ISO-IEC-42001-LEAD-AUDITOR RELIABLE EXAM PREPARATION | ISO-IEC-42001-LEAD-AUDITOR PASSGUIDE

ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Reliable Exam Preparation | ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Passguide

ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Reliable Exam Preparation | ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Passguide

Blog Article

Tags: ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Reliable Exam Preparation, ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Passguide, ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor New Learning Materials, ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Reliable Test Objectives, Answers ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Real Questions

Our company TrainingDumps has been putting emphasis on the development and improvement of our ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor test prep over ten year without archaic content at all. So we are bravely breaking the stereotype of similar content materials of the ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam, but add what the exam truly tests into our ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor exam guide. So we have adamant attitude to offer help rather than perfunctory attitude. It will help you pass your ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor exam in shortest time.

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

TopicDetails
Topic 1
  • 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.
Topic 2
  • 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 3
  • 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 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.

>> ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Reliable Exam Preparation <<

ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam Torrent - ISO/IEC 42001:2023Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor Exam Prep Torrent & ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Test Guide

It is universally acknowledged that ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor certification can help present you as a good master of some knowledge in certain areas, and it also serves as an embodiment in showcasing one’s personal skills. However, it is easier to say so than to actually get the ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor certification. We have to understand that not everyone is good at self-learning and self-discipline, and thus many people need outside help to cultivate good study habits, especially those who have trouble in following a timetable. Buy our ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam Questions, we will help you pass the ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor exam without difficulty.

PECB ISO/IEC 42001:2023Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor Exam Sample Questions (Q41-Q46):

NEW QUESTION # 41
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 # 42
Question:
An auditor has been assigned to perform a certification audit for an organization. However, the auditor discovers that their close relative holds a key management position within the organization being audited.
What kind of threat to impartiality does this situation represent?

  • A. Advocacy
  • B. Self-interest
  • C. Intimidation
  • D. Familiarity

Answer: D

Explanation:
This situation represents aFamiliarity Threat.
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 5.2.7identifiesfamiliarityas a risk when an auditor develops a relationship with a client that could impair objectivity.
* TheISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guidestates:"Familiarity threat occurs when an auditor becomes too sympathetic to the auditee's interests, due to close relationships or repeated interactions."A relative in management would heavily impair the auditor's independence.
Reference:ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 5.2.7; ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Study Manual Section 4 ("Threats to Auditor Impartiality").


NEW QUESTION # 43
Which core element emphasizes that AI systems should be designed to avoid bias and ensure fair treatment for all individuals?

  • A. Fairness and Non-Discrimination
  • B. Transparency and Explainability
  • C. Human-Centered Design
  • D. Accountability

Answer: A

Explanation:
The principle ofFairness and Non-Discriminationis one of the core ethical and governance pillars emphasized inISO/IEC 42001:2023, especially inClause 4.2 (Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties)andClause 6.1 (Actions to address risks and opportunities)where ethical risks related to AI systems are assessed.
According to the standard and accompanying PECB training guide, fairness is defined as ensuring thatAI systems do not create or perpetuate bias, and that individuals and groups aretreated equitably, with measures in place to detect and mitigate discrimination. This is often embedded in risk assessments and operational controls when managing AI systems.
In ISO/IEC 42001, organizations are required to considerethical, legal, and societal impactsof their AI systems, andFairness and Non-Discriminationis a key tenet oftrustworthy AI.


NEW QUESTION # 44
Scenario 5 (continued):
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 acertification 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 data governancepractices, 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:
Based on Scenario 5, were all the recommended aspects covered during the initial contact with Aizoia?

  • A. No, the agreement with the auditee regarding the extent of the disclosure and the treatment of confidential information was not confirmed
  • B. Yes, all the required aspects were covered during the initial contact
  • C. No, the negotiation of the final audit fee and payment schedule was not covered

Answer: A

Explanation:
The scenario does not mention addressingconfidentiality agreements, which is mandatory during the initial contact.
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.2.3.1andISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.4.3both require that agreements about confidentiality, access rights, and data protection must be confirmed before starting the audit.
* TheLead Auditor Manualhighlights:"Initial contact meetings must establish thetreatment of confidential information and audit-related disclosure agreements." Reference:ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.2.3.1; ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.4.3.


NEW QUESTION # 45
Question:
Which of the following describes a joint audit?

  • A. When two or more auditing organizations cooperate to audit a single auditee
  • B. When two or more management systems are audited together at a single auditee
  • C. When an internal audit and a third-party audit are conducted simultaneously
  • D. When audits are conducted back-to-back for efficiency

Answer: A

Explanation:
AJoint Auditis when two or more audit organizationscooperateto audit the same auditee.
* ISO 19011:2018 Clause 3.9defines joint audit as:"An audit carried out by two or more auditing organizations cooperating to audit a single auditee."
* This is further echoed in ISO/IEC 42001:2023, which supports joint audits especially inmulti-country and consortium environments (Clause 9.2.1 reference to audit scope management).
Reference:ISO 19011:2018 Clause 3.9; ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 9.2.1.


NEW QUESTION # 46
......

In order to be able to better grasp the proposition thesis direction, the ISO/IEC 42001:2023Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor Exam study question focus on proposition which one recent theory and published, in all kinds of academic report even if update to find effective thesis points, according to the proposition of preferences and habits, ponder proposition style of topic selection, to update our ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam Question, to facilitate users of online learning, better fit time development hot spot.

ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Passguide: https://www.trainingdumps.com/ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor_exam-valid-dumps.html

Report this page