[Jun 27, 2026] ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam Dumps 100% Same Q&A In Your Real Exam
ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Test Engine Dumps Training With 200 Questions
PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam Syllabus Topics:
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| Topic 1 |
|
| Topic 2 |
|
| Topic 3 |
|
NEW QUESTION # 22
A healthcare provider wants to develop a system that can analyze medical images, such as X-rays and MRIs, to assist doctors in diagnosing diseases. Which AI concept is most relevant for this application?
- A. Computer Vision
- B. Machine Learning (ML)
- C. Natural Language Processing (NLP)
- D. Deep Learning (DL)
Answer: A
Explanation:
The AI concept most relevant for analyzingvisual data like X-rays and MRIsisComputer Vision. This field focuses on enabling machines tounderstand and interpret image and video data.
As outlined in thePECB Lead Auditor Guide - Domain 1, Computer Vision is specifically applied in medical imaging, object detection, facial recognition, and other tasks requiring interpretation of visual content.
WhileDeep Learningmay be used as an underlying technique (e.g., convolutional neural networks), Computer Visionis the broader and correct domain applicable to the question.
NEW QUESTION # 23
Scenario 4:
BioNovaPharm, a German biopharmaceutical company, has implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMSbased on ISO/IEC 42001 to optimize various aspects of drug discovery, including analyzing extensive biological data, identifying potentialdrug candidates, and streamlining clinical trial processes. After having the AIMS in place for over a year, the company contracted acertification body and is now undergoing an AIMS audit to obtain certification against ISO/IEC 42001.
Adopting a risk-based approach, the audit team focused on risk throughout their activities. The level of detail outlined in the audit plancorresponded to the scope and complexity of the audit. The team employed a ranking system for detailed audit procedures, prioritizingthose with the highest risk.
Once the stage 1 audit began, the audit team started reviewing the auditee's documented information. To assess whether BioNovaPharmcomplies with the legal and regulatory requirements related to incident communication, the audit team examined evidence provided bythe company's external legal office. The evidence confirmed that BioNovaPharm applies the requirements of the EU Al Act, whichmandates that providers of high-risk Al systems report serious incidents to relevant authorities.
Following the completion of the stage 1 audit, John, an audit team member, documented the stage 1 audit outputs, including theobservations of the audit team that could result in nonconformities during the on-site audit. However, the audit team leader, Emma, whowas overseeing the audit activities, observed that John failed to document significant observations related to the lack oftransparency inthe Al decision-making processes of BioNovaPharm. Considering that Emma observed John's lack of competence in undertaking some audit activities, a disciplinary note was recorded for John.
Question:
What type of evidence did the audit team obtain to assess BioNovaPharm's compliance with legal and regulatory incident reporting requirements?
- A. Technical
- B. Observational
- C. Analytical
- D. Confirmative
Answer: D
Explanation:
The audit team obtainedConfirmative evidence.
* ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 9.2.2 specifies that during audits, objective evidence such ascertifications, legal opinions, or official documentationthat confirms compliance must be collected.
* Confirmative evidence specifically refers to validated information fromindependent sources(in this case, external legal advice).
* TheLead Auditor Training Manualalso definesConfirmative Evidenceas:"Evidence that provides verification of conformance through reliable independent sources." Reference:ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 9.2.2; Lead Auditor Study Guide Chapter 7 ("Evidence Gathering Techniques").
NEW QUESTION # 24
Scenario 6 (continued):
Scenario 6: HappilyAI is a pioneering enterprise dedicated to developing and deploying artificial intelligence Al solutions tailored toenhance customer service experiences across various industries. The company offers innovative products like virtual assistants,predictive analytics tools, and personalized customer interaction platforms. As part of its commitment to operational excellence andinnovation, HappilyAI has implemented a robust Al management system AIMS to oversee its Al operations effectively. Currently.HappilyAI is undergoing a comprehensive audit process of its AIMS to evaluate its compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.
Under the leadership of Jess, the audit team began the audit process with meticulous planning and coordination, setting the groundworkfor the extensive on-site activities of the stage 1 audit. This initial phase was marked by a comprehensive documentation review. Theaudit scope encompassed a critical review of HappilyAI's core departments, including Research and Development (R&D), CustomerService, and Data Security, aiming to assess the conformity of HappilyAI's AIMS to the requirements of ISO/IEC 42001.
Afterward, Jess and the team conducted a formal opening meeting with HappilyAI to introduce the audit team and outline the auditactivities. The meeting set a collaborative tone for the subsequentphases, where the team engaged in information collection, executedaudit tests, identified findings, and prepared draft nonconformity reports while maintaining a strict quality review process.
In gathering evidence, the audit team employed a sampling method, which involved dividing the population into homogeneous groups toensure a comprehensive and representative data collection by drawing samples from each segment. Furthermore, the team employedobservation to deepen their understanding of the Al management processes. They verified the availability of essential documentation,including Al-related policies, and evaluated the communication channels established for reporting incidents.
