PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Dumps Questions [2026] Pass for ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam
Updated PECB Study Guide ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Dumps Questions
PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam Syllabus Topics:
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| Topic 1 |
|
| Topic 2 |
|
| Topic 3 |
|
| Topic 4 |
|
| Topic 5 |
|
NEW QUESTION # 63
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 the 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 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.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
Did OptiFlow implement all the requirements of Clause 6.1.1 Actions to address risks and opportunities?
- A. No, the company did not establish and maintain AI risk criteria that support distinguishing acceptable from non-acceptable risks
- B. No, the company did not determine the risks and opportunities that need to be addressed to reduce undesired effects
- C. Yes, the company implemented all the requirements of Clause 6.1.1 of ISO/IEC 42001
Answer: C
Explanation:
Clause 6.1.1 of ISO/IEC 42001:2023 outlines the requirement for organizations to:
Determine risks and opportunities relevant to the AI management system.
Establish AI risk criteria to distinguish acceptable from non-acceptable risks.
Plan actions to address these risks and opportunities.
Integrate actions into the management system processes.
Evaluate the effectiveness of those actions.
In the scenario:
OptiFlow explicitly identified and analyzed risks and opportunities related to the context of its AI system.
It established and maintained AI risk criteria as a foundational step for assessments and treatment.
The organization integrated actions into the AIMS and assessed their effectiveness.
OptiFlow also aligned these actions with the organization's AI objectives and policy.
Therefore, OptiFlow has demonstrated compliance with all elements of Clause 6.1.1.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Clause 6.1.1 - Actions to address risks and opportunities PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Training Guide, Section 6.1 - Interpretation of AI risk management requirements
NEW QUESTION # 64
Scenario 5:
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:
Robert did not receive an offer from the certification body prior to accepting the mandate. Is this acceptable?
- A. No, the audit team leader must receive an official offer before accepting the audit mandate
- B. Yes, since Robert is a full-time employee of the certification body, he may accept audit mandates without receiving a formal offer
- C. Yes, if the auditor has extensive experience, a formal offer is not necessary
Answer: A
Explanation:
The audit team leader must receive a formal appointment before accepting the audit responsibility.
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.2.3.1 requires that the audit team leader must be formally appointed by the certification body to ensure clarity and avoid conflicts.
* The Lead Auditor Guide states: "Formal acceptance of an audit assignment is critical to ensure that audit roles, responsibilities, and impartiality expectations are clearly communicated." Reference: ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.2.3.1; ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Manual Section 5 ("Audit Team Leader Requirements").
NEW QUESTION # 65
During the audit planning phase, what is the primary activity an auditor should focus on?
- A. Conducting interviews with staff
- B. Issuing corrective actions
- C. Preparing checklists and audit plans
- D. Reviewing the final report
Answer: C
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 # 66
Question:
Which of the following responsibilities belongs to the certification body?
- A. Ensuring the establishment of the audit plan
- B. Communicating the audit plan
- C. Updating the audit plan
Answer: A
Explanation:
It is thecertification body's responsibilitytoensure that an audit plan is establishedprior to the audit.
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.2.3.1requires certification bodies to"ensure that an audit plan is established, communicated, and agreed upon."
* Updating or communicating the plan can be tasksdelegated to the audit team leader, but the accountabilityfor establishing the audit plan remains with the certification body.
Reference:ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.2.3.1.
NEW QUESTION # 67
An auditor is reviewing an AI system used for hiring processes at a tech company and discovers that the system disproportionately rejects candidates from certain ethnic backgrounds. The auditor previously consulted for this company on diversity strategies. Which management system auditing principle (as per ISO 19011) is at risk of being compromised in this scenario?
- A. Due Professional Care
- B. Independence
- C. Fair Presentation
- D. Confidentiality
Answer: B
Explanation:
The principle at risk here isIndependence. According toISO 19011:2018 - Clause 4(c), auditors must be independent of the activity being auditedandfree from bias or conflicts of interest.
Having previously consulted for the company ondiversity strategies, the auditor has aprior engagement that may affect impartiality, particularly since the audit involves evaluating bias and fairness in hiring practices - the same area previously advised on.
ThePECB Lead Auditor Guide - Domain 3reinforces that independence is crucial forobjective evidence gathering and unbiased conclusions, especially in audits involvingethical or reputational concerns.
Reference: ISO 19011:2018 - Clause 4 (Principles of auditing), specifically Principle: "Independence" PECB Lead Auditor Guide - Domain 3: "Ethical Principles and Auditor Conduct"
NEW QUESTION # 68
What should audit findings that are nonconformities NOT be recorded as?
- A. Supporting evidence
- B. Corrective actions needed
- C. Opportunities for improvement
- D. Nonfulfillment of a requirement
Answer: C
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 # 69
What is one of the key objectives of conducting an audit according to ISO 19011?
- A. Evaluating the effectiveness of the management system
- B. Imposing penalties on non-compliant organizations
- C. Issuing certificates of compliance
- D. Training employees on audit techniques
Answer: A
Explanation:
Theprimary objective of an audit, as defined inISO 19011:2018 - Clause 5.1, is toevaluate the extent to which the management system conforms to planned arrangements and is effectively implemented and maintained.
