Scenario 6:
Scenario 6: HappilyAI is a pioneering enterprise dedicated to developing and deploying artificial intelligence Al solutions tailored to enhance customer service experiences across various industries. The company offers innovative products like virtual assistants, predictive analytics tools, and personalized customer interaction platforms. As part of its commitment to operational excellence and innovation, HappilyAI has implemented a robust Al management system AIMS to oversee its Al operations effectively. Currently. HappilyAI is undergoing a comprehensive audit process of its AIMS to evaluate its compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.
Under the leadership of Jess, the audit team began the audit process with meticulous planning and coordination, setting the groundwork for the extensive on-site activities of the stage 1 audit. This initial phase was marked by a comprehensive documentation review. The audit scope encompassed a critical review of HappilyAI's core departments, including Research and Development (R&D), Customer Service, and Data Security, aiming to assess the conformity of HappilyAI's AIMS to the requirements of ISO/IEC 42001.
Afterward, Jess and the team conducted a formal opening meeting with HappilyAI to introduce the audit team and outline the audit activities. The meeting set a collaborative tone for the subsequent phases, where the team engaged in information collection, executed audit tests, identified findings, and prepared draft nonconformity reports while maintaining a strict quality review process.
In gathering evidence, the audit team employed a sampling method, which involved dividing the population into homogeneous groups to ensure a comprehensive and representative data collection by drawing samples from each segment. Furthermore, the team employed observation to deepen their understanding of the Al management processes. They verified the availability of essential documentation, including Al-related policies, and evaluated the communication channels established for reporting incidents.
Additionally, they scrutinized specific monitoring tools designed to track the performance of data acquisition processes, ensuring these tools effectively identify and respond to errors or anomalies. However, a notable challenge emerged as the team encountered a lack of access to documented information that describes how tasks about AIMS are executed. In addition to this, the team identified a potential nonconformity within the Sales Department. They decided not to record this as a nonconformity in the audit report but only communicated it to the HappilyAI's representatives.
During the stage 2 audit, the certification body, in collaboration with HappilyAI, assigned the roles of technical experts within the audit team. Recognized for their specialized knowledge and expertise in artificial intelligence and its applications, these technical experts are tasked with the thorough assessment of the AIMS framework to ensure its alignment with industry standards and best practices, focusing on areas such as data ethics, algorithmic transparency, and Al system security.
Question:
Which level of documented information could the audit team NOT access?
Question:
Which of the following examples depicts frequent analysis?
Based on Scenario 5, Alterhealth determined the audit time. 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.
Which core element emphasizes that AI systems should be designed to avoid bias and ensure fair treatment for all individuals?
In which step are the audit findings, including nonconformities, documented and reviewed?
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.
An organization is undergoing a certification audit to evaluate its compliance with ISO/IEC 42001 and ISO/IEC 27001 for its AIMS and ISMS, respectively. What type of audit is the organization undergoing in this case?
During which phase of the certification process is confirmation of registration performed?
Scenario 2: OptiFlow is a logistics company located in New Delhi, India. The company has enhanced its operational efficiency and customer service by integrating AI across various domains, including route optimization, inventory management, and customer support. Recognizing the importance of AI in its operations, OptiFlow decided to implement an Artificial Intelligence Management System (AIMS) based on ISO/IEC 42001 to oversee and optimize the use of AI technologies.
To address Clauses 4.1 and 4.2 of the standard, OptiFlow identified and analyzed internal and external issues and needs and expectations of interested parties. During this phase, it identified specific risks and opportunities related to AI deployment, considering the system's domain, application context, intended use, and internal and external environments. Central to this initiative was the establishment and maintenance of AI risk criteria, a foundational step that facilitated comprehensive AI risk assessments, effective risk treatment strategies, and precise evaluations of risk impacts. This implementation aimed to meet AIMS’s objectives, minimize adverse effects, and promote continuous improvement. OptiFlow also planned and integrated strategies to address risks and opportunities into AIMS’s processes and assessed their effectiveness.
OptiFlow set measurable AI objectives aligned with its AI policy across all organizational levels, ensuring they met applicable requirements and matched the company’s vision. The company placed strong emphasis on the monitoring and communication of these objectives, ensuring they were updated annually or as needed to reflect changes in technology, market demands, or internal processes. It also documented the objectives, making them accessible across the company.
