2025 Latest 100% Exam Passing Ratio - ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Dumps PDF
Pass Exam With Full Sureness - ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Dumps with 200 Questions
NEW QUESTION # 117
Question:
ReePharm, a pharmaceutical company, has decided to incorporate its AI risk management into the information security management system (ISMS) to identify and address risks related to the procurement, manufacturing, and distribution of pharmaceutical products. Is this decision appropriate?
- A. Yes, but only if performed after a surveillance audit
- B. No, integrating AI risk management into other management systems would not meet ISO/IEC 42001 requirements
- C. Yes, integrating AI risk management into other management systems is acceptable
- D. No, merging AI risk management directly into the ISMS system creates unnecessary complexity without substantial improvements
Answer: C
Explanation:
ISO/IEC 42001 Clause 6.1 supportsintegration of AI-specific risk management into broader management systems, provided that AI-specific risks are addressed appropriately. Integration is allowed to improve efficiency without compromising the focus on AI risks.
Reference:ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 6.1 (Risk Management in an Integrated Management System).
NEW QUESTION # 118
What is the right series of AI system lifecycle?
- A. System Requirements & specification finalization, System design & development, System Verification
& validation, System Deployment, System Operation & monitoring - B. System Verification & validation, System design & development, System Deployment, System Requirements & specification finalization, System Operation & monitoring
- C. System design & development, System Operation & monitoring, System Requirements & specification finalization, System Verification & validation, System Deployment
- D. System Requirements & specification finalization, System design & development, System Deployment, System Verification & validation, System Operation & monitoring
Answer: A
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.
Reference: ISO/IEC 42001:2023 - Clause 8.2.2 (AI system lifecycle requirements) PECB Lead Auditor Guide - Domain 1: Section on "AI Lifecycle Phases and Management" Also aligned with ISO/IEC TR 24028:2020 - Overview of trustworthiness in AI
NEW QUESTION # 119
Based on scenario 3, which of the following AI technologies did Augustine utilize to analyze large datasets?
Refer to the fourth paragraph.
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. Inductive language programming
- B. Autonomous systems
- C. Machine learning tool
- D. Expert systems
Answer: C
Explanation:
The scenario describes an AI tool that was "known for its ability to sift through vast amounts of data with unparalleled speed and accuracy" and "was also helpful in preparing hypotheses based on data." These characteristics align most closely with machine learning technologies.
Expert systems use rule-based logic and are not typically data-driven.
Inductive programming focuses on generating programs from examples, which was not part of this audit.
Autonomous systems make independent decisions in operational environments, which doesn't apply here.
Machine learning (a subdomain of AI) includes techniques for pattern detection, anomaly detection, and hypothesis generation from data - which matches Augustine's tool.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 22989:2022 - Artificial Intelligence Concepts and Terminology
ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Clause 6.1.3 - Use of AI tools in audit processes
PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide, Annex A - Emerging Technologies in Audits Certainly! Below is the properly formatted response to Question No. 26, in accordance with your specifications.
NEW QUESTION # 120
Based on ISO/IEC 42001, which of the following is NOT one of the factors that an organization must consider when determining the risks and opportunities related to an AI system?
- A. The intended use of the AI system
- B. The domain and application context of the AI system
- C. The specific algorithms used to develop the AI system
Answer: C
Explanation:
According to Clause 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of ISO/IEC 42001:2023, when determining risks and opportunities, an organization must consider:
The intended use of the AI system
The domain (industry/field) and application context
External and internal issues
Stakeholder expectations and compliance obligations
However, the specific algorithms used (e.g., neural networks, decision trees, etc.) are not explicitly mandated as a factor for risk determination under these clauses. Algorithm selection may influence risk indirectly but is considered part of technical implementation, not a direct requirement under ISO/IEC 42001's risk-based planning.
Thus, Option C is the correct answer - it's not a primary or required factor listed in the standard's risk identification process.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Clause 6.1.1 - Actions to address risks and opportunities ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Clause 6.1.2 - AI risk assessment PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide, Chapter 6 - Risk-based approach to AI
NEW QUESTION # 121
A financial institution uses an AI system to approve loan applications. Recently, there have been complaints that the system disproportionately denies loans to applicants from certain minority groups.
