PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

The top management of Alterhealth initially rejected the selected audit team leader because they had audited the company in the past, and thus would not bring added value for the auditee. 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.

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 AI 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 AI. 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 AI system—which assert successful integration and compliance with the standard.

Additionally, presentations by the company’s AI 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 AI 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 AI practices, there remains a risk of AI 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 AI governance, implementing bias mitigation strategies, and enhancing transparency to uphold its reputation as a leader in AI-driven financial services.

What type of audit is Finalogic undergoing?

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