[Q57-Q80] Attested ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Dumps PDF Resource [2026]

Q57. What does the ‘Human-Centered Design’ core element prioritize in AI development?

Q58. 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?

Q59. Which among the following is NOT a core element of AIMS?

Q60. Scenario 7:
Scenario 7: ICure, headquartered in Bratislava, is a medical institution known for its use of the latest technologies in medical practices. Ithas 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 holisticmanagement 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 1audit 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. Followingthese observations, the findings weredocumented 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 stage2 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, payingspecial 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 documentedinformation. Essential processes related to Al model training, validation, and deployment were not documented accurately, hinderingeffective control and management of these critical activities. This issue was recorded as a minor nonconformity, signaling a need forenhanced 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?

Q61. Question:
Can the work assignments of audit team members be changed during the audit?

Q62. What is the right series of AI system lifecycle?

Q63. Scenario 3 (continued):
ArBank is a financial institution located in Brussels, Belgium, which offers a diverse range of banking and investment servicesto 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 thebank’s website and mobile app, analyzing communications using big data technology to identify potential noncompliance, fraud, orunethical conduct. Instead of relying solely on the information provided by the chatbots, Audrey sought out evidence that would eitherconfirm or challenge the validity of the data, ensuring her conclusions were based on reliable and accurate information. Her review ofselected 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 intoArBank’s website and mobile app to determine if it adheres to ISO/IEC 42001 requirements and internal policies governing customerservice in the banking sector.
In addition, Audrey conducted a deeper assessment of the bank’s AIMS. Her evaluation included observing different stages of the AIMSlife cycle, from development to deployment, to ensure that roles and responsibilities were clearly defined and aligned with ArBank’soperational 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 thetwo parties, Audrey decided that there was no need to gather audit evidence regarding the contractual agreement. She reviewed thecompany’s processes for monitoring the quality of outsourced operations, determined whether appropriate governance processes are inplace with regard to the engagement of outsourced persons or organizations, andreviewed and evaluated the company’s plans in case ofexpected 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?

Q64. What type of evidence is an external audit report?

Q65. 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?

Q66. Scenario 2 (continued):
Empsy HR Solutions is a human resources consulting company that provides innovative HR solutions to diverse industries. Recognizing the significant impact of artificial intelligence Al in HR processes, including its ability to automate repetitive tasks, analyze vast amounts of data for insights, improve recruitment and talent management strategies, and personalize employee experiences, the company has initiated the implementation of an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on ISO/IEC 42001.
Initially, the top management established an Al policy that was aligned with the company’s objectives. The Al policy provided a framework for defining Al objectives, a commitment to meeting relevant requirements, and a dedication to continually improve the AIMS. However, it did not refer to other organizational policies, although some were relevant to the AIMS. Afterward, the top management documented the policy, communicated it internally, and made it accessible to interested parties.
The top management designated specific individuals to ensure that the AIMS meets the standard’s requirements. Additionally, they ensured that these individuals were responsible for overseeing the AIMS, reporting its performance to the top management, and facilitating continual improvement. Moreover, in its awareness sessions, the company focused exclusively on ensuring that all personnel were informed about the Al policy, emphasizing their role in ensuring the effectiveness of the AIMS and the benefits of enhanced Al performance.
The company also planned, implemented, and monitored processes to meet AIMS requirements. Additionally, it set clear criteria and implemented controls based on them, ensuring effective operation, alignment with organizational objectives, and continual improvement. Empsy HR Solutions decided to implement strict measures to control changes to documented information within the AIMS. To ensure the integrity and accuracy of documentation, the company adopted version control practices. Each document update was tracked using a versioning system, with clear records of what was modified, who made the changes, and when the updates occurred. Access to make changes was restricted to authorized personnel, and any proposed modifications required approval from the designated management team before being implemented.
Moreover, considering past experiences where the company encountered unforeseen risks, Empsy HR Solutions established a comprehensive Al risk assessment process. This process involved identifying, analyzing, and evaluating Al risks to determine if it is necessary to implement additional controls than those specified in Annex A. The company also referred to Annex B for guidance on implementing controls and, ultimately, produced a Statement of Applicability So A. The SoA contained the necessary controls, including all the controls of Annex A and justifications for their inclusion or exclusion.
Lastly. Empsy HR Solutions decided to establish an internal audit program to ensure the AIMS conforms to both the company’s requirements and ISO/IEC 42001. It defined the audit objectives, criteria, and scope for each audit, selected auditors, and ensured objectivity and impartiality during the audit process. The results of the first audit were documented and reported only to the top management of the company.
Question:
Based on Scenario 2, was the awareness session conducted in accordance with the requirements of Clause 7.3 Awareness of ISO/IEC 42001?

Q67. What is the main goal of the ‘Transparency and Explainability’ core element in AI?

