ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Questions Answers, ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Sample Test Online

We have a lot of regular customers for a long-term cooperation now since they have understood how useful and effective our ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor actual exam is. In order to let you have a general idea about the shining points of our ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor training materials, we provide the free demos on our website for you to free download. You can check the information and test the functions by the three kinds of the free demos according to our three versions of the ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam Questions.

PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam Syllabus Topics:

Topic	Details
Topic 1	Preparing an ISO IEC 42001 audit: This section of the exam measures the skills of a Lead Auditor and covers how to plan and prepare for an AI management system audit. It includes creating audit plans, selecting team members, and setting clear objectives to ensure a smooth audit process.
Topic 2	Conducting an ISO IEC 42001 audit: This section of the exam measures the skills of a Lead Auditor and focuses on executing the audit according to ISO IEC 42001 guidelines. It includes collecting evidence, interviewing relevant staff, and evaluating compliance with the AI management system standards.
Topic 3	Closing an ISO IEC 42001 audit: This section of the exam measures the skills of an AI Compliance Officer and explains how to complete the audit process. It includes reporting findings, managing nonconformities, and conducting follow-ups to ensure continuous improvement and compliance.
Topic 4	Fundamental audit concepts and principles: This section of the exam measures the skills of a Lead Auditor and outlines essential audit concepts such as evidence collection, impartiality, objectivity, and ethical conduct. It introduces the core principles that form the foundation of a reliable and consistent auditing process.
Topic 5	AI management system requirements: This section of the exam measures the skills of a Lead Auditor and focuses on understanding the key requirements outlined in ISO IEC 42001. It explains how organizations should structure their AI-related activities and processes to meet compliance standards effectively.

>> ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Questions Answers <<

ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Sample Test Online & Latest ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Braindumps Files

The learning material is open in three excellent formats, PDF, a desktop practice test, and a web-based practice test. PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Dumps is organized by experts while saving the furthest down-the-line plan to them for the PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam. The sans bug plans have been given to you all to drift through the PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor certification exam.

PECB ISO/IEC 42001:2023Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor Exam Sample Questions (Q75-Q80):

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. Transparency and Explainability
B. Privacy and Security
C. Accountability
D. Fairness and Non-Discrimination

Answer: D

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 # 76
Scenario 9 (continued):
Scenario 9: Securisai, located in Tallinn.Estonia, specializes in the development of automated cybersecurity solutions that utilize AIsystems. The company recently implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS in accordance with ISO/IEC 42001. Indoing so, the company aimed to manage its Al-driven systems' capabilities to detect and mitigate cyber threats more efficiently andethically. As part of its commitment to upholding the highest standards of Al use and management, Securisai underwent a certificationaudit to demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.
The audit process comprised two main stages: the initial or stage 1 audit focused on reviewingSecurisai's documentation, policies, andprocedures related to its AIMS. This review laid the groundwork for the stage 2 audit, which involved a comprehensive, on-site evaluation of the actual implementation and effectiveness of the AIMS within Securisai's operations. The goal was to observe the AIMS in operation,ensuring that it not only existed on paper but was effectively integrated into the company's daily activities and cybersecurity strategies.
After the audit, Roger, Securisai's internal auditor, addressed the action plans devised to rectify nonconformities identified during thecertification audit. He developed a long term strategy, highlighting key AIMS processes for triennial audits. Roger's internal audits play a key role in advancing Securisai's goals by employing a systematic and disciplined method to assess and boost the efficiency of risk management, governance processes, and strategic decision-making. Roger reported his findings directly to Securisai's top management.
Following the successful rectification of nonconformities, Securisai was officially certified against ISO/IEC
42001.
Recently, the company decided to transfer its ISO/IEC 42001 certification registration from one certification body to another despitebeing initially bound by a long-term agreement with the current certification body.
This decision was motivated by the desire to partnerwith a certification body that offers deeper insights and expertise in the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence in cybersecurity.
To ensure a smooth transition and uphold its certification status, Securisai is diligently compiling the required documentation forsubmission to the new certification body. This includes a formal request, the most recent audit report underscoring its adherence toISO/IEC 42001, the latest corrective action plan that highlights its continuous efforts toward improvement, and a copy of its current validcertification registration.
A year following Securisai's initial certification audit, a subsequent audit was carried out by the certification body on its AIMS. The purpose of this audit was to assess compliance with ISO/IEC 42001 and verify the ongoing improvement of the AIMS. The audit team concluded that Securisai's AIMS consistently meets the requirements set by ISO/IEC 42001.
Roger followed up on action plans after the external audit at Securisai, but he was directly involved in strategic decision-making processes, potentially affecting his audit objectivity.
Question:
Based on Scenario 9, which principle of internal auditing did Roger violate?

A. Independence
B. Objectivity
C. Integrity

Answer: A

Explanation:
Independenceis compromised when an auditor has direct involvement in the management or decision-making processes of the system being audited.
* ISO/IEC 19011:2018 Clause 4.5defines independence as:"The basis for the impartiality and objectivity of the audit conclusions."
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 5.2.5reinforces that personnel auditing must be free from involvement in the area audited.
* By participating in strategic decision-making, Roger violated the independence principle.
Reference:ISO/IEC 19011:2018 Clause 4.5; ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 5.2.5.