To guarantee a structured and consistent AI risk assessment process, OptiFlow emphasized alignment with its AI policy and objectives. The process included ensuring consistency and comparability, identifying, analyzing, and evaluating AI risks.
OptiFlow prioritizes its AIMS by allocating the necessary resources for its comprehensive development and continuous enhancement. The company carefully defines the competencies needed for personnel affecting AI performance, ensuring a high level of expertise and innovation.
OptiFlow also manages effective internal and external communications about its AIMS, aligning with ISO/IEC 42001 requirements by maintaining and controlling all required documented information. This documentation is meticulously identified, described, and updated to ensure its relevance and accessibility. Through these strategic efforts, OptiFlow upholds a commitment to excellence and leadership in AI management practices.
To comply with Clause 9 of ISO/IEC 42001, the company determined what needs to be monitored and measured in the AIMS. It planned, established, implemented, and maintained an audit program, reviewed the AIMS at planned intervals, documented review results, and initiated a continuous feedback mechanism from all interested parties to identify areas of improvement and innovation within the AIMS.
Which of the following requirements of Clause 6.1.2 AI risk assessment did OptiFlow NOT consider?
Question:
Which statement most accurately characterizes semantic computing?
A tech company has decided to apply ISO/IEC 42001 specifically to integrate the AIMS with existing management systems, such as the Information Security Management System and the Business Continuity Management System. Which part of ISO/IEC 42001 should the company use as guidance on aligning the AIMS with these systems to ensure cohesive objectives, streamlined processes, and unified documentation?
Question:
During which phase of the certification process is confirmation of registration performed?
Question:
Which of the following standards emphasizes the importance of conducting AI system impact assessments to evaluate the potential effects on individuals and societies affected by the AI system?
What among the below list of steps comes before the other ones in the management system audit process?
Question:
DenSolutions, a financial institution, is seeking to certify its AIMS. The certification body appointed Sarah as the audit team leader, who previously provided consultancy services regarding the AIMS. Can Sarah audit the AIMS of DenSolutions?
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.
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?
In the functional view of an AI system, what role does the processing component play?
What is one of the key objectives of conducting an audit according to ISO 19011?
Which core element focuses on ensuring that the creators and operators of AI systems are responsible for the outcomes and impacts of those systems?
According to Scenario 8, Sharona played a vital role in the certification decision. Is this acceptable?
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.
A financial institution uses an AI system to approve loan applications. Recently, there have been complaints that the system disproportionately denies loans to applicants from certain minority groups. Which core element should the institution prioritize to address these complaints?
Which control in Annex A emphasizes the importance of security measures in AI system operations?
Scenario 6 (continued):
Scenario 6: HappilyAI is a pioneering enterprise dedicated to developing and deploying artificial intelligence Al solutions tailored to enhance customer service experiences across various industries. The company offers innovative products like virtual assistants, predictive analytics tools, and personalized customer interaction platforms. As part of its commitment to operational excellence and innovation, HappilyAI has implemented a robust Al management system AIMS to oversee its Al operations effectively. Currently. HappilyAI is undergoing a comprehensive audit process of its AIMS to evaluate its compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.
Under the leadership of Jess, the audit team began the audit process with meticulous planning and coordination, setting the groundwork for the extensive on-site activities of the stage 1 audit. This initial phase was marked by a comprehensive documentation review. The audit scope encompassed a critical review of HappilyAI's core departments, including Research and Development (R&D), Customer Service, and Data Security, aiming to assess the conformity of HappilyAI's AIMS to the requirements of ISO/IEC 42001.
Afterward, Jess and the team conducted a formal opening meeting with HappilyAI to introduce the audit team and outline the audit activities. The meeting set a collaborative tone for the subsequent phases, where the team engaged in information collection, executed audit tests, identified findings, and prepared draft nonconformity reports while maintaining a strict quality review process.
In gathering evidence, the audit team employed a sampling method, which involved dividing the population into homogeneous groups to ensure a comprehensive and representative data collection by drawing samples from each segment. Furthermore, the team employed observation to deepen their understanding of the Al management processes. They verified the availability of essential documentation, including Al-related policies, and evaluated the communication channels established for reporting incidents.
