ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-AuditorのPDF問題集で2026年08月29日試験問題 有効なISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor問題集
究極のISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor準備ガイドで無料最新のPECB練習テスト問題集
質問 # 25
Based on the last paragraph of scenario 3, which audit principle did Augustine violate? 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.
- A. Due professional care
- B. Confidentiality
- C. Fair presentation
- D. Integrity
正解：A
解説：
In the last paragraph, Augustine "failed to fully consider Heala's critical processes, expectations, the complexity of audit tasks, and necessary resources beforehand." This indicates a failure in planning and judgment.
According to ISO 19011:2018 (and referenced in ISO/IEC 42001:2023), "Due professional care" requires auditors to exercise sound judgment, diligence, and competence in conducting audits.
His failure compromised the audit's integrity and reliability, which directly violates the principle of due professional care.
Reference:
ISO 19011:2018, Clause 4(f) - Audit Principle: Due professional care
ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Clause 9.2 - Competence and planning in audits
PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide, Chapter 3 - Audit principles
質問 # 26
Which among the following is NOT a level of AI?
- A. Artificial Narrow Intelligence
- B. Artificial Super Intelligence
- C. Artificial Machine Intelligence
- D. Artificial General Intelligence
正解：C
解説：
The levels of AI commonly referenced in bothISO/IEC 42001guidance materials and AI governance literature include:
* Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI)- Specialized in a single task
* Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)- Human-level general problem-solving capability
* Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI)- Hypothetical AI surpassing human intelligence Artificial Machine Intelligenceisnot a formally recognized leveland doesnot appear in ISO/IEC 42001, nor in PECB's standard AI terminology.
The PECB Lead Auditor Guide defines the recognized levels under AI system classification and clarifies that terms like "Artificial Machine Intelligence" arenon-standard or colloquialand not part of professional auditing or ISO frameworks.
Reference: PECB Lead Auditor Guide - Domain 1: Section "AI Fundamentals," Topic: "Types and Levels of AI" ISO/IEC 42001:2023 - While not listing these levels explicitly, relies on industry-aligned terminology consistent with ANI, AGI, and ASI
質問 # 27
Question:
Which of the following competencies must at least one of the audit team members possess?
- A. Teamwork and communication skills
- B. Knowledge of the risk-based approach to auditing
- C. Knowledge of the auditee's language
正解：B
解説：
At least one member of the audit team must possess knowledge of therisk-based approach to auditing, particularly because ISO/IEC 42001 auditing requires risk-centric evaluation of AI processes.
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.2.1emphasizes the importance of arisk-based auditapproach.
* TheLead Auditor Course for ISO/IEC 42001states:"Competency in risk-based thinking is critical for identifying and focusing on AI system risks that could affect the achievement of audit objectives." Reference:ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.2.1; ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Study Guide Module 4 (Risk- Based Auditing).
質問 # 28
What precautions must the certification body take when conducting short-notice audits?
- A. Prioritize audits based on the client's schedule
- B. Obtain consent from clients for the selection of audit team members
- C. Inform clients in advance about the conditions under which the audits will be conducted
正解：C
解説：
According to ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.6.4, certification bodies must notify clients in advance of short- notice audits and define the conditions and procedures under which these audits are conducted. This ensures transparency, preparedness, and impartiality during the audit process.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.6.4 - Short-notice audits
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 9.2 - Internal audit and external audit consistency
\===========
質問 # 29
Question:
Can ISO/IEC 42001 be integrated into an integrated management system (IMS) with ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO
9001?
- A. Yes, because they share a similar standard structure
- B. No, since they do not have a similar standard structure
- C. Yes, but only under special organizational approval
- D. No, because each management system should be implemented separately
正解：A
解説：
ISO/IEC 42001 follows theHigh-Level Structure (HLS)(Annex SL) used by ISO management system standards such as ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO 9001. This structural alignment allows for easy integration into a unified management system, facilitating shared documentation, policies, audits, and continual improvement processes.
Reference:ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Introduction, Clause 0.3; ISO Directives Part 1, Annex SL.
質問 # 30
Question:
Which of the following statements regarding the organization's requirement to address risks and opportunities based on ISO/IEC 42001 is correct?
- A. The organization is required to plan how to incorporate the actions in its AIMS and assess their effectiveness
- B. The organization must integrate the actions into its AIMS but is not required to evaluate the effectiveness of those actions
- C. The organization must address risks and opportunities but is not required to integrate these actions into its AIMS
- D. The organization is only required to identify risks without taking specific action
正解：A
解説：
ISO/IEC 42001 Clause 6.1.2 requires organizations toplan actions to address risks and opportunities, integrate these actions into the management system, andevaluate their effectivenessas part of continual improvement.
