Updated Nov 11, 2026 Verified Pass ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam in First Attempt Guaranteed [Q58-Q75]

Q58. 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.

Q59. Which aspect of the previous certification of VeridicAI is NOT correct? 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.

Q60. Scenario 7 (continued):
Scenario 7: ICure, headquartered in Bratislava, is a medical institution known for its use of the latest technologies in medical practices. Ithas introduced groundbreaking Al-driven diagnostics and treatment planning tools that have fundamentally transformed patient care.
ICure has integrated a robust artificial intelligence management system AIMS to manage its Alsystems effectively. This holisticmanagement framework ensures that ICure’s Al applications are not only developed but also deployed and maintained to adhere to the highest industry standards, thereby enhancing efficiency and reliability.
ICure has initiated a comprehensive auditing process to validate its AIMS’s effectiveness in alignment with ISO/IEC 42001. The stage 1audit involved an on-site evaluation by the audit team. The team evaluated the site-specific conditions, interacted with ICure’s personnel, observed the deployed technologies, and reviewed the operations that support the AIMS. Following these observations, the findings weredocumented and communicated to ICure. setting the stage for subsequent actions.
Unforeseen delays and resource allocation issues introduced a significant gap between the completion of stage
1 and the onset of stage2 audits. This interval, while unplanned, provided an opportunity for reflection and preparation for upcoming challenges.
After four months, the audit team initiated the stage 2 audit. They evaluated AIMS’s compliance with ISO
/IEC 42001 requirements, payingspecial attention to the complexity of processes and their documentation. It was during this phase that a critical observation was made:
ICure had not fully considered the complexity of its processes and their interactions when determining the extent of documentedinformation. Essential processes related to Al model training, validation, and deployment were not documented accurately, hinderingeffective control and management of these critical activities. This issue was recorded as a minor nonconformity, signaling a need forenhanced control and management of these vital activities.
Simultaneously, the auditor evaluated the appropriateness and effectiveness of the “AIMS Insight Strategy,” a procedure developed by ICure to determine the AIMS internal and external challenges. This examination identified specific areas for improvement, particularly in the way stakeholder input was integrated into the system. It highlighted how this could significantly enhance the contribution of relevant parties in strengthening the system’s resilience and effectiveness.
The audit team determined the audit findings by taking into consideration the requirements of ICure, the previous audit records and conclusions, the accuracy, sufficiency, and appropriateness of evidence, the extent to which planned audit activities are realized and planned results achieved, the sample size, and the categorization of the audit findings. The audit team decided to first record all the requirements met; then they proceeded to record the nonconformities.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
Question:
Which clause did the audit team evaluate when assessing the appropriateness of the “AIMS Insight Strategy” procedure?

Q61. Question:
An auditor has been assigned to perform a certification audit for an organization. However, the auditor discovers that their close relative holds a key management position within the organization being audited.
What kind of threat to impartiality does this situation represent?

Q62. 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.
What type of machine learning does MindMeld utilize?

Q63. Was the involvement of Ms. Rebecca Hayes, the internal auditor, necessary for the audit at ImoAI? 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.

Q64. Scenario 6 (continued):
Scenario 6: HappilyAI is a pioneering enterprise dedicated to developing and deploying artificial intelligence Al solutions tailored toenhance 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 andinnovation, 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 groundworkfor the extensive on-site activities of the stage 1 audit. This initial phase was marked by a comprehensive documentation review. Theaudit scope encompassed a critical review of HappilyAI’s core departments, including Research and Development (R&D), CustomerService, 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 auditactivities. The meeting set a collaborative tone for the subsequent phases, where the team engaged in information collection, executedaudit 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 toensure a comprehensive and representative data collection by drawing samples from each segment. Furthermore, the team employedobservation 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 thesetools effectively identify and respond to errors or anomalies. However, a notable challenge emerged as the team encountered a lack ofaccess to documented information that describes how tasks about AIMS are executed. In addition to this, the team identified a potentialnonconformity within the Sales Department. They decided not to record this as a nonconformity in the audit report but onlycommunicated 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 auditteam. Recognized for their specialized knowledge and expertise in artificial intelligence and its applications, these technical experts aretasked 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?

Q65. 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?

Q66. Which control in Annex A of ISO 42001:2023 focuses on the need for stakeholder engagement in AI system development?

Q67. A financial institution needs to develop a system that can understand and process large volumes of unstructured text data from financial reports to extract key information and insights. Which AI concept would be best suited for this task?

Q68. Which among the following is NOT a level of AI?

Q69. How frequently should surveillance audits be conducted?

Q70. Which core element emphasizes that AI systems should be designed to avoid bias and ensure fair treatment for all individuals?

