ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor PECB ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor Exam Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

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, what category of AI systems did Future Horizon Academy utilize?

Question:

DenSolutions, a financial institution, is seeking to certify its AIMS. The certification body appointed Sarah as the audit team leader, who previously provided consultancy services regarding the AIMS. Can Sarah audit the AIMS of DenSolutions?

Which control in Annex A emphasizes the importance of security measures in AI system operations?

Scenario 7 (continued):

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:

Based on Scenario 7, the audit team conducted a Stage 2 audit after a considerable time from Stage 1. Is this recommended?

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?

Question:

Can ISO/IEC 42001 be integrated into an integrated management system (IMS) with ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO 9001?

What is the purpose of conducting an opening meeting in the audit process?

At which stage of the audit process is materiality assessed and determined?

Based on Scenario 7, what sampling method was used to assess TastyMade's adherence to some requirements of Clause 4.1 Understanding the organization and its context?

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

Question:

Which of the following should be considered when determining the feasibility of the audit?

Scenario 3 (continued):

ArBank is a financial institution located in Brussels, Belgium, which offers a diverse range of banking and investment services to 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 the bank's website and mobile app, analyzing communications using big data technology to identify potential noncompliance, fraud, or unethical conduct. Instead of relying solely on the information provided by the chatbots, Audrey sought out evidence that would either confirm or challenge the validity of the data, ensuring her conclusions were based on reliable and accurate information. Her review of selected 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 into ArBank's website and mobile app to determine if it adheres to ISO/IEC 42001 requirements and internal policies governing customer service in the banking sector.

In addition, Audrey conducted a deeper assessment of the bank’s AIMS. Her evaluation included observing different stages of the AIMS life cycle, from development to deployment, to ensure that roles and responsibilities were clearly defined and aligned with ArBank’s operational 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 the two parties, Audrey decided that there was no need to gather audit evidence regarding the contractual agreement. She reviewed the company's processes for monitoring the quality of outsourced operations, determined whether appropriate governance processes are in place with regard to the engagement of outsourced persons or organizations, and reviewed and evaluated the company's plans in case of expected 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 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?

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

Scenario 5 (continued):

Scenario 5: Aizoia, located in Washington, DC, has revolutionized data analytics, software development, and consulting by using advanced Al algorithms. Central to its success is an Al platform adept at deciphering complex datasets for enhanced insights. To ensure

that its Al systems operate effectively and responsibly, Aizoia has established an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on ISO/IEC 42001 and is now undergoing a certification audit to verify the AIMS’s effectiveness and compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.

Robert, one of the certification body's full-time employees with extensive experience in auditing, was appointed as the audit team leader despite not receiving an official offer for the role. Understanding the critical importance of assembling an audit team with diverse skills

and knowledge, the certification body selected competent individuals to form the audit team. The certification body appointed a team of seven members to conduct the audit after considering the specific conditions of the audit mission and the required competencies.

Initially, the certification body, in cooperation with Aizoia, defined the extent and boundaries of the audit, specifying the sites (whether physical or virtual), organizational units, and the activities for review. Once the scope, processes, methods, and team composition had been defined, the certification body provided the audit team leader with extensive information, including the audit objectives and documented details on the scope, processes, methods, and team compositions.

Additionally, the certification body shared contact details of the auditee, including locations, time frames, and the duration of the audit activities to be conducted. The team leader also received information needed for evaluating and addressing identified risks and opportunities for the achievement of the audit objectives.

Before starting the audit, Robert wrote an engagement letter, introducing himself to Aizoia and outlining plans for scheduling initial contact. The initial contact aimed to confirm the communication channels, establish the audit team's authority to conduct the audit, and summarize the audit's key aspects, such as objectives, scope, criteria, methods, and team composition. During this first meeting, Robert emphasized the need for access to essential information that would help to conduct the audit.

Moreover, audit logistics, such as scheduling, access, health and safety arrangements, observer attendance, and the need for guides or interpreters, were thoroughly planned. The meeting also addressed areas of interest or concern, preemptively resolving potential issues and finalizing any matters related to the audit team composition.

As the audit progressed, Robert recognized the complexity of Aizoia’s operations, leading him to conclude that a review of its Al-related data governance practices was essential for compliance with ISO/IEC 42001. He discussed this need with Aizoia's management, proposing an expanded audit scope. After careful consideration, they agreed to conduct a thorough review of the Al data governance practices, but there was no mutual decision to officially change the audit scope. Consequently. Robert decided to proceed with the audit based on the original scope, adhering to the initial audit plan, and documented the conversation and decision accordingly.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Question:

According to Scenario 5, was Robert's decision to proceed with the audit without changing its scope appropriate?

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?

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 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?

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?