Additionally, they scrutinized specific monitoring tools designed to track the performance of data acquisition processes, ensuring these tools effectively identify and respond to errors or anomalies. However, a notable challenge emerged as the team encountered a lack of access to documented information that describes how tasks about AIMS are executed. In addition to this, the team identified a potential nonconformity within the Sales Department. They decided not to record this as a nonconformity in the audit report but only communicated it to the HappilyAI's representatives.
During the stage 2 audit, the certification body, in collaboration with HappilyAI, assigned the roles of technical experts within the audit team. Recognized for their specialized knowledge and expertise in artificial intelligence and its applications, these technical experts are tasked with the thorough assessment of the AIMS framework to ensure its alignment with industry standards and best practices, focusing on areas such as data ethics, algorithmic transparency, and Al system security.
Question:
Which observation types did the audit team use to enhance their understanding of the AI management processes?
Based on Scenario 1, which AI principle did NeuraGen fail to apply?
Scenario: NeuraGen, founded by a team of AI experts and data scientists, has gained attention for its advanced use of artificial intelligence. It specializes in developing personalized learning platforms powered by AI algorithms. MindMeld, its innovative product, is an educational platform that uses machine learning and stands out by learning from both labeled and unlabeled data during its training process. This approach allows MindMeld to use a wide range of educational content and personalize learning experiences with exceptional accuracy. Furthermore, MindMeld employs an advanced AI system capable of handling a wide variety of tasks, consistently delivering a satisfactory level of performance. This approach improves the effectiveness of educational materials and adapts to different learners' needs.
NeuraGen skillfully handles data management and AI system development, particularly for MindMeld. Initially, NeuraGen sources data from a diverse array of origins, examining patterns, relationships, trends, and anomalies. This data is then refined and formatted for compatibility with MindMeld, ensuring that any irrelevant or extraneous information is systematically eliminated. Following this, values are adjusted to a unified scale to facilitate mathematical comparability. A crucial step in this process is the rigorous removal of all personally identifiable information (PII) to protect individual privacy. Finally, the data is subjected to quality checks to assess its completeness, identify any potential bias, and evaluate other factors that could impact the platform's efficacy and reliability.
NeuraGen has implemented an advanced artificial intelligence management system (AIMS) based on ISO/IEC 42001 to support its efforts in AI-driven education. This system provides a framework for managing the life cycle of AI projects, ensuring that development and deployment are guided by ethical standards and best practices.
NeuraGen's top management is key to running the AIMS effectively. Applying an international standard that specifically provides guidance for the highest level of company leadership on governing the effective use of AI, they embed ethical principles such as fairness, transparency, and accountability directly into their strategic operations and decision-making processes.
While the company excels in ensuring fairness, transparency, reliability, safety, and privacy in its AI applications, actively preventing bias, fostering a clear understanding of AI decisions, guaranteeing system dependability, and protecting user data, it struggles to clearly define who is responsible for the development, deployment, and outcomes of its AI systems. Consequently, it becomes difficult to determine responsibility when issues arise, which undermines trust and accountability, both critical for the integrity and success of AI initiatives.
Scenario 8 (continued):
Scenario 8:
Scenario 8: InnovateSoft, headquartered in Berlin, Germany, is a software development company known for its innovative solutions and commitment 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 the evidence, 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 inaccurately reflecting the efficiency of their software development processes. In response, the company provided new evidence and additional information to alter the audit conclusions for a couple of minor nonconformities identified. After thorough consideration, the audit team leader clarified that the new evidence did not significantly alter the core conclusions drawn for the nonconformities. Therefore, the certification 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 the audit team on resolving the identified nonconformities. The audit team leader offered solutions to address the issues, fostering a collaborative 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 audit evidence was based on a sample, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty. The method and time frame of reporting and grading findings were 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 corrective actions planned to address the detected nonconformities. However, the submission slightly exceeded the specified period of 45 days set by the certification body, arriving three days later. InnovateSoft explained this by attributing the delay to unexpected challenges encountered during the compilation of the action plans.
During the closing meeting, the audit team covered key topics including sampling uncertainty, timelines for corrections, and complaint/appeals procedures.
Question:
Based on Scenario 8, was the concluding meeting comprehensive in addressing all essential components of the audit?
An auditor is reviewing an AI system used for hiring processes at a tech company and discovers that the system disproportionately rejects candidates from certain ethnic backgrounds. The auditor previously consulted for this company on diversity strategies. Which management system auditing principle (as per ISO 19011) is at risk of being compromised in this scenario?
