Helping Hand Questions for CT-AI

The syllabus explains:

"Where the internal structure of an AI-based system is too complex for humans to understand, the system can only be tested as a black box. Even when the internal structure is visible, this provides no additional useful information to help with testing."

This confirms that black-box testing is chosen because the tester does not need to understand the system’s internal structure.

(Reference: ISTQB CT-AI Syllabus v1.0, Section 8.5, page 61 of 99)

Section4.3 – Test Levels for AI Systemsclearly defines ML model testing as the level at which testers evaluate whether an ML model fulfills itsfunctional performance criteria, including accuracy, precision, recall, F1, robustness, stability, and fairness. Therefore, Option C is the correct and syllabus-aligned statement.

Option A is incorrect because input data testing focuses onvalidity and correctness of data entering the model, not interactions with all system components. Option B is incorrect: acceptance testing in the syllabus focuses primarily onbusiness and stakeholder requirements, not specifically explainability. Explainability testing may occur at multiple levels depending on context. Option D is also incorrect because API testing belongs tointegration testing, not system testing, even when AI is consumed as a service.

Thus,Option Cis the only statement that precisely matches syllabus definitions.

The ISTQB CT-AI syllabus explains that AI-based decision-support systems benefit strongly fromback-to-back testingandmetamorphic testingwhen oracle problems exist or when limited regression tests are available. In this scenario, CleverPropose replaces an older advisory system.Back-to-back testing(Option A) is ideal because the outputs of the existing conventional system can serve as areference, enabling comparison against the new AI system. This is exactly what the syllabus recommends when AI is replacing a traditional deterministic system.

Metamorphic testing(Option C) is also appropriate, as stated in Section4.6 – Metamorphic Relations. With limited regression tests and complex decision logic, testers can define metamorphic relations such as “if customer income increases, risk rating should not worsen.” These relations allow validation even when exact expected outputs are unavailable.

Exploratory data analysis (Option D) is not a system testing technique. Pairwise testing (Option E) is not well suited for complex AI-based financial advice systems. Adversarial testing (Option B) is more relevant for security-critical or robustness evaluation, not primary system testing for advisory tools.

Thus,A and Care the correct and syllabus-supported choices.

Automation bias is defined in Section4.4 – Human Factors in AI Testingof the ISTQB CT-AI syllabus. It refers to the human tendency to overly trust, rely on, or defer to automated system outputs. The syllabus explains that this bias arises especially indecision-support systems, where humans may accept AI judgments without adequate verification. This aligns directly with Option B.

Option A is incorrect: automation biasdoesinfluence testing, especially when testers rely excessively on AI outputs. The syllabus cautions about testers adopting the same cognitive biases as end users. Option C is incorrect because autonomous systems are not the primary context; rather,systems supporting human decisionsare most impacted. Option D is incorrect because the quality of human inputmatters significantly, and poorly designed user studies can mask or distort automation bias.

Thus,Option Bis the syllabus-accurate description of automation bias.