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

The certification body did not include all departments covered by the AIMS scope in the audit scope. Is this acceptable? Refer to Scenario 5.

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.

Did the audit team leader appropriately schedule the follow-up after the initial audit? Refer to scenario 9.

Scenario 9: ImoAl, headquartered in California. USA, provides Al solutions for various industries such as finance, healthcare, retail, and manufacturing. Its clients

include major financial institutions seeking Al powered fraud detection systems, healthcare providers leveraging Al for diagnostics and patient care, retailers

optimizing supply chain management with Al forecasting, and manufacturers enhancing production efficiency through Al-driven automation.

ImoAl has recently undergone a certification audit to ensure that its artificial intelligence management system AIMS is in compliance with ISO/IEC 42001. During the

audit, a major nonconformity related to data security protocols was identified, requiring urgent resolution. ImoAl swiftly initiated corrective actions to address the

major nonconformity. The audit follow-up, in agreement with the auditee, was scheduled six weeks after the initial audit. As part of exploring alternatives to audit

follow-up, the audit team leader chose to verify the effectiveness of the actions taken by the auditee by scheduling a specific visit to ImoAI's premises.

The follow-up audit involved a thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of these actions. The audit team leader thoroughly examined the corrections, corrective actions,

and root cause analysis conducted by ImoAl to assess whether they adequately addressed the nonconformity identified during the initial audit.

In conjunction with the external audit follow-up, ImoAl engaged its internal auditing team to oversee the progress of corrective actions. The AIMS manager of ImoAl

updated Ms. Rebecca Hayes, the internal auditor, on the status of corrections and corrective actions prompted by the nonconformity identified during the external

audit. Subsequently, Ms. Hayes thoroughly reviewed these measures, analyzing the corrections, root causes, and effectiveness of the implemented actions.

Upon satisfactory validation of the action plans, ImoAl was recommended for certification.

Question:

During which phase of the certification process is confirmation of registration performed?