Additionally, they scrutinized specific monitoring tools designed to track the performance of data acquisition processes, ensuring thesetools effectively identify and respond to errors or anomalies. However, a notable challenge emerged as the team encountered a lack ofaccess to documented information that describes how tasks about AIMS are executed. In addition to this, the team identified a potentialnonconformity within the Sales Department. They decided not to record this as a nonconformity in the audit report but onlycommunicated it to the HappilyAI's representatives.
During the stage 2 audit, the certification body, in collaboration with HappilyAI, assigned the roles of technical experts within the auditteam. Recognized for their specialized knowledge and expertise in artificial intelligence and its applications, these technical experts aretasked with the thorough assessment of the AIMS framework to ensure its alignment with industry standards and best practices,focusing on areas such as data ethics, algorithmic transparency, and Al system security.
Question:
Which observation types did the audit team use to enhance their understanding of the AI management processes?
- A. Qualitative and quantitative
- B. General and detailed
- C. Statistical and methodical
Answer: B
Explanation:
The audit team usedGeneral and Detailed observations:
* General observations refer to broad, overall assessments.
* Detailed observations involve in-depth, specific reviews of processes.
* ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.5.7states:"Auditors may conduct general observations to understand the context, followed by detailed observations to examine specific controls and compliance." Reference:ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.5.7; ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Study Manual, Section 6 ("Observation Techniques").
NEW QUESTION # 25
What type of audit evidence did Augustine gather when he collected management review records? Refer to scenario 3.
Scenario 3: Heala specializes in developing Al-driven solutions for the healthcare sector. With a keen focus on leveraging Al to revolutionize patient care, diagnostics, and treatment planning, the company has implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on ISO/IEC 42001. After a year of having the AIMS in place, the company decided to apply for a certification audit.
It contracted a local certification body, who established the audit team and assigned the audit team leader.
Augustine, the designated audit team leader, has a wide
range of skills relevant to various auditing domains. His proficiency encompasses audit principles, processes, and methods, as well as standards for management systems and additional references. Furthermore, he is knowledgeable about the Heala's context and relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Augustine first gathered management review records, interested party feedback logs, and revision histories for Heala's AIMS. This crucial step laid the groundwork for a deeper investigation, which included conducting comprehensive interviews with key personnel to understand how feedback from interested parties directly influenced updates to the AIMS and its strategic direction. Augustine's thorough evaluation process aimed to verify Heala's commitment to integrating the needs and expectations of interested parties, a critical requirement of ISO/IEC 42001.
Augustine also integrated a sophisticated Al tool to analyze large datasets for patterns and anomalies, and thus have a more informed and data driven audit process.
This Al solution, known for its ability to sift through vast amounts of data with unparalleled speed and accuracy, enabled Augustine to identify irregularities and trends that would have been nearly impossible to detect through manual methods. The tool was also helpful in preparing hypotheses based on data.
During the audit. Augustine failed to fully consider Heala's critical processes, expectations, the complexity of audit tasks, and necessary resources beforehand. This oversight compromised the audit integrity and reliability, reflecting a significant deviation from the diligence and informed judgment expected of auditors.
- A. Confirmative
- B. Observational
- C. Documentary
- D. Mathematical
Answer: C
Explanation:
Audit evidence can be classified into different types, including documentary, oral, observational, and physical. According to ISO 19011:2018 (Guidelines for Auditing Management Systems), which is referenced in ISO/IEC 42001:2023 for audit practice, "Documented information (such as policies, procedures, reports, records)" is considered documentary evidence.
In the scenario, Augustine collected:
Management review records
Feedback logs
Revision histories
All of these are written or electronic records and fall under documentary evidence.
Reference:
ISO 19011:2018, Clause 3.8 - Audit Evidence
ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Clause 9.2 - Internal audit evidence requirements
PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Study Guide, Chapter: Types of audit evidence
NEW QUESTION # 26
Scenario 2: OptiFlow is a logistics company located in New Delhi, India. The company has enhanced its operational efficiency and customer service by integrating AI across various domains, including route optimization, inventory management, and customer support. Recognizing the importance of AI in its operations, OptiFlow decided to implement an Artificial Intelligence Management System (AIMS) based on ISO/IEC 42001 to oversee and optimize the use of AI technologies.
To address Clauses 4.1 and 4.2 of the standard, OptiFlow identified and analyzed internal and external issues and needs and expectations of interested parties. During this phase, it identified specific risks and opportunities related to AI deployment, considering the system's domain, application context, intended use, and internal and external environments. Central to this initiative was the establishment and maintenance of AI risk criteria, a foundational step that facilitated comprehensive AI risk assessments, effective risk treatment strategies, and precise evaluations of risk impacts. This implementation aimed to meet AIMS's objectives, minimize adverse effects, and promote continuous improvement. OptiFlow also planned and integrated strategies to address risks and opportunities into AIMS's processes and assessed their effectiveness.