Q71. Scenario 5:
Scenario 5: Aizoia, located in Washington, DC, has revolutionized data analytics, software development, and consulting by using advanced Al algorithms. Central to its success is an Al platform adept at deciphering complex datasets for enhanced insights. To ensure that its Al systems operate effectively and responsibly, Aizoia has established an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on ISO/IEC 42001 and is now undergoing a certification audit to verify the AIMS’s effectiveness and compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.
Robert, one of the certification body’s full-time employees with extensive experience in auditing, was appointed as the audit team leader despite not receiving an official offer for the role. Understanding the critical importance of assembling an audit team with diverse skills and knowledge, the certification body selected competent individuals to form the audit team. The certification body appointed a team of seven members to conduct the audit after considering the specific conditions of the audit mission and the required competencies.
Initially, the certification body, in cooperation with Aizoia, defined the extent and boundaries of the audit, specifying the sites (whether physical or virtual), organizational units, and the activities for review. Once the scope, processes, methods, and team composition had been defined, the certification body provided the audit team leader with extensive information, including the audit objectives and documented details on the scope, processes, methods, and team compositions.
Additionally, the certification body shared contact details of the auditee, including locations, time frames, and the duration of the audit activities to be conducted. The team leader also received information needed for evaluating and addressing identified risks and opportunities for the achievement of the audit objectives.
Before starting the audit, Robert wrote an engagement letter, introducing himself to Aizoia and outlining plans for scheduling initial contact. The initial contact aimed to confirm the communication channels, establish the audit team’s authority to conduct the audit, and summarize the audit’s key aspects, such as objectives, scope, criteria, methods, and team composition. During this first meeting, Robert emphasized the need for access to essential information that would help to conduct the audit.
Moreover, audit logistics, such as scheduling, access, health and safety arrangements, observer attendance, and the need for guides or interpreters, were thoroughly planned. The meeting also addressed areas of interest or concern, preemptively resolving potential issues and finalizing any matters related to the audit team composition.
As the audit progressed, Robert recognized the complexity of Aizoia’s operations, leading him to conclude that a review of its Al-related data governance practices was essential for compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.
He discussed this need with Aizoia’s management, proposing an expanded audit scope. After careful consideration, they agreed to conduct a thorough review of the Al data governance practices, but there was no mutual decision to officially change the audit scope. Consequently. Robert decided to proceed with the audit based on the original scope, adhering to the initial audit plan, and documented the conversation and decision accordingly.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
Question:
Robert did not receive an offer from the certification body prior to accepting the mandate. Is this acceptable?

Q72. Scenario 7 (continued):
Scenario 7: ICure, headquartered in Bratislava, is a medical institution known for its use of the latest technologies in medical practices. Ithas introduced groundbreaking Al-driven diagnostics and treatment planning tools that have fundamentally transformed patient care.
ICure has integrated a robust artificial intelligence management system AIMS to manage its Al systems effectively. This holisticmanagement framework ensures that ICure’s Al applications are not only developed but also deployed and maintained to adhere to the highest industry standards, thereby enhancing efficiency and reliability.
ICure has initiated a comprehensive auditing process to validate its AIMS’s effectiveness in alignment with ISO/IEC 42001. The stage 1audit involved an on-site evaluation by the audit team. The team evaluated the site-specific conditions, interacted with ICure’s personnel, observed the deployed technologies, and reviewed the operations that support the AIMS. Following these observations, the findings weredocumented and communicated to ICure. setting the stage for subsequent actions.
Unforeseen delays and resource allocation issues introduced a significant gap between the completion of stage
1 and the onset of stage2 audits. This interval, while unplanned, provided an opportunity for reflection and preparation for upcoming challenges.
After four months, the audit team initiated the stage 2 audit. They evaluated AIMS’s compliance with ISO
/IEC 42001 requirements, payingspecial attention to the complexity of processes and their documentation. It was during this phase that a critical observation was made:
ICure had not fully considered the complexity of its processes and their interactions when determining the extent of documentedinformation. Essential processes related to Al model training, validation, and deployment were not documented accurately, hinderingeffective control and management of these critical activities. This issue was recorded as a minor nonconformity, signaling a need forenhanced control and management of these vital activities.
Simultaneously, the auditor evaluated the appropriateness and effectiveness of the “AIMS Insight Strategy,” a procedure developed by ICure to determine the AIMS internal and external challenges. This examination identified specific areas for improvement, particularly in the way stakeholder input was integrated into the system. It highlighted how this could significantly enhance the contribution of relevant parties in strengthening the system’s resilience and effectiveness.
The audit team determined the audit findings by taking into consideration the requirements of ICure, the previous audit records and conclusions, the accuracy, sufficiency, and appropriateness of evidence, the extent to which planned audit activities are realized and planned results achieved, the sample size, and the categorization of the audit findings. The audit team decided to first record all the requirements met; then they proceeded to record the nonconformities.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
Question:
Did the audit team consider all the necessary aspects when determining audit findings?

Q73. 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.

Q74. 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?

Q75. Auditors use the ______ as a benchmark to determine conformity.