NEW QUESTION # 77
Scenario 8 (continued):
Scenario 8:
Scenario 8: InnovateSoft, headquartered in Berlin, Germany, is a software development company known for its innovative solutions andcommitment to excellence. It specializes in custom software solutions, development, design, testing, maintenance, and consulting,covering both mobile apps and web development.
Recently, the company underwent an audit to evaluate the effectiveness and compliance of its artificial intelligence management system AIMS against ISO/IEC 42001.
The audit team engaged with the auditee to discuss their findings and observations during the audit's final phases. After evaluating theevidence, the audit team presented their audit findings to InnovateSoft, highlighting the identified nonconformities.
Upon receiving the audit findings, InnovateSoft accepted the conclusions but expressed concerns about some findings inaccuratelyreflecting the efficiency of their software development processes. In response, the company provided new evidence and additionalinformation to alter the audit conclusions for a couple of minor nonconformities identified. After thorough consideration, the audit teamleader clarified that the new evidence did not significantly alter the core conclusions drawn for the nonconformities. Therefore, thecertification body issued a certification recommendation conditional upon the filing of corrective action plans without a prior visit.
InnovateSoft accepted the decision of the certification body. The top management of the company also sought suggestions from theaudit team on resolving the identified nonconformities. The audit team leader offered solutions to address the issues, fostering acollaborative effort between the auditors and InnovateSoft.During the closing meeting, the audit team covered key topics to enhance transparency. They clarified to InnovateSoft that the auditevidence was based on a sample,acknowledging the inherent uncertainty. The method and time frame of reporting and grading findingswere discussed to provide a structured overview of nonconformities. The certification body's process for handling nonconformities,including potential consequences, guided InnovateSoft on corrective actions. The time frame for presenting a plan for correction was communicated, emphasizing urgency. Insights into the certification body's post-audit activities were provided, ensuring ongoing support.
Lastly, the audit team briefed InnovateSoft on complaint and appeal handling.
InnovateSoft submitted the action plans for each nonconformity separately, describing only the detected issues and the correctiveactions planned to address the detected nonconformities. However, the submission slightly exceeded the specified period of 45 days setby the certification body, arriving three days later.
InnovateSoft explained this by attributing the delay to unexpected challengesencountered during the compilation of the action plans.
During the closing meeting, the audit team covered key topics including sampling uncertainty, timelines for corrections, and complaint/appeals procedures.
Question:
Based on Scenario 8, was the concluding meeting comprehensive in addressing all essential components of the audit?

A. No, it should not have involved the post-audit activities of the certification body
B. No, it should not have involved the assessment of audit findings
C. Yes, it addressed all necessary aspects

Answer: C

Explanation:
The closing meeting covered:
* Uncertainty due to sampling
* Timeline for corrective actions
* Complaint and appeal procedures
* Findings and their classificationThese areall required elementsof the closing meeting.
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.7requires the audit team to present a summary of findings and next steps during the closing meeting.
* ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.6.12further includes communication of audit conclusions, clarification of nonconformities, and how findings will be managed post-audit.
Reference:ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.7; ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.6.12.

NEW QUESTION # 78
What is the main goal of the 'Transparency and Explainability' core element in AI?

A. To ensure AI systems are user-friendly
B. To make AI operations understandable to users and stakeholders
C. To improve the speed of AI systems
D. To reduce the cost of AI development

Answer: B

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
Reference: ISO/IEC 42001:2023 - Clause 6.1.2 (AI risk identification), and 8.2.3 (Operational planning and control) PECB Lead Auditor Guide - Domain 1: "Transparency and Explainability" as a core ethical value of AI

NEW QUESTION # 79
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.
Question:
Was the audit team leader's attitude appropriate regarding the new evidence provided by the company?

A. Yes, auditors should consider the new evidence provided and modify their audit conclusion, if necessary
B. No, auditors should consult with the certification body before making any decisions regarding new evidence presented after the stage
C. No, auditors should not take into consideration new evidence or additional information after reaching audit conclusions

Answer: A

Explanation:
Auditorsmust remain open to considering additional evidence- even if submitted late - as long as it is relevant and within the audit timeframe.
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.7states:"The audit team shall reconsider audit conclusions in light of any new, relevant information received before the audit report is finalized."
* TheLead Auditor Guidereinforces:"Evidence-based decision-making must include post-audit review of any additional submissions before certification decisions are made." Reference:ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.7; ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Manual - Section 7 ("Handling New Evidence Post-Audit").

NEW QUESTION # 80
......

We make the commitment that if you fail to pass your exam by using ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor study materials of us, we will give you refund. We are pass guarantee and money back guarantee. In addition, ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor exam dumps are high-quality, and you can improve your efficiency if you use them. ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor exam materials contain almost all of the knowledge points for the exam, and you master the major knowledge for the exam as well as improve your professional ability in the process of learning. In order to let you obtain the latest information for the exam, we offer you free update for one year, and the update version for ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam Dumps will be sent to your email automatically.

ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Sample Test Online: https://www.actualtestsquiz.com/ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor-test-torrent.html

Ray Green Ray Green

Biography

ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Questions Answers, ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Sample Test Online

PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam Syllabus Topics:

ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Sample Test Online & Latest ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Braindumps Files

PECB ISO/IEC 42001:2023Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor Exam Sample Questions (Q75-Q80):

Quick Links

Policies