OptiFlow set measurable AI objectives aligned with its AI policy across all organizational levels, ensuring they met applicable requirements and matched the company's vision. The company placed strong emphasis on the monitoring and communication of these objectives, ensuring they were updated annually or as needed to reflect changes in technology, market demands, or internal processes. It also documented the objectives, making them accessible across the company.
To guarantee a structured and consistent AI risk assessment process, OptiFlow emphasized alignment with its AI policy and objectives. The process included ensuring consistency and comparability, identifying, analyzing, and evaluating AI risks.
OptiFlow prioritizes its AIMS by allocating the necessary resources for its comprehensive development and continuous enhancement. The company carefully defines the competencies needed for personnel affecting AI performance, ensuring a high level of expertise and innovation.
OptiFlow also manages effective internal and external communications about its AIMS, aligning with ISO
/IEC 42001 requirements by maintaining and controlling all required documented information. This documentation is meticulously identified, described, and updated to ensure its relevance and accessibility.
Through these strategic efforts, OptiFlow upholds a commitment to excellence and leadership in AI management practices.
To comply with Clause 9 of ISO/IEC 42001, the company determined what needs to be monitored and measured in the AIMS. It planned, established, implemented, and maintained an audit program, reviewed the AIMS at planned intervals, documented review results, and initiated a continuous feedback mechanism from all interested parties to identify areas of improvement and innovation within the AIMS.
Which of the following requirements of Clause 6.1.2 AI risk assessment did OptiFlow NOT consider?
- A. Documentation
- B. Cost minimization
- C. AI risk treatment
Answer: B
Explanation:
Clause 6.1.2 of ISO/IEC 42001:2023 addresses AI risk assessment and includes requirements such as:
* Establishing and applying AI risk assessment criteria
* Identifying and analyzing risks and opportunities
* Evaluating AI risks
* Planning for AI risk treatment
* Documenting the process and outcomes to ensure traceability and repeatability In the scenario, OptiFlow:
* Established and maintained AI risk criteria.
* Performed identification, analysis, and evaluation of risks.
* Integrated AI risk treatment into its AIMS.
* Maintained documentation of objectives and internal communications as per the standard.
However, there is no reference in the scenario to cost minimization, either as a guiding factor or an outcome of the AI risk assessment process. While cost control may be a strategic or operational consideration for a business, it is not a core requirement under Clause 6.1.2 and is clearly not discussed in OptiFlow's implementation activities in the scenario.
Therefore, "Cost minimization" is the element NOT considered, making it the correct answer.
Reference:
* ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Clause 6.1.2 - AI risk assessment
* ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Annex A - Guidance on AI risk identification and evaluation
* PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide, Section 6.1.2 - Interpretation of AI risk-based requirements
#############################################
NEW QUESTION # 27
Scenario 6:
Scenario 6: HappilyAI is a pioneering enterprise dedicated to developing and deploying artificial intelligence Al solutions tailored toenhance customer service experiences across various industries. The company offers innovative products like virtual assistants,predictive analytics tools, and personalized customer interaction platforms. As part of its commitment to operational excellence andinnovation, HappilyAI has implemented a robust Al management system AIMS to oversee its Al operations effectively. Currently.HappilyAI is undergoing a comprehensive audit process of its AIMS to evaluate its compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.
Under the leadership of Jess, the audit team began the audit process with meticulous planning and coordination, setting the groundworkfor the extensive on-site activities of the stage 1 audit. This initial phase was marked by a comprehensive documentation review. Theaudit scope encompassed a critical review of HappilyAI's core departments, including Research and Development (R&D), CustomerService, and Data Security, aiming to assess the conformity of HappilyAI's AIMS to the requirements of ISO/IEC 42001.
Afterward, Jess and the team conducted a formal opening meeting with HappilyAI to introduce the audit team and outline the auditactivities. The meeting set a collaborative tone for the subsequent phases, where the team engaged in information collection, executedaudit tests, identified findings, and prepared draft nonconformity reports while maintaining a strict quality review process.
In gathering evidence, the audit team employed a sampling method, which involved dividing the population into homogeneous groups toensure a comprehensive and representative data collection by drawing samples from each segment. Furthermore, the team employedobservation to deepen their understanding of the Al management processes. They verified the availability of essential documentation,including Al-related policies, and evaluated the communication channels established for reporting incidents.
Additionally, they scrutinized specific monitoring tools designed to track the performance of data acquisition processes, ensuring thesetools effectively identify and respond to errors or anomalies. However, a notable challenge emerged as the team encountered a lack ofaccess to documented information that describes how tasks about AIMS are executed. In addition to this, the team identified a potentialnonconformity within the Sales Department. They decided not to record this as a nonconformity in the audit report but onlycommunicated it to the HappilyAI's representatives.
