Summer Certification Sale 70% Discount Offer - Ends in 0d 00h 00m 00s - Coupon code: save70

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

Exam Code:
ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor
Exam Name:
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor Exam
Vendor:
Questions:
198
Last Updated:
Jun 12, 2026
Exam Status:
Stable
PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor

ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor: AI management system (AIMS) Exam 2025 Study Guide Pdf and Test Engine

Are you worried about passing the PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor (ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor Exam) exam? Download the most recent PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor braindumps with answers that are 100% real. After downloading the PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor exam dumps training , you can receive 99 days of free updates, making this website one of the best options to save additional money. In order to help you prepare for the PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor exam questions and verified answers by IT certified experts, CertsTopics has put together a complete collection of dumps questions and answers. To help you prepare and pass the PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor exam on your first attempt, we have compiled actual exam questions and their answers. 

Our (ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor Exam) Study Materials are designed to meet the needs of thousands of candidates globally. A free sample of the CompTIA ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor test is available at CertsTopics. Before purchasing it, you can also see the PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor practice exam demo.

ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Artificial Intelligence Management System Lead Auditor Exam Questions and Answers

Question 1

Question:

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

Options:

A.

The auditee's ability to negotiate the terms and conditions

B.

The auditee's cooperation

C.

The motivation of the audit team members

Buy Now
Question 2

Were VeridicAI’s action plans drafted appropriately? Refer to Scenario 8.

Scenario 8: VeridicAI. based in San Francisco. USA, specializes in market research using Al technologies to analyze customer behavior. Founded in 2023, the company

employs natural language processing, machine learning, and predictive analytics to provide real time insights to a range of businesses. VeridicAI has implemented an

artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on ISO/IEC 42001 to manage its Al technologies effectively. The AIMS scope includes select departments within

the company, for which it has received a four-year certification against ISO/IEC 42001. Committed to transparency. VeridicAI publicly shares details of this certification.

As the certification nears its end, VeridicAI is preparing for an audit to renew its certification.

The audit process was led by Sharona, the audit team leader, who is a full-time employee of the certification body. Sharona and the audit team undertook all planned

audit activities. Afterward, they organized the closing meeting with VeridicAl’s management. During the meeting, Sharona and the team made a recap on audit

objectives and scope, presented the audit findings and conclusions, presented identified nonconformities, and organized a session for questions and answers for the

auditee.

VeridicAI received a conditional recommendation for certification, underscoring its compliance with the industry's standards. Sharona confirmed that the company met

the essential requirements but noted some identified minor nonconformities. In response, VeridicAI compiled and submitted a comprehensive action plan that

addresses all identified nonconformities within a designated timeframe. Because of the comprehensive action plan, Sharona did not see the need for an additional on-

site visit to verify the effectiveness of the action plan.

Sharona played an integral role in the certification decision process. Her thorough understanding of VeridicAI's operations, gained from the audit, guided the

certification body towards a well-informed certification decision.

Options:

A.

Yes, a general action plan must be submitted, addressing all nonconformities simultaneously

B.

No, a general action plan must be submitted for all the minor nonconformities, whereas for major nonconformities, a separate action plan for each

C.

No, an action plan must be submitted separately for each nonconformity

Question 3

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:

Does the company's implementation of version control practices for documented information align with the requirements of ISO/IEC 42001?

Options:

A.

Yes, as the standard emphasizes the importance of controlling changes through accurate records of modification and approvals

B.

No, as the standard does not require specific measures for tracking changes in documented information

C.

No, as the standard requests a focus on preserving legibility and storage rather than controlling changes

D.

Yes, but only if done manually without automated systems