At which stage of the audit process is materiality assessed and determined?
Scenario 9 (continued):
Scenario 9: Securisai, located in Tallinn. Estonia, specializes in the development of automated cybersecurity solutions that utilize AI systems. The company recently implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS in accordance with ISO/IEC 42001. In doing so, the company aimed to manage its Al-driven systems’ capabilities to detect and mitigate cyber threats more efficiently and ethically. As part of its commitment to upholding the highest standards of Al use and management, Securisai underwent a certification audit to demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.
The audit process comprised two main stages: the initial or stage 1 audit focused on reviewing Securisai's documentation, policies, and procedures related to its AIMS. This review laid the groundwork for the stage 2 audit, which involved a comprehensive, on-site evaluation
of the actual implementation and effectiveness of the AIMS within Securisai's operations. The goal was to observe the AIMS in operation, ensuring that it not only existed on paper but was effectively integrated into the company's daily activities and cybersecurity strategies.
After the audit, Roger, Securisai's internal auditor, addressed the action plans devised to rectify nonconformities identified during the certification audit. He developed a long term strategy, highlighting key AIMS processes for triennial audits. Roger's internal audits play a
key role in advancing Securisai's goals by employing a systematic and disciplined method to assess and boost the efficiency of risk
management, governance processes, and strategic decision-making. Roger reported his findings directly to Securisai's top management.
Following the successful rectification of nonconformities, Securisai was officially certified against ISO/IEC 42001.
Recently, the company decided to transfer its ISO/IEC 42001 certification registration from one certification body to another despite being initially bound by a long-term agreement with the current certification body. This decision was motivated by the desire to partner with a certification body that offers deeper insights and expertise in the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence in cybersecurity.
To ensure a smooth transition and uphold its certification status, Securisai is diligently compiling the required documentation for submission to the new certification body. This includes a formal request, the most recent audit report underscoring its adherence to ISO/IEC 42001, the latest corrective action plan that highlights its continuous efforts toward improvement, and a copy of its current valid certification registration.
A year following Securisai's initial certification audit, a subsequent audit was carried out by the certification body on its AIMS. The
purpose of this audit was to assess compliance with ISO/IEC 42001 and verify the ongoing improvement of the AIMS. The audit team
concluded that Securisai's AIMS consistently meets the requirements set by ISO/IEC 42001.
Roger followed up on action plans after the external audit at Securisai, but he was directly involved in strategic decision-making processes, potentially affecting his audit objectivity.
Question:
Based on Scenario 9, which principle of internal auditing did Roger violate?
Question:
Can ISO/IEC 42001 be integrated into an integrated management system (IMS) with ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO 9001?
Based on Scenario 7, what sampling method was used to assess TastyMade's adherence to some requirements of Clause 4.1 Understanding the organization and its context?
Scenario 7: TastyMade. headquartered in Hamburg, Germany, is an established company in the food manufacturing industry that applies Al technologies in its
operations. It has implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on ISO/IEC 42001 to further strengthen its Al management and ensure
compliance with international standards. As part of its commitment to excellence and continual improvement, TastyMade is undergoing an audit process to achieve
certification against ISO/IEC 42001.
In preparation for the audit, TastyMade collaborated closely with the audit team leader to develop a detailed audit plan. This plan encompassed objectives, criteria,
scope, and logistical arrangements for both on-site and remote audit activities. Recognizing the specialized nature of Al integration, a technical expert was brought in
to support the audit team and ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant aspects. Upon discussion with the audit team leader, it was mutually decided that not every
audit team member would need a guide throughout the audit process. At times, the TastyMade itself would assume the role of the guide, actively facilitating audit
activities.
A formal opening meeting was held with TastyMade's management to provide an overview of the audit process and set expectations. During this meeting, key
interested parties were briefed on the audit objectives and the methodologies that would be employed during the audit. Following the meeting, the audit team
proceeded with their work, collecting information and conducting tests to evaluate the effectiveness of TastyMade's AIMS.
Daily evening meetings were held to review progress, discuss encountered issues, and facilitate collaboration among audit team members. The audit team leader
adopted an open communication approach, encouraging all auditors to share their findings and challenges. The communication regarding the progress of the audit
was informal, allowing for a fluid exchange of information and updates among team members.