Which core element should the institution prioritize to address these complaints?
- A. Fairness and Non-Discrimination
- B. Transparency and Explainability
- C. Accountability
- D. Privacy and Security
Answer: A
Explanation:
The most relevant core principle here isFairness and Non-Discrimination. This principle aims to ensure that AI systems do notcreate or perpetuate bias, especially in high-stakes decision-making areas such as financial services.
According toISO/IEC 42001:2023 - Clause 6.1.2andAnnex A (A.8.2.4), organizations must evaluate and manage risks related tobias, discrimination, and ethical implicationsof AI decisions.
In thePECB Lead Auditor Guide, Fairness is cited as critical in sectors likefinance, hiring, healthcare, and where decisions may adversely impact protected groups.
NEW QUESTION # 122
How does ISO 19011 recommend auditors select audit criteria?
- A. According to the requirements of the management system standards and objectives
- B. By using random selection methods
- C. Based on the organization's industry reputation
- D. By choosing criteria that are easiest to measure
Answer: A
Explanation:
Audit criteria should be selectedaccording to the requirements of the management system standard (e.g., ISO/IEC 42001:2023)and theorganization's objectives.
PerISO 19011:2018 - Clause 5.4.2, audit criteria must be defined based onstandards, statutory requirements, internal policies, procedures, and contractual obligationsrelevant to the audit.
Random selection or convenience-based criteria are not acceptable in professional audit practice.
NEW QUESTION # 123
In which situations does an auditor have the right to decline the audit mandate?
- A. When clear problems exist related to the experience and language proficiency of the auditee's employees
- B. When the allocated time for conducting the audit does not allow for a thorough assessment of the management system
- C. When the auditee is unwilling to provide documented information in advance
- D. When technical experts have not been assigned to participate in the audit
Answer: B
Explanation:
Auditors have the right and responsibility to ensure that audits are conducted effectively. According to ISO
19011:2018 and ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, if the audit time allocated is insufficient to conduct a comprehensive and thorough audit, the auditor may refuse or request modification of the assignment.
This helps maintain audit integrity, quality, and professional due care.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, Clause 9.1.4 - Audit duration
ISO 19011:2018, Clause 5.3.2 - Audit planning responsibilities
PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide - Chapter: Auditor Rights and Responsibilities
\===========
NEW QUESTION # 124
Which of the following statements best describes the evidence collection process carried out by the audit team at Finalogic? Refer to Scenario 4.
Scenario 4: Finalogic leads the application of artificial intelligence in the financial services sector, which is used to improve risk assessment, fraud detection, and customer service. The company has implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on ISO/IEC 42001 to ensure operational quality, ethical Al use, regulatory compliance, and transparency, allowing for consistent oversight and structured governance.
This month, Finalogic is undergoing an audit to obtain certification against ISO/IEC 42001, a critical step in demonstrating its commitment to responsible Al. To evaluate Finalogic's conformity to the audit criteria, the audit team adopted a comprehensive, evidence-based approach. The gathered evidence ranged from analyses of unquantifiable information to analyses of samples related to determining the audit criteria-including internal reports generated by Finalogic's own Al system-which assert successful integration and compliance with the standard.
Additionally, presentations by the company's Al team during the audit highlighted the system's success in customer service enhancements and fraud detection, emphasizing improved efficiency, decision making accuracy, and user trust. An evaluation report prepared by an independent third party firm specializing in Al systems also provided an objective review of Finalogic's AIMS. It assessed the system's effectiveness, bias, and compliance through a thorough examination.
During the audit, the audit team applied the same level of effort and utilized the same techniques across all audit areas, regardless of their risk level. This strategy ensured a consistent and thorough evaluation of the AIMS, uncovering any latent weaknesses or inefficiencies that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Despite Finalogic's advanced AIMS and adherence to ISO/IEC 42001 for ethical Al practices, there remains a risk of Al algorithms inadvertently perpetuating bias or making inaccurate predictions due to unforeseen flaws in training data or algorithmic models. This could lead to unfair loan rejections or approvals, potentially causing financial losses or damaging the company's reputation for fairness and accuracy in its financial services. By acknowledging these risks. Finalogic remains committed to refining its Al governance, implementing bias mitigation strategies, and enhancing transparency to uphold its reputation as a leader in Al driven financial services.
