PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Practice Test Questions Answers

Scenario 8 (continued):

Scenario 8:

Scenario 8: InnovateSoft, headquartered in Berlin, Germany, is a software development company known for its innovative solutions and commitment 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 the evidence, 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 inaccurately reflecting the efficiency of their software development processes. In response, the company provided new evidence and additional information to alter the audit conclusions for a couple of minor nonconformities identified. After thorough consideration, the audit team leader clarified that the new evidence did not significantly alter the core conclusions drawn for the nonconformities. Therefore, the certification 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 the audit team on resolving the identified nonconformities. The audit team leader offered solutions to address the issues, fostering a collaborative 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 audit evidence was based on a sample, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty. The method and time frame of reporting and grading findings were 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 corrective actions planned to address the detected nonconformities. However, the submission slightly exceeded the specified period of 45 days set by the certification body, arriving three days later. InnovateSoft explained this by attributing the delay to unexpected challenges encountered 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?

Scenario 9 (continued):

Scenario 9: Securisai, located in Tallinn. Estonia, specializes in the development of automated cybersecurity solutions that utilize AI systems. The company recently implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS in accordance with ISO/IEC 42001. In doing so, the company aimed to manage its Al-driven systems’ capabilities to detect and mitigate cyber threats more efficiently and ethically. As part of its commitment to upholding the highest standards of Al use and management, Securisai underwent a certification audit 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, and procedures 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 the certification 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 despite being initially bound by a long-term agreement with the current certification body. This decision was motivated by the desire to partner with 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 for submission to the new certification body. This includes a formal request, the most recent audit report underscoring its adherence to ISO/IEC 42001, the latest corrective action plan that highlights its continuous efforts toward improvement, and a copy of its current valid certification 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.

Question:

Based on Scenario 9, what should Securisai’s certification be?

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.

Scenario 7:

Scenario 7: ICure, headquartered in Bratislava, is a medical institution known for its use of the latest technologies in medical practices. It has introduced groundbreaking Al-driven diagnostics and treatment planning tools that have fundamentally transformed patient care.

ICure has integrated a robust artificial intelligence management system AIMS to manage its Al systems effectively. This holistic management framework ensures that ICure's Al applications are not only developed but also deployed and maintained to adhere to the

highest industry standards, thereby enhancing efficiency and reliability.

ICure has initiated a comprehensive auditing process to validate its AIMS's effectiveness in alignment with ISO/IEC 42001. The stage 1 audit involved an on-site evaluation by the audit team. The team evaluated the site-specific conditions, interacted with ICure's personnel,

observed the deployed technologies, and reviewed the operations that support the AIMS. Following these observations, the findings were documented and communicated to ICure. setting the stage for subsequent actions.

Unforeseen delays and resource allocation issues introduced a significant gap between the completion of stage 1 and the onset of stage 2 audits. This interval, while unplanned, provided an opportunity for reflection and preparation for upcoming challenges.

After four months, the audit team initiated the stage 2 audit. They evaluated AIMS's compliance with ISO/IEC 42001 requirements, paying special attention to the complexity of processes and their documentation. It was during this phase that a critical observation was made:

ICure had not fully considered the complexity of its processes and their interactions when determining the extent of documented information. Essential processes related to Al model training, validation, and deployment were not documented accurately, hindering effective control and management of these critical activities. This issue was recorded as a minor nonconformity, signaling a need for enhanced control and management of these vital activities.

Simultaneously, the auditor evaluated the appropriateness and effectiveness of the "AIMS Insight Strategy," a procedure developed by

ICure to determine the AIMS internal and external challenges. This examination identified specific areas for improvement, particularly in

the way stakeholder input was integrated into the system. It highlighted how this could significantly enhance the contribution of relevant

parties in strengthening the system's resilience and effectiveness.

The audit team determined the audit findings by taking into consideration the requirements of ICure, the previous audit records and

conclusions, the accuracy, sufficiency, and appropriateness of evidence, the extent to which planned audit activities are realized and

planned results achieved, the sample size, and the categorization of the audit findings. The audit team decided to first record all the

requirements met; then they proceeded to record the nonconformities.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Question:

Which phase of the Stage 1 audit was NOT conducted by the audit team?

Why is it important to have a clear and agreed audit scope?