To verify adherence to some requirements of clause 4.1 Understanding the organization and its context, the audit team arbitrarily selected for analysis a representative
sample of Al management practices across different departments and functions within the company.
During the audit process, the technical expert uncovered certain technical and operational findings related to the integration and governance of Al systems.
Recognizing the significance of these findings, the expert promptly informed the audit team leader. Understanding the need for further clarification and direct
communication, the audit team leader authorized the technical expert to address the findings directly with the auditee. However, to ensure proper oversight, the expert
was supervised by one of the audit team members.
Throughout the audit, it became apparent that TastyMade promoted a culture of autonomy and decentralized decision-making in Al integration processes. Employees
were empowered to set goals, allocate responsibilities, and devise methodologies independently, with management providing guidance and support as needed. This
approach fostered innovation and agility within the company
During an audit, the auditor uncovers sensitive data regarding the AI system's algorithms and their decision-making processes. Which principle must the auditor adhere to when handling this information?
How frequently should surveillance audits be conducted?
Question:
Which of the following competencies must at least one of the audit team members possess?
Which statement regarding the confidentiality of documented information related to or collected from the auditee is NOT accurate?
Did the audit team leader thoroughly review all essential components before deciding to close the nonconformity? 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.
Scenario 3 (continued):
ArBank is a financial institution located in Brussels, Belgium, which offers a diverse range of banking and investment services to its clients. To ensure the continual improvement of its operations, ArBank has implemented a quality management system QMS based
on ISO 9001 and an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on the requirements of ISO/IEC 42001.
Audrey, an experienced auditor, led an internal audit focused on the AIMS within ArBank. She assessed the chatbots integrated into the bank's website and mobile app, analyzing communications using big data technology to identify potential noncompliance, fraud, or unethical conduct. Instead of relying solely on the information provided by the chatbots, Audrey sought out evidence that would either confirm or challenge the validity of the data, ensuring her conclusions were based on reliable and accurate information. Her review of selected chatbot interactions confirmed they met their intended purpose.
For the specific context of ArBank's operations, Audrey utilized an Al system to assess the efficiency of the bank's digital infrastructure, focusing on tasks critical to the Finance Department. This Al system was able to analyze the functionality of chatbots integrated into ArBank's website and mobile app to determine if it adheres to ISO/IEC 42001 requirements and internal policies governing customer service in the banking sector.
In addition, Audrey conducted a deeper assessment of the bank’s AIMS. Her evaluation included observing different stages of the AIMS life cycle, from development to deployment, to ensure that roles and responsibilities were clearly defined and aligned with ArBank’s operational goals. She also evaluated the tools used to monitor and measure the performance of the AIMS.
Audrey continued the audit process by auditing ArBank's outsourced operations. Upon checking the contractual agreements between the two parties, Audrey decided that there was no need to gather audit evidence regarding the contractual agreement. She reviewed the company's processes for monitoring the quality of outsourced operations, determined whether appropriate governance processes are in place with regard to the engagement of outsourced persons or organizations, and reviewed and evaluated the company's plans in case of expected or unexpected termination of the outsourcing agreement.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
Question:
Based on Scenario 3, which of the following AI technologies did Audrey employ to assess the efficiency of the bank's digital infrastructure?
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.
What should audit findings that are nonconformities NOT be recorded as?
Which among the following is NOT a level of AI?
Question:
Which of the following responsibilities belongs to the certification body?
An audit team member is tasked with evaluating a sophisticated AI system used for autonomous driving. They lack the necessary expertise but proceed without consulting a specialist. Which principle is being neglected in this scenario?
Which of the following statements best describes the evidence collection process carried out by the audit team at Finalogic? Refer to Scenario 4.
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 Al
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 Al. 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 Al system-which
assert successful integration and compliance with the standard.
Additionally, presentations by the company’s Al 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 Al 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 Al practices, there remains a risk of Al 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 Al governance, implementing bias mitigation strategies, and enhancing transparency to uphold its reputation as a leader in Al driven financial services.
Scenario 6 (continued):
Scenario 6: HappilyAI is a pioneering enterprise dedicated to developing and deploying artificial intelligence Al solutions tailored to enhance customer service experiences across various industries. The company offers innovative products like virtual assistants, predictive analytics tools, and personalized customer interaction platforms. As part of its commitment to operational excellence and innovation, HappilyAI has implemented a robust Al management system AIMS to oversee its Al operations effectively. Currently. HappilyAI is undergoing a comprehensive audit process of its AIMS to evaluate its compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.