During the stage 2 audit, the certification body, in collaboration with HappilyAI, assigned the roles of technical experts within the auditteam. Recognized for their specialized knowledge and expertise in artificial intelligence and its applications, these technical experts aretasked with the thorough assessment of the AIMS framework to ensure its alignment with industry standards and best practices,focusing on areas such as data ethics, algorithmic transparency, and Al system security.
Question:
Which level of documented information could the audit team NOT access?
- A. Level 3
- B. Level 2
- C. Level 1
Answer: A
Explanation:
Level 3 documentationtypically includes detailed procedures, work instructions, and records explaining exactlyhow tasks are performed.
* ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 7.5.1requires organizations to maintain documented information necessary for the effective functioning of the AIMS.
* TheLead Auditor Study Guideexplains:"Level 3 documents are the operational and procedural records that detail the execution of management system activities."The team lacked access to task execution procedures - indicating missing Level 3 documentation.
Reference:ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 7.5.1; ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.3.
NEW QUESTION # 28
Question:
Which statement most accurately characterizes semantic computing?
- A. It emphasizes purely statistical data analysis
- B. It focuses on integrating diverse computational techniques capable of handling imprecision, uncertainty, and partial truth when addressing intricate problems
- C. It aims to close the disparity between how computers process information and how humans interpret it
- D. It involves acquiring and processing knowledge through reasoning, learning, perception, and other cognitive processes
Answer: C
Explanation:
Semantic computingfocuses on bridging the gap between computer data processing and human understanding by embedding meaning (semantics) into data. ISO/IEC 42001 and related AI documents (such as ISO/IEC 22989) describe semantic computing as critical in enhancing AI system outputs' interpretability and relevance to human expectations.
Reference:ISO/IEC 22989:2022 Clause 6.7 (Semantic Computing Concepts).
NEW QUESTION # 29
Based on the last paragraph of scenario 3, which audit principle did Augustine violate? Refer to scenario 3.
Scenario 3: Heala specializes in developing Al-driven solutions for the healthcare sector. With a keen focus on leveraging Al to revolutionize patient care, diagnostics, and treatment planning, the company has implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on ISO/IEC 42001. After a year of having the AIMS in place, the company decided to apply for a certification audit.
It contracted a local certification body, who established the audit team and assigned the audit team leader.
Augustine, the designated audit team leader, has a wide
range of skills relevant to various auditing domains. His proficiency encompasses audit principles, processes, and methods, as well as standards for management systems and additional references. Furthermore, he is knowledgeable about the Heala's context and relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Augustine first gathered management review records, interested party feedback logs, and revision histories for Heala's AIMS. This crucial step laid the groundwork for a deeper investigation, which included conducting comprehensive interviews with key personnel to understand how feedback from interested parties directly influenced updates to the AIMS and its strategic direction. Augustine's thorough evaluation process aimed to verify Heala's commitment to integrating the needs and expectations of interested parties, a critical requirement of ISO/IEC 42001.
Augustine also integrated a sophisticated Al tool to analyze large datasets for patterns and anomalies, and thus have a more informed and data driven audit process.
This Al solution, known for its ability to sift through vast amounts of data with unparalleled speed and accuracy, enabled Augustine to identify irregularities and trends that would have been nearly impossible to detect through manual methods. The tool was also helpful in preparing hypotheses based on data.
During the audit. Augustine failed to fully consider Heala's critical processes, expectations, the complexity of audit tasks, and necessary resources beforehand. This oversight compromised the audit integrity and reliability, reflecting a significant deviation from the diligence and informed judgment expected of auditors.
- A. Fair presentation
- B. Confidentiality
- C. Integrity
- D. Due professional care
Answer: D
Explanation:
In the last paragraph, Augustine "failed to fully consider Heala's critical processes, expectations, the complexity of audit tasks, and necessary resources beforehand." This indicates a failure in planning and judgment.
According to ISO 19011:2018 (and referenced in ISO/IEC 42001:2023), "Due professional care" requires auditors to exercise sound judgment, diligence, and competence in conducting audits.
His failure compromised the audit's integrity and reliability, which directly violates the principle of due professional care.
Reference:
ISO 19011:2018, Clause 4(f) - Audit Principle: Due professional care
ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Clause 9.2 - Competence and planning in audits
PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide, Chapter 3 - Audit principles
NEW QUESTION # 30
Was the audit team leader's decision regarding the handling of the technical expert's findings acceptable?
Refer to Scenario 7.
Scenario 7: TastyMade. headquartered in Hamburg, Germany, is an established company in the food manufacturing industry that applies Al technologies in its operations. It has implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on ISO/IEC 42001 to further strengthen its Al management and ensure compliance with international standards. As part of its commitment to excellence and continual improvement, TastyMade is undergoing an audit process to achieve certification against ISO/IEC 42001.