- A. The audit team collected only quantitative evidence
- B. The audit team collected only qualitative evidence
- C. The audit team collected only internal performance metrics
- D. The audit team collected both qualitative and quantitative evidence
Answer: D
Explanation:
The scenario states the audit team "gathered evidence ranging from analyses of unquantifiable information to analyses of samples," and considered internal AI system reports, third-party evaluations, and team presentations.
* Unquantifiable information = Qualitative evidence
* Sample-based data = Quantitative evidence
Therefore, the audit team collected both qualitative and quantitative evidence as part of a comprehensive audit strategy.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Clause 9.2.2 - Audit evidence types
ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.5.2 - Gathering audit evidence
PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Study Guide - Section: Collecting and Verifying Audit Evidence
\===========
NEW QUESTION # 125
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 ownrequirements and that the system is being maintained effectively.
Question:
Based on functionality, what type of AI system did Future Horizon Academy establish?
- A. General AI
- B. Reactive machines
- C. Theory of mind
- D. Limited memory
Answer: D
Explanation:
The AI system described uses training data and prior experience (historical data) to make decisions, which matchesLimited Memorysystems. ISO/IEC 22989:2022 (supportive reference) categorizes Limited Memory AI as those that rely on past data and metadata to improve decision making, and ISO/IEC 42001 refers to AI functionality understanding under Clause 4.2 when considering context and system type.Reference:ISO/IEC
22989:2022 Section 5.2.3; ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 4.2.
NEW QUESTION # 126
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.
InnovateSoft's corrective action plans described the detected issues and intended corrections but did not include the root causes.
Question:
Were InnovateSoft's action plans drafted appropriately?
- A. No, because they did not include the root causes of the detected nonconformities
- B. No, because a general action plan was not submitted encompassing all nonconformities
- C. Yes, the action plans were drafted appropriately
Answer: A
Explanation:
A complete corrective action planmust include:
* Description of the nonconformity
* Root cause analysis
* Correction
* Corrective action
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.9.2explicitly states:"The client shall analyze the cause of the nonconformity and describe the specific correction and corrective action taken."
* The absence ofroot cause analysisrenders the plan non-compliant.
Reference:ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.9.2; Lead Auditor Training Manual - Module 9 ("Corrective Action Management").
NEW QUESTION # 127
Question:
Which of the following statements regarding the organization's requirement to address risks and opportunities based on ISO/IEC 42001 is correct?
- A. The organization is required to plan how to incorporate the actions in its AIMS and assess their effectiveness
- B. The organization is only required to identify risks without taking specific action
- C. The organization must integrate the actions into its AIMS but is not required to evaluate the effectiveness of those actions
- D. The organization must address risks and opportunities but is not required to integrate these actions into its AIMS
Answer: A
Explanation:
ISO/IEC 42001 Clause 6.1.2 requires organizations toplan actions to address risks and opportunities, integrate these actions into the management system, andevaluate their effectivenessas part of continual improvement.
Reference:ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 6.1.2 (Planning and Risk Integration into AIMS).
NEW QUESTION # 128
Did the audit team leader appropriately schedule the follow-up after the initial audit? 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. Yes, the audit follow-up was scheduled six weeks after the initial audit
- B. No, the audit follow-up should have been scheduled 15 weeks after the initial audit
- C. No, the audit follow-up should have been scheduled immediately after the initial audit
Answer: A
Explanation:
There is no fixed number of weeks mandated between an initial audit and a follow-up audit. However, ISO
/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.8 allows the certification body and auditee to mutually agree on a timeline that enables sufficient implementation of corrective actions and their verification. In this scenario, a six-week timeframe is reasonable and appropriate for addressing and reviewing a major nonconformity, especially when validated by both parties.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.8 - Nonconformity management and scheduling of follow-up audits ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 9.1 - Evaluation of AIMS effectiveness
\===========
NEW QUESTION # 129
Jonathan received an offer from the certification body including detailed information related to the audit.
What other information should have been included in the audit offer? Refer to Scenario 5.