Under the leadership of Jess, the audit team began the audit process with meticulous planning and coordination, setting the groundwork for the extensive on-site activities of the stage 1 audit. This initial phase was marked by a comprehensive documentation review. The audit scope encompassed a critical review of HappilyAI's core departments, including Research and Development (R&D), Customer Service, and Data Security, aiming to assess the conformity of HappilyAI's AIMS to the requirements of ISO/IEC 42001.
Afterward, Jess and the team conducted a formal opening meeting with HappilyAI to introduce the audit team and outline the audit activities. The meeting set a collaborative tone for the subsequent phases, where the team engaged in information collection, executed audit tests, identified findings, and prepared draft nonconformity reports while maintaining a strict quality review process.
In gathering evidence, the audit team employed a sampling method, which involved dividing the population into homogeneous groups to ensure a comprehensive and representative data collection by drawing samples from each segment. Furthermore, the team employed observation to deepen their understanding of the Al management processes. They verified the availability of essential documentation, including Al-related policies, and evaluated the communication channels established for reporting incidents.
Additionally, they scrutinized specific monitoring tools designed to track the performance of data acquisition processes, ensuring these tools effectively identify and respond to errors or anomalies. However, a notable challenge emerged as the team encountered a lack of access to documented information that describes how tasks about AIMS are executed. In addition to this, the team identified a potential nonconformity within the Sales Department. They decided not to record this as a nonconformity in the audit report but only communicated it to the HappilyAI's representatives.
During the stage 2 audit, the certification body, in collaboration with HappilyAI, assigned the roles of technical experts within the audit team. Recognized for their specialized knowledge and expertise in artificial intelligence and its applications, these technical experts are tasked with the thorough assessment of the AIMS framework to ensure its alignment with industry standards and best practices, focusing on areas such as data ethics, algorithmic transparency, and Al system security.
Question:
Based on Scenario 6, the auditor did not include the potential nonconformity of the Sales Department in the audit report. Is this acceptable?
A global bank is currently evaluating the effectiveness of its AI management system controls through an AIMS audit. Which role is being played by this company?
Question:
Which of the following should be considered when determining the feasibility of the audit?
Which requirement of Clause 7 (Support) of ISO/IEC 42001 did OptiFlow NOT implement? Refer to Scenario 2.
Scenario 2: OptiFlow is a logistics company located in New Delhi, India. The company has enhanced its operational efficiency and customer service by integrating AI across various domains, including route optimization, inventory management, and customer support. Recognizing the importance of AI in its operations, OptiFlow decided to implement an Artificial Intelligence Management System (AIMS) based on ISO/IEC 42001 to oversee and optimize the use of AI technologies.
To address Clauses 4.1 and 4.2 of the standard, OptiFlow identified and analyzed internal and external issues and needs and expectations of interested parties. During this phase, it identified specific risks and opportunities related to AI deployment, considering the system's domain, application context, intended use, and internal and external environments. Central to this initiative was the establishment and maintenance of AI risk criteria, a foundational step that facilitated comprehensive AI risk assessments, effective risk treatment strategies, and precise evaluations of risk impacts. This implementation aimed to meet AIMS’s objectives, minimize adverse effects, and promote continuous improvement. OptiFlow also planned and integrated strategies to address risks and opportunities into AIMS’s processes and assessed their effectiveness.
OptiFlow set measurable AI objectives aligned with its AI policy across all organizational levels, ensuring they met applicable requirements and matched the company’s vision. The company placed strong emphasis on the monitoring and communication of these objectives, ensuring they were updated annually or as needed to reflect changes in technology, market demands, or internal processes. It also documented the objectives, making them accessible across the company.
To guarantee a structured and consistent AI risk assessment process, OptiFlow emphasized alignment with its AI policy and objectives. The process included ensuring consistency and comparability, identifying, analyzing, and evaluating AI risks.
OptiFlow prioritizes its AIMS by allocating the necessary resources for its comprehensive development and continuous enhancement. The company carefully defines the competencies needed for personnel affecting AI performance, ensuring a high level of expertise and innovation.
OptiFlow also manages effective internal and external communications about its AIMS, aligning with ISO/IEC 42001 requirements by maintaining and controlling all required documented information. This documentation is meticulously identified, described, and updated to ensure its relevance and accessibility. Through these strategic efforts, OptiFlow upholds a commitment to excellence and leadership in AI management practices.