Reference:ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 6.1.2 (Planning and Risk Integration into AIMS).
質問 # 31
Scenario 3 (continued):
ArBank is a financial institution located in Brussels, Belgium, which offers a diverse range of banking and investment servicesto 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 thebank's website and mobile app, analyzing communications using big data technology to identify potential noncompliance, fraud, orunethical conduct. Instead of relying solely on the information provided by the chatbots, Audrey sought out evidence that would eitherconfirm or challenge the validity of the data, ensuring her conclusions were based on reliable and accurate information. Her review ofselected 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 intoArBank's website and mobile app to determine if it adheres to ISO/IEC 42001 requirements and internal policies governing customerservice in the banking sector.
In addition, Audrey conducted a deeper assessment of the bank's AIMS. Her evaluation included observing different stages of the AIMSlife cycle, from development to deployment, to ensure that roles and responsibilities were clearly defined and aligned with ArBank'soperational 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 thetwo parties, Audrey decided that there was no need to gather audit evidence regarding the contractual agreement. She reviewed thecompany's processes for monitoring the quality of outsourced operations, determined whether appropriate governance processes are inplace with regard to the engagement of outsourced persons or organizations, and reviewed and evaluated the company's plans in case ofexpected 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?
- A. Artificial neural networks
- B. Semantic algorithms
- C. An autonomous system
- D. An expert system
正解：A
解説：
Audrey usedArtificial Neural Networks (ANNs).
Artificial neural networks are AI technologies capable of pattern recognition, data classification, and anomaly detection in large datasets, which is essential when assessing chatbot performance.
* ISO/IEC 22989:2022 Clause 6.6states:"ANNs are AI systems inspired by biological neural networks, useful for analyzing structured and unstructured data."
* ISO/IEC 42001 indirectly refers to using appropriate AI systems for monitoring and assessing AI performance in Clause 8.1 (Operational Controls).
Reference:ISO/IEC 22989:2022 Clause 6.6; ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 8.1 (Operational Controls).
質問 # 32
What is one of the key objectives of conducting an audit according to ISO 19011?
- A. Imposing penalties on non-compliant organizations
- B. Issuing certificates of compliance
- C. Training employees on audit techniques
- D. Evaluating the effectiveness of the management system
正解：D
解説：
Theprimary objective of an audit, as defined inISO 19011:2018 - Clause 5.1, is toevaluate the extent to which the management system conforms to planned arrangements and is effectively implemented and maintained.
Audits arenot meant to issue certificates or impose penalties- they aretools for continual improvement, helping organizations assess theperformance and effectivenessof their systems.
This aligns with the purpose of internal audits described inISO/IEC 42001:2023 - Clause 9.2, which is to verify theeffectiveness of the AIMS (Artificial Intelligence Management System).
Reference: ISO 19011:2018 - Clause 5.1 (Objectives and benefits of audits) ISO/IEC 42001:2023 - Clause 9.2.1 (Internal Audit Objectives) PECB Lead Auditor Guide - Domain 3: "Purpose and Scope of Management System Audits"
質問 # 33
What did the audit team use to assess the implementation of AI-related controls, verify compliance with established procedures, and identify any gaps in adherence to the AIMS requirements? Refer to Scenario 6
- A. Evidence collection analysis
- B. Observation checklist
- C. Evidence collection tools
- D. Evidence collection procedures
正解：C
解説：
In Scenario 6, it is clearly stated:
"They also used sampling and technical verification to assess the implementation of AI-related controls, verify compliance with established procedures, and identify any gaps in adherence to the AIMS requirements." Sampling and technical verification are considered evidence collection tools used during audits. These tools enable auditors to validate the effectiveness of implemented controls by selectively reviewing samples, performing walkthroughs, and technically verifying how AI systems function in real-life scenarios.
According to ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.5.5, audit evidence may be obtained through tools such as:
* Interviews
* Observations
* Technical testing
* Sampling
* Documentation review
This confirms that the audit team used "evidence collection tools" - specifically sampling and technical verification - to perform their assessments.
Reference:
ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.5.5 - Audit methods and tools
ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Clause 9.2 - Collection of objective evidence
PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Study Guide - Section: Evidence Collection Tools in AI Audits
\===========
Certainly! Below are the responses to Questions 51 through 54 from Scenario 7, presented in your requested format, with verified explanations aligned with ISO/IEC 42001:2023, ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, ISO 19011:
2018, and the PECB Lead Auditor Study Guide.