In preparation for the audit, TastyMade collaborated closely with the audit team leader to develop a detailed audit plan. This plan encompassed objectives, criteria, scope, and logistical arrangements for both on-site and remote audit activities. Recognizing the specialized nature of Al integration, a technical expert was brought in to support the audit team and ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant aspects. Upon discussion with the audit team leader, it was mutually decided that not every audit team member would need a guide throughout the audit process. At times, the TastyMade itself would assume the role of the guide, actively facilitating audit activities.
A formal opening meeting was held with TastyMade's management to provide an overview of the audit process and set expectations. During this meeting, key interested parties were briefed on the audit objectives and the methodologies that would be employed during the audit. Following the meeting, the audit team proceeded with their work, collecting information and conducting tests to evaluate the effectiveness of TastyMade's AIMS.
Daily evening meetings were held to review progress, discuss encountered issues, and facilitate collaboration among audit team members. The audit team leader adopted an open communication approach, encouraging all auditors to share their findings and challenges.
The communication regarding the progress of the audit
was informal, allowing for a fluid exchange of information and updates among team members.
To verify adherence to some requirements of clause 4.1 Understanding the organization and its context, the audit team arbitrarily selected for analysis a representative sample of Al management practices across different departments and functions within the company.
During the audit process, the technical expert uncovered certain technical and operational findings related to the integration and governance of Al systems.
Recognizing the significance of these findings, the expert promptly informed the audit team leader.
Understanding the need for further clarification and direct
communication, the audit team leader authorized the technical expert to address the findings directly with the auditee. However, to ensure proper oversight, the expert was supervised by one of the audit team members.
Throughout the audit, it became apparent that TastyMade promoted a culture of autonomy and decentralized decision-making in Al integration processes. Employees were empowered to set goals, allocate responsibilities, and devise methodologies independently, with management providing guidance and support as needed. This approach fostered innovation and agility within the company
- A. No, the technical expert should have worked under the direct supervision of the audit team leader
- B. Yes, but only if approved by TastyMade management in advance
- C. No, the technical expert should not have been advised to communicate directly with the auditee
- D. Yes, technical experts fill knowledge or qualification gaps and must operate under the auditors' supervision
Answer: D
Explanation:
Per ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 (Clause 9.1.6) and ISO 19011:2018, technical experts may be appointed to support the audit team with specific expertise. However, they are not auditors themselves and must work under the direction and supervision of the audit team.
In the scenario, the audit team leader authorized the expert to communicate directly with the auditee while ensuring proper oversight by assigning an auditor to supervise the interaction. This is acceptable and compliant with ISO requirements.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, Clause 9.1.6 - Role of technical experts
ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.2.3 - Use of technical experts
PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Study Guide - Section: Technical Expert Support
NEW QUESTION # 31
Was the involvement of Ms. Rebecca Hayes, the internal auditor, necessary for the audit at ImoAI? Refer to scenario 9.
Scenario 9: ImoAl, headquartered in California. USA, provides Al solutions for various industries such as finance, healthcare, retail, and manufacturing. Its clients include major financial institutions seeking Al powered fraud detection systems, healthcare providers leveraging Al for diagnostics and patient care, retailers optimizing supply chain management with Al forecasting, and manufacturers enhancing production efficiency through Al-driven automation.
ImoAl has recently undergone a certification audit to ensure that its artificial intelligence management system AIMS is in compliance with ISO/IEC 42001. During the audit, a major nonconformity related to data security protocols was identified, requiring urgent resolution.
ImoAl swiftly initiated corrective actions to address the
major nonconformity. The audit follow-up, in agreement with the auditee, was scheduled six weeks after the initial audit. As part of exploring alternatives to audit follow-up, the audit team leader chose to verify the effectiveness of the actions taken by the auditee by scheduling a specific visit to ImoAI's premises.
The follow-up audit involved a thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of these actions. The audit team leader thoroughly examined the corrections, corrective actions, and root cause analysis conducted by ImoAl to assess whether they adequately addressed the nonconformity identified during the initial audit.
In conjunction with the external audit follow-up, ImoAl engaged its internal auditing team to oversee the progress of corrective actions. The AIMS manager of ImoAl updated Ms. Rebecca Hayes, the internal auditor, on the status of corrections and corrective actions prompted by the nonconformity identified during the external audit. Subsequently, Ms. Hayes thoroughly reviewed these measures, analyzing the corrections, root causes, and effectiveness of the implemented actions.
Upon satisfactory validation of the action plans, ImoAl was recommended for certification.
- A. No, as permission from the external auditor should have been required
- B. No, as it falls outside the scope of the internal auditor's responsibilities
- C. Yes, the internal auditor should follow up on the action plans that have been submitted
Answer: C
Explanation:
Internal auditors play a vital role in the organization's continual improvement process by following up on corrective actions and ensuring nonconformities are resolved effectively. ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 9.2 (Internal Audit) and ISO 19011:2018 promote internal audits as essential tools for monitoring and validating the status of corrective actions.