To comply with Clause 9 of ISO/IEC 42001, the company determined what needs to be monitored and measured in the AIMS. It planned, established, implemented, and maintained an audit program, reviewed the AIMS at planned intervals, documented review results, and initiated a continuous feedback mechanism from all interested parties to identify areas of improvement and innovation within the AIMS
Question:
Which of the following describes a joint audit?
According to the core element of 'Privacy and Security,’ what is essential when developing AI systems?
A retail company wants to implement a system that can predict customer buying behavior based on their browsing history and past purchases. Which AI concept would be most suitable for developing this predictive system?
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 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?
Scenario 8:
Scenario 8: InnovateSoft, headquartered in Berlin, Germany, is a software development company known for its innovative solutions and commitment 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 the evidence, 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 inaccurately reflecting the efficiency of their software development processes. In response, the company provided new evidence and additional information to alter the audit conclusions for a couple of minor nonconformities identified. After thorough consideration, the audit team leader clarified that the new evidence did not significantly alter the core conclusions drawn for the nonconformities. Therefore, the certification 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 the audit team on resolving the identified nonconformities. The audit team leader offered solutions to address the issues, fostering a collaborative 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 audit evidence was based on a sample, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty. The method and time frame of reporting and grading findings were 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 corrective actions planned to address the detected nonconformities. However, the submission slightly exceeded the specified period of 45 days set by the certification body, arriving three days later. InnovateSoft explained this by attributing the delay to unexpected challenges encountered during the compilation of the action plans.
Question:
Was the audit team leader’s attitude appropriate regarding the new evidence provided by the company?
Did Samuel consider all the necessary factors while reviewing documented information during the stage 1 audit? Refer to Scenario 6.
Scenario 6: AfrinovAl, based in Nairobi, Kenya, develops Al tools to improve agriculture in Africa. The company uses Al to address challenges faced by African farmers,
offering tools for analyzing satellite images to monitor crop health, predicting pest and disease outbreaks, and automating irrigation to use water more efficiently.
AfrinovAl has implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on ISO/IEC 42001, reflecting its commitment to ethical and effective
management practices in its Al solutions.
AfrinovAl is undergoing a certification audit to obtain certification against ISO/IEC 42001. Samuel, an expert in Al technologies and management systems, is heading
the audit team. Before initiating the audit process, Samuel reviewed and approved the audit plan, which served as a basis for the agreement between the certification
body and the auditee.
During the stage 1 audit, the audit team focused on a detailed evaluation of AfrinovAI's documented information, critically assessing both their format and content.
Samuel held a meeting with his team to prepare for the stage 2 audit. During this meeting, responsibilities were allocated among team members, assigning specific
processes, functions, sites, areas, or activities based on each auditor's expertise and the audit requirements. He also assigned auditing roles to technical experts to
leverage their specialized knowledge in specific areas.
In the stage 2 audit, Samuel and his team held an opening meeting during which Samuel explained how the audit activities will be undertaken. AfrinovAI's also
participated in the meeting. Afterward, the audit team conducted on-site activities to closely inspect the physical locations of the audited processes. The interviewed
individuals from the auditee's personnel regarding the AIMS and observed some of the operations of the auditee. They also used sampling and technical verification to
assess the implementation of Al-related controls, verify compliance with established procedures, and identify any gaps in adherence to the AIMS requirements. They
skipped the review of documented information related to the AIMS since some documents had already been reviewed during the stage 1 audit. This comprehensive
approach ensured a thorough evaluation of AfrinovAI's AIMS against the ISO/IEC 42001.
Question:
Who is responsible for reviewing the corrections, identified causes, and corrective actions of the auditee?
Scenario 9 (continued):
Scenario 9: Securisai, located in Tallinn. Estonia, specializes in the development of automated cybersecurity solutions that utilize AI systems. The company recently implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS in accordance with ISO/IEC 42001. In doing so, the company aimed to manage its Al-driven systems’ capabilities to detect and mitigate cyber threats more efficiently and ethically. As part of its commitment to upholding the highest standards of Al use and management, Securisai underwent a certification audit to demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.
