ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam Questions
Preparing for the ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor exam is simple with ExamsTeacher. We offer easy-to-understand study materials that help you learn the most important exam topics. You can study using our PDF questions, practice online with a real exam-style test, or use the desktop practice software. Choose the study method that works best for you and prepare at your own pace.
At ExamsTeacher, we keep our ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor practice questions up to date. Whenever the exam syllabus or objectives change, we update our study materials so you always learn the latest topics. This helps you save time, avoid outdated content, and feel more confident when you take your exam.
What type of audit evidence did Augustine gather when he collected management review records? 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.
Correct Answer: C
Audit evidence can be classified into different types, including documentary, oral, observational, and physical. According to ISO 19011:2018 (Guidelines for Auditing Management Systems), which is referenced in ISO/IEC 42001:2023 for audit practice, “Documented information (such as policies, procedures, reports, records)” is considered documentary evidence.
In the scenario, Augustine collected:
Management review records
Feedback logs
Revision histories
All of these are written or electronic records and fall under documentary evidence.
Which of the following examples depicts frequent analysis?
Correct Answer: A
Frequent analysis involves ongoing or regularly performed assessments, such as interviews with employees regarding their role awareness.
ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.5.5 discusses auditor sampling and analysis, and frequent analysis refers to repeated testing of a process over time.
Periodic financial reviews (annual) or one-time deployment checks don’t qualify as frequent — but ongoing interviews and awareness checks do .
Scenario 7:
Scenario 7: ICure, headquartered in Bratislava, is a medical institution known for its use of the latest technologies in medical practices. It has 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 holistic management 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 1 audit 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 were documented 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 stage 2 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, paying special 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 documented information. Essential processes related to Al model training, validation, and deployment were not documented accurately, hindering effective control and management of these critical activities. This issue was recorded as a minor nonconformity, signaling a need for enhanced 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?
Correct Answer: A
The scenario mentions on-site evaluation and preparation but does not mention audit test plan preparation , which is a key part of audit planning .
ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.2.3.1 and ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.4.3 both emphasize the importance of developing test/check plans based on audit criteria, risks, and scope prior to the audit.
The ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide includes audit test plan preparation under pre-audit responsibilities, and omitting it is a planning deficiency.
In which step are the audit findings, including nonconformities, documented and reviewed?
Correct Answer: D
The Audit Reporting step involves the formal documentation of audit findings , including:
Nonconformities
Observations
Opportunities for improvement
Conformity conclusions
According to ISO 19011:2018 – Clause 6.6.1 , and reflected in ISO/IEC 42001:2023 – Clause 9.2.2 , the audit report must be reviewed and finalized after the audit activities are complete and include verified evidence of all findings.
The PECB Lead Auditor Guide – Domain 6 emphasizes that the audit report is the final output of the audit process and includes all findings that were identified and reviewed during the audit lifecycle.
Which core element of AIMS is defined as: “Organizations are responsible for the development, deployment, and use of AI systems, and their potential impacts”?
Correct Answer: A
The correct core element is Accountability .
According to ISO/IEC 42001:2023 – Clause 5.3 , and PECB Lead Auditor Guide – Domain 1 , accountability is defined as the obligation of organizations to take responsibility for the outcomes and impacts of AI systems across the lifecycle — including design, development, deployment, and operation.
This includes establishing:
Clear roles and responsibilities
Oversight mechanisms
Escalation procedures for unintended consequences
It directly addresses the ethical and governance need to ensure AI systems are not used irresponsibly or without clear attribution.