored rows (one row per prospect, two source hosts, each row with its own URL). Scores are out of 100 across eight components; no credit was given without public evidence, and recurring enterprise execution was distinguished from isolated projects. Names shown as initials are preserved exactly as publicly displayed; no phone numbers or emails were collected. With one explicit exception, public evidence does not confirm availability, contract interest, rate or onsite acceptance — confirm identity, full name, current employment, 5–10-year fit, work authorization, onsite commitment, availability and rate before submission. Long evidence text and certification lists are truncated in the table for space; full detail sits on each linked profile.