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. Audit risk register
- B. Audit scope
- C. Objectives of the stage 1 audit
- D. Information about the guides and observers that would participate during the audit
Answer: D
Explanation:
According to ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, the certification body must communicate relevant information about the audit to the auditee and audit team. This includes notifying the audit team of guides and observers who may be present.
The scenario already mentions that the certification body provided information on the audit's duration, responsibilities, team members, and salary - but it does not mention guides or observers, which are standard participants in audits and should be communicated.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, Clause 9.1.4 - Audit arrangements, including guides and observers ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.4.2 - Planning for audit participants PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide - Chapter: Pre-Audit Communication
NEW QUESTION # 130
Which control in Annex A emphasizes the importance of security measures in AI system operations?
- A. Access Control
- B. Financial Auditing
- C. Performance Metrics
- D. Customer Feedback
Answer: A
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.
Reference: ISO/IEC 42001:2023 - Annex A, Control A.8.2.2 (Access Control) PECB Lead Auditor Guide - Domain 2: "Security and Trust Controls for AI"
NEW QUESTION # 131
What should audit findings that are nonconformities NOT be recorded as?
- A. Corrective actions needed
- B. Supporting evidence
- C. Nonfulfillment of a requirement
- D. Opportunities for improvement
Answer: D
Explanation:
Audit findings classified as nonconformities represent a failure to fulfill a requirement and must not be recorded as mere opportunities for improvement (OFIs). Doing so would downplay the seriousness of the issue and could result in miscommunication of risk or oversight during corrective actions.
ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.5.8, clearly distinguishes nonconformities from observations and improvement opportunities.
Reference:
ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.5.8 - Audit Findings
PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide - Chapter: Classification of Findings
\===========
NEW QUESTION # 132
Scenario 3 (continued):
ArBank is a financial institution located in Brussels, Belgium, which offers a diverse range of banking and investment servicesto its clients. To ensure the continual improvement of its operations, ArBank has implemented a quality management system QMS based on ISO 9001 and an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on the requirements of ISO/IEC
42001.
Audrey, an experienced auditor, led an internal audit focused on the AIMS within ArBank. She assessed the chatbots integrated into thebank's website and mobile app, analyzing communications using big data technology to identify potential noncompliance, fraud, orunethical conduct. Instead of relying solely on the information provided by the chatbots, Audrey sought out evidence that would eitherconfirm or challenge the validity of the data, ensuring her conclusions were based on reliable and accurate information. Her review ofselected chatbot interactions confirmed they met their intended purpose.
For the specific context of ArBank's operations, Audrey utilized an Al system to assess the efficiency of the bank's digital infrastructure,focusing on tasks critical to the Finance Department. This Al system was able to analyze the functionality of chatbots integrated intoArBank's website and mobile app to determine if it adheres to ISO/IEC 42001 requirements and internal policies governing customerservice in the banking sector.
In addition, Audrey conducted a deeper assessment of the bank's AIMS. Her evaluation included observing different stages of the AIMSlife cycle, from development to deployment, to ensure that roles and responsibilities were clearly defined and aligned with ArBank'soperational goals. She also evaluated the tools used to monitor and measure the performance of the AIMS.
Audrey continued the audit process by auditing ArBank's outsourced operations. Upon checking the contractual agreements between thetwo parties, Audrey decided that there was no need to gather audit evidence regarding the contractual agreement. She reviewed thecompany's processes for monitoring the quality of outsourced operations, determined whether appropriate governance processes are inplace with regard to the engagement of outsourced persons or organizations, andreviewed and evaluated the company's plans in case ofexpected or unexpected termination of the outsourcing agreement.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
Question:
Based on Scenario 3, did Audrey perform a technical assessment during the audit?
- A. Yes, she conducted observations of the AIMS life cycle and evaluated the tools used to monitor its performance
- B. Yes, she performed a general assessment of ArBank's customer service performance
- C. No, only the certification body should perform technical assessments
- D. No, she only reviewed contractual agreements with outsourced service providers
Answer: A
Explanation:
Audreyconducted a technical assessmentbecause she observed the AIMS lifecycle (development, deployment) and evaluated monitoring tools, as required:
* ISO/IEC 42001 Clause 9.2.2 ("Conducting Audits") mandates that auditors must assess the full lifecycle and technical effectiveness of AI systems.