Involving Ms. Hayes, the internal auditor, to review the status of corrections, root causes, and their effectiveness is both appropriate and beneficial. Her actions supported the management system's internal verification prior to the external audit team's final decision.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 9.2 - Internal Audit
ISO 19011:2018 Clause 5.6 - Internal audit follow-up procedures
\===========
NEW QUESTION # 32
Scenario 9:
Scenario 9: Securisai, located in Tallinn.Estonia, specializes in the development of automated cybersecurity solutions that utilize AIsystems. The company recently implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS in accordance with ISO/IEC 42001. Indoing so, the company aimed to manage its Al-driven systems' capabilities to detect and mitigate cyber threats more efficiently andethically. As part of its commitment to upholding the highest standards of Al use and management, Securisai underwent a certificationaudit to demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.
The audit process comprised two main stages: the initial or stage 1 audit focused on reviewing Securisai's documentation, policies, andprocedures related to its AIMS. This review laid the groundwork for the stage 2 audit, which involved a comprehensive, on-site evaluation of the actual implementation and effectiveness of the AIMS within Securisai's operations. The goal was to observe the AIMS in operation,ensuring that it not only existed on paper but was effectively integrated into the company's daily activities and cybersecurity strategies.
After the audit, Roger, Securisai's internal auditor, addressed the action plans devised to rectify nonconformities identified during thecertification audit. He developed a long term strategy, highlighting key AIMS processes for triennial audits. Roger's internal audits play a key role in advancing Securisai's goals by employing a systematic and disciplined method to assess and boost the efficiency of risk management, governance processes, and strategic decision-making. Roger reported his findings directly to Securisai's top management.
Following the successful rectification of nonconformities, Securisai was officially certified against ISO/IEC
42001.
Recently, the company decided to transfer its ISO/IEC 42001 certification registration from one certification body to another despitebeing initially bound by a long-term agreement with the current certification body.
This decision was motivated by the desire to partnerwith a certification body that offers deeper insights and expertise in the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence in cybersecurity.
To ensure a smooth transition and uphold its certification status, Securisai is diligently compiling the required documentation forsubmission to the new certification body. This includes a formal request, the most recent audit report underscoring its adherence toISO/IEC 42001, the latest corrective action plan that highlights its continuous efforts toward improvement, and a copy of its current validcertification registration.
A year following Securisai's initial certification audit, a subsequent audit was carried out by the certification body on its AIMS. The purpose of this audit was to assess compliance with ISO/IEC 42001 and verify the ongoing improvement of the AIMS. The audit team concluded that Securisai's AIMS consistently meets the requirements set by ISO/IEC 42001.
During an AIMS audit at a cybersecurity company, the team found a major nonconformity - ineffective access controls for sensitive data.
Question:
Given this situation, what is the appropriate next step?
- A. Conduct another full audit of the auditee's entire AIMS
- B. Promptly revoke the auditee's certification without further examination
- C. Conduct an audit follow-up before the company is recommended for certification
Answer: C
Explanation:
Major nonconformities require follow-upbefore recommending certification.
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.9.4requires that for major nonconformities:"Certification shall only be granted after verification of the effective implementation of corrective actions, typically through an on-site follow-up audit."
* Immediate revocation or full re-audit is not necessary unless systemic failure is evident.
Reference:ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.9.4; ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 10.2.
NEW QUESTION # 33
Scenario 1 (continued):
To ensure the integrity of the AI system, Future Horizon Academy has implemented measures to ensure that training data remain isolated from data that could lead to harmful or undesirable outcomes. The institution adds significant data elements as metadata, transforms the data into a format usable by the AI system, and uses data from one or more trusted sources.
Committed to standardization and continual improvement, Future Horizon Academy decided to implement an artificial intelligence management system (AIMS) based on ISO/IEC 42001 that would help the institution increase operational efficiency, resulting in improved processes.
After having the AIMS in place for a year, the institution decided to apply for a certification audit to get certified against ISO/IEC 42001. Prior to the certification audit, the institution conducted an internal audit and management review to ensure that the AIMS aligns with the institution's own requirements and that the system is being maintained effectively.
Question:
Based on Scenario 1, which of the following processes regarding data did Future Horizon Academy NOT conduct?
- A. Data acquisition
- B. Data verification
- C. Data annotation
- D. Data augmentation
Answer: D
Explanation:
The scenario clearly mentions acquiring, transforming, and verifying data but doesnot mention data augmentation(the process of creating additional data samples). According to ISO/IEC 42001 Clause 8.3 (Data Management), data augmentation must be deliberately planned and documented, and it is not referenced here.Reference:ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 8.3 (Operational Planning and Control).
NEW QUESTION # 34
What is the right series of AI system lifecycle?