Q68. A few months after an audit, the auditor returns to the company to verify that corrective actions have been effectively implemented and that the issues identified have been resolved. Which step of the management system audit process does this activity correspond to?

Q69. Based on Scenario 5, Alterhealth determined the audit time. Is this acceptable?
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.

Q70. 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?

Q71. A retail company wants to implement a system that can predict customer buying behavior based on their browsing history and past purchases. Which AI concept would be most suitable for developing this predictive system?

Q72. 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, theaudit 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.
After being recommended for certification (pending submission of corrective actions), InnovateSoft did not notify the auditor about completion of corrections and corrective actions.
Question:
Is this acceptable?

Q73. Which of the following should be considered when determining the feasibility of the audit?

Q74. Which core element emphasizes that AI systems should be designed to avoid bias and ensure fair treatment for all individuals?

Q75. 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, which of the following processes regarding data did Future Horizon Academy NOT conduct?

Q76. Which control in Annex A emphasizes the importance of security measures in AI system operations?

Q77. Question:
A multinational technology corporation has initiated an audit process to assess compliance with ISO/IEC
42001. The audit team drafted an audit schedule after the initiation of the audit.
Which aspect of the audit schedule prepared by the audit team is NOT correct?

Q78. Based on the last paragraph of scenario 3, which audit principle did Augustine violate? Refer to scenario 3.
Scenario 3: Heala specializes in developing Al-driven solutions for the healthcare sector. With a keen focus on leveraging Al to revolutionize patient care, diagnostics, and treatment planning, the company 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.
It contracted a local certification body, who established the audit team and assigned the audit team leader.
Augustine, the designated audit team leader, has a wide
range of skills relevant to various auditing domains. His proficiency encompasses audit principles, processes, and methods, as well as standards for management systems and additional references. Furthermore, he is knowledgeable about the Heala’s context and relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Augustine first gathered management review records, interested party feedback logs, and revision histories for Heala’s AIMS. This crucial step laid the groundwork for a deeper investigation, which included conducting comprehensive interviews with key personnel to understand how feedback from interested parties directly influenced updates to the AIMS and its strategic direction. Augustine’s thorough evaluation process aimed to verify Heala’s commitment to integrating the needs and expectations of interested parties, a critical requirement of ISO/IEC 42001.
Augustine also integrated a sophisticated Al tool to analyze large datasets for patterns and anomalies, and thus have a more informed and data driven audit process.
This Al solution, known for its ability to sift through vast amounts of data with unparalleled speed and accuracy, enabled Augustine to identify irregularities and trends that would have been nearly impossible to detect through manual methods. The tool was also helpful in preparing hypotheses based on data.
During the audit. Augustine failed to fully consider Heala’s critical processes, expectations, the complexity of audit tasks, and necessary resources beforehand. This oversight compromised the audit integrity and reliability, reflecting a significant deviation from the diligence and informed judgment expected of auditors.

Q79. What among the below list of steps comes before the other ones in the management system audit process?

Q80. Based on Scenario 4, the audit team employed the same level of effort and techniques across all audit areas. Is this recommended?
Scenario 4: Finalogic leads the application of artificial intelligence in the financial services sector, which is used to improve risk assessment, fraud detection, and customer service. The company has implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on ISO/IEC 42001 to ensure operational quality, ethical Al use, regulatory compliance, and transparency, allowing for consistent oversight and structured governance.
This month, Finalogic is undergoing an audit to obtain certification against ISO/IEC 42001, a critical step in demonstrating its commitment to responsible Al. To evaluate Finalogic’s conformity to the audit criteria, the audit team adopted a comprehensive, evidence-based approach. The gathered evidence ranged from analyses of unquantifiable information to analyses of samples related to determining the audit criteria-including internal reports generated by Finalogic’s own Al system-which assert successful integration and compliance with the standard.
Additionally, presentations by the company’s Al team during the audit highlighted the system’s success in customer service enhancements and fraud detection, emphasizing improved efficiency, decision making accuracy, and user trust. An evaluation report prepared by an independent third party firm specializing in Al systems also provided an objective review of Finalogic’s AIMS. It assessed the system’s effectiveness, bias, and compliance through a thorough examination.
During the audit, the audit team applied the same level of effort and utilized the same techniques across all audit areas, regardless of their risk level. This strategy ensured a consistent and thorough evaluation of the AIMS, uncovering any latent weaknesses or inefficiencies that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Despite Finalogic’s advanced AIMS and adherence to ISO/IEC 42001 for ethical Al practices, there remains a risk of Al algorithms inadvertently perpetuating bias or making inaccurate predictions due to unforeseen flaws in training data or algorithmic models. This could lead to unfair loan rejections or approvals, potentially causing financial losses or damaging the company’s reputation for fairness and accuracy in its financial services. By acknowledging these risks. Finalogic remains committed to refining its Al governance, implementing bias mitigation strategies, and enhancing transparency to uphold its reputation as a leader in Al driven financial services.