* TheLead Auditor Manualnotes:"Technical assessments during AIMS audits must include evaluating controls for AI system monitoring, performance, and lifecycle stages." Reference:ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 9.2.2; Lead Auditor Study Guide, Section 5 ("Technical Review during Audits").
NEW QUESTION # 133
Did ImoAI take the correct initial step after the major nonconformity was detected?
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 it should have waited for further instructions from the certification body before taking action
- B. Yes, as it promptly initiated corrective actions to address the major nonconformity
- C. No, because it should have immediately informed its clients about the detected nonconformity
Answer: B
Explanation:
According to ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 10.2 (Nonconformity and Corrective Action) and ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.6.3, organizations are expected to act promptly to correct and prevent recurrence of detected nonconformities. ImoAI correctly initiated corrective actions immediately after a major nonconformity was found. This is the recommended and required first step to contain and resolve issues and demonstrate responsibility.
* Notifying clients is not a mandatory first step unless the nonconformity directly affects them.
* Waiting for instructions from the certification body could unnecessarily delay resolution.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 10.2 - Corrective Action
ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.6.3 - Corrective action expectations following audit findings
\===========
NEW QUESTION # 134
What is the main goal of the 'Transparency and Explainability' core element in AI?
- A. To ensure AI systems are user-friendly
- B. To reduce the cost of AI development
- C. To make AI operations understandable to users and stakeholders
- D. To improve the speed of AI systems
Answer: C
Explanation:
The principle ofTransparency and Explainabilityis designed to ensure thatusers and stakeholders can understand how AI systems function, how decisions are made, and what data is used.
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 emphasizes that transparency enablestraceability, clarity of design choices,and auditability, while explainability provides insights intohow outputs are generated, especially for high-risk or critical applications.
In practical terms, this principle supports:
* Buildingtrustin AI systems
* Ensuringregulatory compliance
* Facilitatinginformed decision-making
NEW QUESTION # 135
Scenario 4 (continued):
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 of transparency 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 level of negligence did Emma observe regarding John's audit documentation failures?
- A. Ordinary negligence
- B. Gross negligence
- C. Fraud
- D. Minor error
Answer: A
Explanation:
Ordinary negligencerefers to a failure to apply the level of care that a reasonable auditor would exercise, without intentional misconduct.
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 7.2.5 requires auditors todocument audit findings properly and completely.
* TheLead Auditor Study Guidedefines ordinary negligence as:"An auditor's unintentional oversight or failure to perform duties to expected professional standards, without evidence of deliberate wrongdoing." Reference:ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 7.2.5; Lead Auditor Manual Chapter 6 ("Audit Team Behavior and Ethics").
NEW QUESTION # 136
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 it falls outside the scope of the internal auditor's responsibilities
- B. Yes, the internal auditor should follow up on the action plans that have been submitted
- C. No, as permission from the external auditor should have been required
Answer: B
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 # 137
During the audit planning phase, what is the primary activity an auditor should focus on?
- A. Preparing checklists and audit plans
- B. Reviewing the final report
- C. Conducting interviews with staff
- D. Issuing corrective actions
Answer: A
Explanation:
During theaudit planning phase, the auditor's key responsibility is toprepare audit plans, checklists, and resource allocationsto ensure an effective and efficient audit.
According toISO 19011:2018 - Clause 6.4.1, planning includes preparing the audit plan, defining the audit schedule, and ensuring that required documents, tools, and team members are ready.
ThePECB Lead Auditor Guide - Domain 4further emphasizes preparing tailoredaudit checklistsbased on ISO/IEC 42001 clauses and relevant organizational processes.
NEW QUESTION # 138
......
PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam Syllabus Topics:
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| Topic 1 |
|
| Topic 2 |
|
| Topic 3 |
|
| Topic 4 |
|
| Topic 5 |
|
Verified ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor dumps Q&As - 100% Pass from UpdateDumps: https://www.updatedumps.com/PECB/ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor-updated-exam-dumps.html
Pass ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam in First Attempt Guaranteed 2025 Dumps: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LzzKvhkUzPD9ctnKKxesmk8pOnlg_afy