- A. System Verification & validation, System design & development, System Deployment, System Requirements & specification finalization, System Operation & monitoring
- B. System Requirements & specification finalization, System design & development, System Deployment, System Verification & validation, System Operation & monitoring
- C. System Requirements & specification finalization, System design & development, System Verification
& validation, System Deployment, System Operation & monitoring - D. System design & development, System Operation & monitoring, System Requirements & specification finalization, System Verification & validation, System Deployment
Answer: C
Explanation:
The correct lifecycle sequence for an AI system as outlined inISO/IEC 42001:2023and supporting lifecycle methodologies (such as those influenced by ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 and ISO/IEC TR 24028) is:
* System Requirements & Specification Finalization
* System Design & Development
* System Verification & Validation
* System Deployment
* System Operation & Monitoring
This lifecycle ensures that all AI systems are planned, built, tested, and monitored effectively to address functional, ethical, and risk management objectives.
The standard encourages applying astructured lifecycle approachto ensure that AI systems meet organizational goals and stakeholder expectations throughout their operational period.
NEW QUESTION # 35
Scenario 8 (continued):
Scenario 8:
Scenario 8: InnovateSoft, headquartered in Berlin, Germany, is a software development company known for its innovative solutions andcommitment to excellence. It specializes in custom software solutions, development, design, testing, maintenance, and consulting,covering both mobile apps and web development.
Recently, the company underwent an audit to evaluate the effectiveness and compliance of its artificial intelligence management system AIMS against ISO/IEC 42001.
The audit team engaged with the auditee to discuss their findings and observations during the audit's final phases. After evaluating theevidence, the audit team presented their audit findings to InnovateSoft, highlighting the identified nonconformities.
Upon receiving the audit findings, InnovateSoft accepted the conclusions but expressed concerns about some findings inaccuratelyreflecting the efficiency of their software development processes. In response, the company provided new evidence and additionalinformation to alter the audit conclusions for a couple of minor nonconformities identified. After thorough consideration, the audit teamleader clarified that the new evidence did not significantly alter the core conclusions drawn for the nonconformities. Therefore, thecertification body issued a certification recommendation conditional upon the filing of corrective action plans without a prior visit.
InnovateSoft accepted the decision of the certification body. The top management of the company also sought suggestions from theaudit team on resolving the identified nonconformities. The audit team leader offered solutions to address the issues, fostering acollaborative effort between the auditors and InnovateSoft.During the closing meeting, the audit team covered key topics to enhance transparency. They clarified to InnovateSoft that the auditevidence was based on a sample,acknowledging the inherent uncertainty. The method and time frame of reporting and grading findingswere discussed to provide a structured overview of nonconformities. The certification body's process for handling nonconformities,including potential consequences, guided InnovateSoft on corrective actions. The time frame for presenting a plan for correction was communicated, emphasizing urgency. Insights into the certification body's post-audit activities were provided, ensuring ongoing support.
Lastly, the audit team briefed InnovateSoft on complaint and appeal handling.
InnovateSoft submitted the action plans for each nonconformity separately, describing only the detected issues and the correctiveactions planned to address the detected nonconformities. However, the submission slightly exceeded the specified period of 45 days setby the certification body, arriving three days later.
InnovateSoft explained this by attributing the delay to unexpected challengesencountered during the compilation of the action plans.
During the closing meeting, the audit team covered key topics including sampling uncertainty, timelines for corrections, and complaint/appeals procedures.
Question:
Based on Scenario 8, was the concluding meeting comprehensive in addressing all essential components of the audit?
- A. No, it should not have involved the post-audit activities of the certification body
- B. Yes, it addressed all necessary aspects
- C. No, it should not have involved the assessment of audit findings
Answer: B
Explanation:
The closing meeting covered:
* Uncertainty due to sampling
* Timeline for corrective actions
* Complaint and appeal procedures
* Findings and their classificationThese areall required elementsof the closing meeting.
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.7requires the audit team to present a summary of findings and next steps during the closing meeting.
* ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.6.12further includes communication of audit conclusions, clarification of nonconformities, and how findings will be managed post-audit.
Reference:ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.7; ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.6.12.
NEW QUESTION # 36
Based on Scenario 5, which of the following should NOT be Jonathan's responsibility?
Scenario 5: Alterhealth is a mid-sized technology firm based in Toronto. Canada. It develops Al systems for healthcare providers, focusing on improving patient care, optimizing hospital workflows, and analyzing healthcare data for insights that can improve health outcomes.
To ensure responsible and effective use of Al in its
operations, Alterhealth has implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on ISO
/IEC 42001. After a year of having the AIMS in place, the
company decided to apply for a certification audit to obtain certification against ISO/IEC 42001.