Audits arenot meant to issue certificates or impose penalties- they aretools for continual improvement, helping organizations assess theperformance and effectivenessof their systems.
This aligns with the purpose of internal audits described inISO/IEC 42001:2023 - Clause 9.2, which is to verify theeffectiveness of the AIMS (Artificial Intelligence Management System).
Reference: ISO 19011:2018 - Clause 5.1 (Objectives and benefits of audits) ISO/IEC 42001:2023 - Clause 9.2.1 (Internal Audit Objectives) PECB Lead Auditor Guide - Domain 3: "Purpose and Scope of Management System Audits"
NEW QUESTION # 70
Scenario 5:
Scenario 5: Aizoia, located in Washington, DC, has revolutionized data analytics, software development, and consulting by usingadvanced 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 basedon 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 leaderdespite 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 ofseven 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 (whetherphysical or virtual), organizational units, and the activities for review. Once the scope, processes, methods, and team composition hadbeen defined, the certification body provided the audit team leader with extensive information, including the audit objectives anddocumented 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 auditactivities to be conducted. The team leader also received information needed for evaluating and addressing identified risks andopportunities 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 initialcontact. The initial contact aimed to confirm thecommunication channels, establish the audit team's authority to conduct the audit, andsummarize the audit's key aspects, such as objectives, scope, criteria, methods, and team composition. During this first meeting, Robertemphasized 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 orinterpreters, were thoroughly planned. The meeting also addressed areas of interest or concern, preemptively resolving potential issuesand 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-relateddata 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 datagovernancepractices, but there was no mutual decision to officially change the audit scope. Consequently. Robert decided to proceed with the auditbased 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:
Robert did not receive an offer from the certification body prior to accepting the mandate. Is this acceptable?
- A. No, the audit team leader must receive an official offer before accepting the audit mandate
- B. Yes, since Robert is a full-time employee of the certification body, he may accept audit mandates without receiving a formal offer
- C. Yes, if the auditor has extensive experience, a formal offer is not necessary
Answer: A
Explanation:
The audit team leadermust receive a formal appointmentbefore accepting the audit responsibility.
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.2.3.1requires that the audit team leader must be formally appointed by the certification body to ensure clarity and avoid conflicts.
* TheLead Auditor Guidestates:"Formal acceptance of an audit assignment is critical to ensure that audit roles, responsibilities, and impartiality expectations are clearly communicated." Reference:ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.2.3.1; ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Manual Section 5 ("Audit Team Leader Requirements").
NEW QUESTION # 71
What among the below list of steps comes before the other ones in the management system audit process?
- A. Preparing the audit report
- B. Conducting the opening meeting
- C. Performing document review
- D. Initiating the audit
Answer: D
Explanation:
The first step in the audit process isInitiating the audit.
As perISO 19011:2018 - Clause 6.3, initiating the audit involves activities such asappointing the audit team
, defining theaudit scope and objectives, andcommunicating with the auditeeto set expectations.
After initiation, the auditor proceeds withdocument review, followed by theopening meeting, and then moves into audit execution and reporting.
NEW QUESTION # 72
How are auditors expected to handle conflicts of interest during an audit?
- A. By disclosing any potential conflicts and avoiding auditing the affected area
- B. By assigning an external auditor to handle the conflict
- C. By excluding the affected area from the audit scope
- D. By ignoring conflicts to maintain impartiality
Answer: A
Explanation:
The correct practice is:disclose any potential conflicts and avoid auditing the affected area.
ISO 19011:2018 - Clause 5.3 and Clause 6.3.2require auditors todeclare conflicts of interestand take steps topreserve impartiality. Failure to do so compromises the integrity andindependence of the audit.
According to thePECB Lead Auditor Guide, auditors shouldimmediately report any situation where their objectivity may be questioned, including past relationships, financial ties, or personal bias.
NEW QUESTION # 73
What is the purpose of conducting an opening meeting in the audit process?
- A. To perform a root cause analysis
- B. To discuss the audit findings
- C. To establish the audit criteria
- D. To confirm the audit plan and address any issues
Answer: D
Explanation:
Theopening meetingis a critical step in the audit process where the audit team:
* Confirms the audit plan
* Clarifies thescope, objectives, and schedule
* Addresses any last-minute concerns or changes
* Establishes lines of communication and cooperation
As perISO 19011:2018 - Clause 6.4.3, the opening meeting ensures mutual understanding between the auditor(s) and the auditee, helping set expectations and reduce confusion during the audit.
NEW QUESTION # 74
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.
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 # 75
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. Privacy and Security
- B. Accountability
- C. Fairness and Non-Discrimination
- D. Transparency and Explainability
Answer: C
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.