The audit process comprised two main stages: the initial or stage 1 audit focused on reviewing Securisai's documentation, policies, and procedures related to its AIMS. This review laid the groundwork for the stage 2 audit, which involved a comprehensive, on-site evaluation
of the actual implementation and effectiveness of the AIMS within Securisai's operations. The goal was to observe the AIMS in operation, ensuring that it not only existed on paper but was effectively integrated into the company's daily activities and cybersecurity strategies.
After the audit, Roger, Securisai's internal auditor, addressed the action plans devised to rectify nonconformities identified during the certification audit. He developed a long term strategy, highlighting key AIMS processes for triennial audits. Roger's internal audits play a
key role in advancing Securisai's goals by employing a systematic and disciplined method to assess and boost the efficiency of risk
management, governance processes, and strategic decision-making. Roger reported his findings directly to Securisai's top management.
Following the successful rectification of nonconformities, Securisai was officially certified against ISO/IEC 42001.
Recently, the company decided to transfer its ISO/IEC 42001 certification registration from one certification body to another despite being initially bound by a long-term agreement with the current certification body. This decision was motivated by the desire to partner with a certification body that offers deeper insights and expertise in the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence in cybersecurity.
To ensure a smooth transition and uphold its certification status, Securisai is diligently compiling the required documentation for submission to the new certification body. This includes a formal request, the most recent audit report underscoring its adherence to ISO/IEC 42001, the latest corrective action plan that highlights its continuous efforts toward improvement, and a copy of its current valid certification registration.
A year following Securisai's initial certification audit, a subsequent audit was carried out by the certification body on its AIMS. The
purpose of this audit was to assess compliance with ISO/IEC 42001 and verify the ongoing improvement of the AIMS. The audit team
concluded that Securisai's AIMS consistently meets the requirements set by ISO/IEC 42001.
Question:
Based on Scenario 9, what should Securisai’s certification be?
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.
Question:
Which of the following are the core functions of the NIST AI Risk Management Framework that help with addressing AI risks in practice?
Scenario 9 (continued):
Scenario 9: Securisai, located in Tallinn. Estonia, specializes in the development of automated cybersecurity solutions that utilize AI systems. The company recently implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS in accordance with ISO/IEC 42001. In doing so, the company aimed to manage its Al-driven systems’ capabilities to detect and mitigate cyber threats more efficiently and ethically. As part of its commitment to upholding the highest standards of Al use and management, Securisai underwent a certification audit to demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.
The audit process comprised two main stages: the initial or stage 1 audit focused on reviewing Securisai's documentation, policies, and procedures related to its AIMS. This review laid the groundwork for the stage 2 audit, which involved a comprehensive, on-site evaluation
of the actual implementation and effectiveness of the AIMS within Securisai's operations. The goal was to observe the AIMS in operation, ensuring that it not only existed on paper but was effectively integrated into the company's daily activities and cybersecurity strategies.
After the audit, Roger, Securisai's internal auditor, addressed the action plans devised to rectify nonconformities identified during the certification audit. He developed a long term strategy, highlighting key AIMS processes for triennial audits. Roger's internal audits play a
key role in advancing Securisai's goals by employing a systematic and disciplined method to assess and boost the efficiency of risk
management, governance processes, and strategic decision-making. Roger reported his findings directly to Securisai's top management.
Following the successful rectification of nonconformities, Securisai was officially certified against ISO/IEC 42001.
Recently, the company decided to transfer its ISO/IEC 42001 certification registration from one certification body to another despite being initially bound by a long-term agreement with the current certification body. This decision was motivated by the desire to partner with a certification body that offers deeper insights and expertise in the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence in cybersecurity.
To ensure a smooth transition and uphold its certification status, Securisai is diligently compiling the required documentation for submission to the new certification body. This includes a formal request, the most recent audit report underscoring its adherence to ISO/IEC 42001, the latest corrective action plan that highlights its continuous efforts toward improvement, and a copy of its current valid certification registration.
A year following Securisai's initial certification audit, a subsequent audit was carried out by the certification body on its AIMS. The
purpose of this audit was to assess compliance with ISO/IEC 42001 and verify the ongoing improvement of the AIMS. The audit team
concluded that Securisai's AIMS consistently meets the requirements set by ISO/IEC 42001.
Question:
What type of audit is described in the last paragraph of Scenario 9?
Copyright © 2021-2025 CertsTopics. All Rights Reserved