The company contracted a certification body to conduct the audit, who assembled the audit team and appointed the audit team leader. The audit team leader had conducted a certification audit at Alterhealth in the past. The top management of Alterhealth decided to reject the appointment of this auditor because they believed that they would not receive added value from the audit. In response, the certification body appointed Jonathan, an independent auditor with no prior engagements with Alterhealth, as the new audit team leader. Jonathan's introduction marked the beginning of a collaborative process aimed at evaluating the conformity of the AIMS to ISO/IEC 42001 requirements.
The certification body determined the audit scope, which included only specific departments essential to the integration and application of Al, such as the Al Research, Machine Learning Applications, and Al Ethics and Compliance Departments, and did not cover all of the departments covered by the AIMS scope. Meanwhile, Alterhealth determined the audit time, setting the necessary time frame for planning and conducting a thorough and effective review to ensure all aspects of the AIMS within the selected departments were meticulously reviewed.
Afterward, Jonathan received a detailed offer from the certification body, outlining his role and including information related to the audit, such as the audit's duration, team members, their responsibilities, the limits to the audit engagement, and their salary compensation. With a clear mandate, Jonathan was tasked with a multitude of responsibilities: defining the audit objectives and criteria, planning the audit process, identifying and addressing audit risks, managing communication with Alterhealth, overseeing the audit team, and ensuring a smooth and conflict free execution.
With Jonathan's leadership and a well-defined audit framework in place, the certification audit proceeded with a structured and objective evaluation of Alterhealth's AIMS.
- A. Managing conflicts during the audit
- B. Identifying and addressing audit risks
- C. Determining the audit scope
- D. Determining audit objectives and criteria
Answer: C
Explanation:
In certification audits, the audit scope is determined by the certification body in consultation with the auditee, not by the audit team leader. This is clearly reflected in the scenario, where it says:
"The certification body determined the audit scope... Meanwhile, Alterhealth determined the audit time." Jonathan, as the audit team leader, is responsible for planning the audit, managing the team, identifying risks, and managing communication, but he does not define the audit scope.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, Clause 9.2 - Audit planning and scope
ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Clause 9.2.1 - Roles and responsibilities in auditing PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide - Section: Role of the Audit Team Leader
\===========
NEW QUESTION # 37
What could require a stage 1 audit during a recertification audit?
- A. Minor changes to internal processes of the auditee
- B. Significant changes to the auditee
- C. Routine updates to documentation and procedures of the auditee
Answer: B
Explanation:
ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.5.1.2 states that a stage 1 audit may be required before recertification when significant changes have occurred that affect the management system. These changes may include expansion of scope, organizational restructuring, or the introduction of new AI technologies that impact system control.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.5.1.2 - Conducting recertification audits ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 4.3 - Determining the scope of the AIMS
\===========
NEW QUESTION # 38
Which control in Annex A emphasizes the importance of security measures in AI system operations?
- A. Customer Feedback
- B. Performance Metrics
- C. Access Control
- D. Financial Auditing
Answer: C
Explanation:
Annex A of ISO/IEC 42001:2023providesreference controlsto support operational and ethical AI governance. The control that emphasizessecurity in AI system operationsis:
A: 8.2.2 - Access Control: This control requires thatonly authorized individuals or systemscan access, modify, or influence the AI system, ensuringdata integrity and protectionof critical operations.
Access control is afoundational security controlused to prevent unauthorized interference or manipulation of AI behavior or data pipelines.
NEW QUESTION # 39
Question:
What type of audit is conducted when a customer audits suppliers to make purchasing decisions?
- A. First-party audit
- B. Third-party audit
- C. Second-party audit
Answer: C
Explanation:
ASecond-party auditis conducted by customers on their suppliers to verify whether the supplier's processes or products meet the purchasing requirements.
* ISO 19011:2018 Clause 3.11defines second-party audits as:"Audits conducted by a customer on their suppliers or by organizations on others with whom they have a contractual interest."
* This is referenced by ISO/IEC 42001:2023 when explaining supply chain risk management in AI systems (Clause 8.1).
Reference:ISO 19011:2018 Clause 3.11; ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 8.1.
NEW QUESTION # 40
Question:
During the annual ISO/IEC 42001 audit at a financial company, the auditor selected and analyzed a sample of
5 out of 25 follow-up nonconformity reports to assess whether the company adheres to its follow-up process.
What type of evidence did the auditor gather?
- A. Semi-quantitative
- B. Quantitative
- C. Observational
- D. Qualitative
Answer: B
Explanation:
The auditor gatheredQuantitative evidence.
* Quantitative evidenceis defined as evidence that is measurable and based on numbers or statistical sampling.
* ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.5.5states:"Quantitative audit evidence is numerical or measurable and collected through sampling, measurements, or observations."
* Sampling nonconformity reports to check process adherence clearly falls underquantitative evidence.
Reference:ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.5.5; ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 9.2.2.
NEW QUESTION # 41
......
ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Practice Test Pdf Exam Material: https://pass4sure.actual4cert.com/ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor-pass4sure-vce.html