Which of the following competencies must at least one of the audit team members have?
Scenario 9:
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:
Roger followed up on action plans resulting from external audits. Is this acceptable?
Question:
For which of the following activities are certification bodies responsible?
Scenario 4:
BioNovaPharm, a German biopharmaceutical company, has implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on ISO/IEC 42001 to optimize various aspects of drug discovery, including analyzing extensive biological data, identifying potential drug candidates, and streamlining clinical trial processes. After having the AIMS in place for over a year, the company contracted a certification 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 plan corresponded to the scope and complexity of the audit. The team employed a ranking system for detailed audit procedures, prioritizing those with the highest risk.
Once the stage 1 audit began, the audit team started reviewing the auditee's documented information. To assess whether BioNovaPharm complies with the legal and regulatory requirements related to incident communication, the audit team examined evidence provided by the company’s external legal office. The evidence confirmed that BioNovaPharm applies the requirements of the EU Al Act, which mandates 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 the observations of the audit team that could result in nonconformities during the on-site audit. However, the audit team leader, Emma, who was overseeing the audit activities, observed that John failed to document significant observations related to the lack of transparency in the 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 type of evidence did the audit team obtain to assess BioNovaPharm's compliance with legal and regulatory incident reporting requirements?
A software development company is well-known for its innovative practices and collaborative work environment. The CEO, Alex, has fostered a work culture where team input is highly valued in shaping the company’s strategic direction. Alex often organizes brainstorming sessions and workshops, inviting employees from various departments to share their insights and suggestions on new projects, company policies, and workflow improvements. While Alex ensures that every team member feels heard and valued, the final decisions on project directions, key company policies, and strategic initiatives rest with Alex. Which type of leadership does Alex most closely embody?
Scenario:
UrDesign, an interior design company, has recently decided to use machine learning for classification, regression tasks, and more complex tasks related to structured prediction.
Question:
What category of machine learning did UrDesign decide to use?
A tech company has decided to apply ISO/IEC 42001 specifically to integrate the AIMS with existing management systems, such as the Information Security Management System and the Business Continuity Management System. Which part of ISO/IEC 42001 should the company use as guidance on aligning the AIMS with these systems to ensure cohesive objectives, streamlined processes, and unified documentation?
An AI system is being developed to assist elderly people in their daily activities. The system needs to be intuitive and align with the needs and values of its users. Which core element of AI should guide the design and development of this AI system?
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.
InnovateSoft received minor nonconformities. After the closing meeting, the audit team leader suggested solutions for resolving the nonconformities, at the request of the auditee.
Question:
Was the audit team leader’s decision to suggest solutions for the identified nonconformities acceptable?
TESTED 18 Aug 2025