Reference: ISO/IEC 42001:2023 - Clause 6.1.2 (AI-related risks and impact), Annex A: Control A.8.2.4 (Bias and fairness) PECB Lead Auditor Guide - Domain 1: "Core Principles of Trustworthy AI"
NEW QUESTION # 76
An audit team member is tasked with evaluating a sophisticated AI system used for autonomous driving. They lack the necessary expertise but proceed without consulting a specialist. Which principle is being neglected in this scenario?
- A. Due Professional Care
- B. Integrity
- C. Independence
- D. Confidentiality
Answer: A
Explanation:
The principle being neglected isDue Professional Care.
According toISO 19011:2018 - Clause 4(f), auditors are expected to applydiligence, competence, and judgmentduring audit activities. If an auditor proceeds with an auditwithout the required expertise, especially for a high-risk system like autonomous driving, this violates the principle of due care.
ThePECB Lead Auditor Guide - Domain 3clearly states that in complex technical environments (such as AI or autonomous systems), auditors mustseek assistance from domain specialistswhen they lack direct experience.
NEW QUESTION # 77
At which stage of the audit process is materiality assessed and determined?
- A. Throughout each phase of the audit process
- B. During the stage 1 audit
- C. During the initial contact with the auditee
- D. During audit report writing only
Answer: A
Explanation:
Materiality is not a one-time evaluation but an ongoing judgment throughout the audit process. It is assessed continually to determine the significance of audit findings in the context of the audit objectives.
According to ISO 19011:2018, auditors should consider the relevance and materiality of information when identifying audit findings. Materiality can change based on evidence found in different phases such as planning, on-site audit, and reporting.
Reference:
ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.4.5 - Determining materiality
ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Clause 9.2 - Audit planning and execution
PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide - Chapter: Evaluating Audit Findings and Materiality
\===========
NEW QUESTION # 78
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 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:
Based on Scenario 6, the auditor did not include the potential nonconformity of the Sales Department in the audit report. Is this acceptable?
- A. Yes, because auditors have the discretion to omit any findings they deem insignificant, regardless of the audit scope
- B. Yes, because the Sales Department is not included in the audit scope
- C. No, problems, within or outside the scope of the audit, must be included in the audit report
Answer: C
Explanation:
Auditorsmust report all nonconformitiesdiscovered during the audit process, even if outside the predefined scope.
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.5mandates:"The audit report shall include any nonconformities identified, regardless of the scope initially planned."
* TheLead Auditor Guidestresses:"All relevant nonconformities found during audits must be reported transparently to the auditee and documented." Reference:ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.5; ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide Module 7 ("Reporting Requirements").
NEW QUESTION # 79
Which phase involves the collection of objective evidence through interviews, observations, and examination of documents?
- A. Conducting the audit
- B. Preparing the audit report
- C. Audit planning
- D. Audit follow-up
Answer: A
Explanation:
The Conducting the audit phase (Domain 5) is where the audit team actively collects objective evidence through:
* Interviews with relevant personnel
* Observation of processes and systems
* Examination of documents and records
This aligns with the procedures described in ISO 19011:2018 (Guidelines for Auditing Management Systems), which is referenced and applied in ISO/IEC 42001 auditing practices.
According to the PECB Lead Auditor Guide, Domain 5 explicitly outlines this activity as the main operational phase of the audit, aimed at evaluating conformity of the AI Management System with ISO/IEC
42001 requirements.
Reference: PECB Lead Auditor Guide - Domain 5: "Conducting the audit"
ISO 19011:2018 - Clauses 6.4.5 and 6.4.6 (Collecting and verifying information) ISO/IEC 42001:2023 - Clause 9.2.2 (Internal Audit Implementation)
NEW QUESTION # 80
Question:
What type of audit is conducted when a customer audits suppliers to make purchasing decisions?
- A. Third-party audit
- B. Second-party audit
- C. First-party audit
Answer: B
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 # 81
Was the arrangement for assigning guides during the audit process appropriate?
- A. No, because guides must be independent of the auditee
- B. Yes, the arrangement was appropriate
- C. No, because the auditee should not influence the guide selection process
- D. No, because every auditor must have a guide accompanying them
Answer: B
Explanation:
According to ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.4.2, guides may be appointed by the auditee to assist the audit team in identifying individuals to be interviewed, providing access to sites, and ensuring communication. Not every auditor must have an individual guide, and the decision is typically made collaboratively between the audit team leader and the auditee based on the audit scope, complexity, and logistics.
The scenario describes that the decision was made in mutual agreement with the audit team leader, which complies with best practices.
Reference:
ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.4.2 - Use of guides and observers
ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, Clause 9.1.6 - Audit support from guides
PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Study Guide - Section: Role of Guides in Audits
\===========
NEW QUESTION # 82
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. Fraud
- B. Minor error
- C. Ordinary negligence
- D. Gross negligence
Answer: C
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 # 83
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. Observational
- B. Qualitative
- C. Semi-quantitative
- D. Quantitative
Answer: D
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 # 84
......
Achieve Success in Actual ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam Dumps: https://www.topexamcollection.com/ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor-vce-collection.html
Valid ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor exam with PECB Real Exam Questions: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1x1YfmAbDE56PIi1_PVSv07qC5j3pCw7S