-
質問 # 34
While preparing for an AIMS audit, a technology company faced an issue with the auditor assigned by the certification body. The auditor lacked a security clearance, which is mandatory for accessing certain sensitive information involved in the audit due to the company's government contracts and proprietary technology. The company requested to replace the auditor with someone who meets the security requirements to ensure the audit can proceed without compromising sensitive information or violating government regulations. Is this acceptable?
- A. Yes, only if the replacement is also certified for ISO/IEC 27001
- B. Yes, the auditor not holding the security clearance required by the auditee is a valid reason to request the replacement of the auditor
- C. No, the auditee can request the replacement of the auditor only if the auditor has audited the company in the past
- D. No, the auditee can request the replacement of the auditor only if the auditor is in a conflict of interest situation
正解：B
解説：
According to ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, Clause 9.1.7, an auditee has the right to object to the assignment of a particular auditor when justified. A legitimate reason includes lack of required security clearance, which may prevent the auditor from accessing essential audit evidence, especially where government regulations or confidentiality clauses apply.
This is a valid and accepted reason to request a replacement.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, Clause 9.1.7 - Objection to audit team members
ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Clause 9.2 - Requirements for objectivity and impartiality in audits PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide - Section: Auditor Selection and Replacement
\===========
質問 # 35
Scenario 6:
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:
Which level of documented information could the audit team NOT access?
- A. Level 1
- B. Level 2
- C. Level 3
正解：C
解説：
Level 3 documentationtypically includes detailed procedures, work instructions, and records explaining exactlyhow tasks are performed.
* ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 7.5.1requires organizations to maintain documented information necessary for the effective functioning of the AIMS.
* TheLead Auditor Study Guideexplains:"Level 3 documents are the operational and procedural records that detail the execution of management system activities."The team lacked access to task execution procedures - indicating missing Level 3 documentation.
Reference:ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 7.5.1; ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.3.
質問 # 36
Question:
Which of the following should be considered when determining the feasibility of the audit?
- A. The auditee's ability to negotiate the terms and conditions
- B. The auditee's cooperation
- C. The motivation of the audit team members
正解：B
解説：
Feasibility of the audit depends greatly onthe auditee's willingness and cooperationin providing access to documents, staff, systems, and sites.
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.1.1mentions that the audit process feasibility depends on the auditee's willingness to support the audit activities.
* Similarly,ISO 19011:2018 Clause 5.4outlines that:"Feasibility considerations include the auditee's cooperation and the availability of access to information and personnel." Reference:ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.1.1; ISO 19011:2018 Clause 5.4.
質問 # 37
Scenario 8 (continued):
Scenario 8:
Scenario 8: InnovateSoft, headquartered in Berlin, Germany, is a software development company known for its innovative solutions andcommitment 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 theevidence, 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 inaccuratelyreflecting the efficiency of their software development processes. In response, the company provided new evidence and additionalinformation to alter the audit conclusions for a couple of minor nonconformities identified. After thorough consideration, the audit teamleader clarified that the new evidence did not significantly alter the core conclusions drawn for the nonconformities. Therefore, thecertification 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 theaudit team on resolving the identified nonconformities. The audit team leader offered solutions to address the issues, fostering acollaborative 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 auditevidence was based on a sample, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty. The method and time frame of reporting and grading findingswere 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 correctiveactions planned to address the detected nonconformities. However, the submission slightly exceeded the specified period of 45 days setby the certification body, arriving three days later.
InnovateSoft explained this by attributing the delay to unexpected challengesencountered during the compilation of the action plans.
InnovateSoft submitted corrective action plans for nonconformities three days past the certification body's deadline of 45 days.
Question:
Based on Scenario 8, is InnovateSoft eligible for certification?
- A. Yes, the submission of the action plans can be delayed for up to 10 days
- B. No, the action plans were not submitted within the specified period
- C. Yes, it is up to the auditee to decide when to submit the action plans
正解：A
解説：
While ISO/IEC 17021-1 does not prescribe a strict number of days, certification bodiestypically allow minor grace periods, e.g., 5-10 days, based on internal policy.
* ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.9requires that nonconformities must be addressedwithin a timeframe agreed by the certification body.
* If the delay is minor (e.g., 3 days), and the CB accepts it with justification, the certification process can still proceed.
