UNPARALLELED CERTIFICATION ISO-IEC-42001-LEAD-AUDITOR SAMPLE QUESTIONS & GUARANTEED PECB ISO-IEC-42001-LEAD-AUDITOR EXAM SUCCESS WITH EFFICIENT ISO-IEC-42001-LEAD-AUDITOR RELIABLE TEST BOOTCAMP

Unparalleled Certification ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Sample Questions & Guaranteed PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam Success with Efficient ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Reliable Test Bootcamp

Unparalleled Certification ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Sample Questions & Guaranteed PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam Success with Efficient ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Reliable Test Bootcamp

Blog Article

Tags: Certification ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Sample Questions, ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Reliable Test Bootcamp, Study ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Materials, ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Printable PDF, Hot ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Spot Questions

In order to survive in the society and realize our own values, learning our ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor practice engine is the best way. Never top improving yourself. The society warmly welcomes struggling people. You will really benefit from your correct choice. Our ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Study Materials are ready to help you pass the exam and get the certification. You can certainly get a better life with the certification. Please make a decision quickly. We are waiting for you to purchase our ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor exam questions.

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

TopicDetails
Topic 1
  • 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 2
  • Fundamental principles and concepts of an AI management system: This section of the exam measures the skills of an AI Compliance Officer and covers the basic principles of artificial intelligence, including ethical use, trustworthiness, and transparency. It introduces the purpose and importance of having an AI management system in place for responsible AI governance.
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
  • 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 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.
Topic 6
  • Managing an ISO
  • IEC 42001 audit program: This section of the exam measures the skills of an AI Compliance Officer and deals with overseeing an entire audit program. It involves managing multiple audits, tracking audit performance, and aligning audit outcomes with broader organizational goals related to AI governance.

>> Certification ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Sample Questions <<

PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Reliable Test Bootcamp, Study ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Materials

GuideTorrent has many ISO/IEC 42001:2023Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor Exam (ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor) practice questions that reflect the pattern of the real ISO/IEC 42001:2023Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor Exam (ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor) exam. GuideTorrent allows you to create a ISO/IEC 42001:2023Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor Exam (ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor) exam dumps according to your preparation. It is easy to create the PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Practice Questions by following just a few simple steps. Our ISO/IEC 42001:2023Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor Exam (ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor) exam dumps are customizable based on the time and type of questions.

PECB ISO/IEC 42001:2023Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor Exam Sample Questions (Q52-Q57):

NEW QUESTION # 52
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. Gross negligence
  • C. Minor error
  • D. Ordinary negligence

Answer: D

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 # 53
Scenario 7 (continued):
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 Alsystems 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. Following these 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 clause did the audit team evaluate when assessing the appropriateness of the "AIMS Insight Strategy" procedure?

  • A. Clause 5.2 AI policy
  • B. Clause 4.1 Understanding the organization and its context
  • C. Clause 4.3 Determining the scope of the AI management system

Answer: B

Explanation:
The"AIMS Insight Strategy"refers to ICure's method for identifying internal and external challenges, which maps directly toClause 4.1.
* ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 4.1requires organizations to determine external and internal issues relevant to the AIMS, including stakeholder needs and challenges.
* TheLead Auditor Manualstates:"Clause 4.1 focuses on environmental, regulatory, technological, and organizational factors that affect AI operations and should be addressedthrough strategic tools like insight strategies." Reference:ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 4.1; Lead Auditor Study Guide Module 2.


NEW QUESTION # 54
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. Yes, if the auditor has extensive experience, a formal offer is not necessary
  • B. Yes, since Robert is a full-time employee of the certification body, he may accept audit mandates without receiving a formal offer
  • C. No, the audit team leader must receive an official offer before accepting the audit mandate

Answer: C

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 # 55
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.
InnovateSoft submitted corrective action plans for nonconformities three days past the certification body's deadline of 45 days.
Question:
Based on Scenario 8, is InnovateSoft eligible for certification?

  • A. No, the action plans were not submitted within the specified period
  • B. Yes, the submission of the action plans can be delayed for up to 10 days
  • C. Yes, it is up to the auditee to decide when to submit the action plans

Answer: B

Explanation:
While ISO/IEC 17021-1 does not prescribe a strict number of days, certification bodiestypically allow minor grace periods, e.g., 5-10 days, based on internal policy.
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.9requires that nonconformities must be addressedwithin a timeframe agreed by the certification body.
* If the delay is minor (e.g., 3 days), and the CB accepts it with justification, the certification process can still proceed.
* TheLead Auditor Manualnotes:"Minor extensions may be granted for corrective actions when justified and documented." Reference:ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.9; ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide - Section 8 ("Certification Decision Timelines").


NEW QUESTION # 56
Question:
Based on ISO/IEC 42001, which of the following is NOT one of the factors that an organization must consider when determining the risks and opportunities related to an AI system?

  • A. The intended use of the AI system
  • B. The potential impacts of AI decisions
  • C. The specific algorithms used to develop the AI system
  • D. The domain and application context of the AI system

Answer: C

Explanation:
ISO/IEC 42001 Clause 6.1.2 specifies that organizations must consider theintended use, domain, application context, and impactsof AI systems when assessing risks and opportunities. Itdoes not require consideration of the specific algorithmsused, because multiple algorithms can be applied to similar risk contexts.
Reference:ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 6.1.2 (Determination of Risks and Opportunities).


NEW QUESTION # 57
......

Although our company has designed the best and most suitable ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor learn prep, we also do not stop our step to do research about the ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor study materials. All experts and professors of our company have been trying their best to persist in innovate and developing the ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor test training materials all the time in order to provide the best products for all people and keep competitive in the global market. We believe that the ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Study Materials will keep the top selling products. We sincerely hope that you can pay more attention to our ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor study questions.

ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Reliable Test Bootcamp: https://www.guidetorrent.com/ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor-pdf-free-download.html

Report this page