* TheLead Auditor Manualnotes:"Minor extensions may be granted for corrective actions when justified and documented." Reference:ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.4.9; ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide - Section 8 ("Certification Decision Timelines").
質問 # 38
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.
- A. No, the audit time must be determined by the audit team leader
- B. Yes, the audit time must be determined by the auditee
- C. No, the audit time must be determined by the certification body
- D. Yes, if agreed upon with the auditor in writing
正解：C
解説：
According to ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.1.4, it is the responsibility of the certification body to determine the audit duration, based on factors such as the scope of the management system, number of personnel, complexity, and risk. While the auditee may provide input for logistical coordination, they do not have the authority to set the audit time unilaterally.
In Scenario 5, it is stated that "Alterhealth determined the audit time," which is not compliant with ISO/IEC
17021-1, as this responsibility lies with the certification body-not the auditee, and not the audit team leader alone.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, Clause 9.1.4 - Determination of audit time
ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Clause 9.2 - Internal and external audits
PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Study Guide - Section: Certification Audit Management
質問 # 39
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.
- A. Yes, this is a valid reason for rejecting an auditor
- B. No, the auditee does not have the authority to reject an auditor assigned by the certification body
- C. Yes, if the auditor lacks knowledge of AI systems
- D. No, an auditor can only be rejected by the auditee if a conflict of interest is present
正解：D
解説：
According to ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.1.7, the auditee has the right to object to specific audit team members, but such objection must be supported by a valid justification such as a perceived conflict of interest or lack of competence.
Rejecting an auditor solely based on the claim that they will not "bring added value" does not meet this criterion. Unless a legitimate concern is raised - such as impartiality, bias, or conflict of interest - the certification body is under no obligation to change the auditor.
Reference:
ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, Clause 9.1.7 - Audit team selection and auditee objection ISO 19011:2018, Clause 5.3 - Auditor competence and impartiality PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide - Section: Responsibilities of Certification Bodies and Auditees
\===========
質問 # 40
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?
- A. Documentation
- B. AI risk treatment
- C. Cost minimization
正解：C
解説：
Clause 6.1.2 of ISO/IEC 42001:2023 addresses AI risk assessment and includes requirements such as:
* Establishing and applying AI risk assessment criteria
* Identifying and analyzing risks and opportunities
* Evaluating AI risks
* Planning for AI risk treatment
* Documenting the process and outcomes to ensure traceability and repeatability In the scenario, OptiFlow:
* Established and maintained AI risk criteria.
* Performed identification, analysis, and evaluation of risks.
* Integrated AI risk treatment into its AIMS.
* Maintained documentation of objectives and internal communications as per the standard.
However, there is no reference in the scenario to cost minimization, either as a guiding factor or an outcome of the AI risk assessment process. While cost control may be a strategic or operational consideration for a business, it is not a core requirement under Clause 6.1.2 and is clearly not discussed in OptiFlow's implementation activities in the scenario.
Therefore, "Cost minimization" is the element NOT considered, making it the correct answer.
Reference:
* ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Clause 6.1.2 - AI risk assessment
* ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Annex A - Guidance on AI risk identification and evaluation
* PECB ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide, Section 6.1.2 - Interpretation of AI risk-based requirements
#############################################
質問 # 41
Question:
ReePharm, a pharmaceutical company, has decided to incorporate its AI risk management into the information security management system (ISMS) to identify and address risks related to the procurement, manufacturing, and distribution of pharmaceutical products. Is this decision appropriate?
- A. Yes, integrating AI risk management into other management systems is acceptable
- B. No, integrating AI risk management into other management systems would not meet ISO/IEC 42001 requirements
- C. Yes, but only if performed after a surveillance audit
- D. No, merging AI risk management directly into the ISMS system creates unnecessary complexity without substantial improvements
正解：A
解説：
ISO/IEC 42001 Clause 6.1 supportsintegration of AI-specific risk management into broader management systems, provided that AI-specific risks are addressed appropriately. Integration is allowed to improve efficiency without compromising the focus on AI risks.
Reference:ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 6.1 (Risk Management in an Integrated Management System).
質問 # 42
Question:
A software development company values collaborative decision-making. The CEO often gathers input from employees but retains final decision authority.
Which type of leadership does the CEO most closely embody?
- A. Autocratic
- B. Laissez-faire
- C. Democratic
正解：C
解説：
This describes aDemocratic leadershipstyle - where input from employees is welcomed, and participation is encouraged, but final authority still lies with leadership.
* TheISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide (Annex on Leadership Models)identifiesdemocratic leadershipas:"Involving teams in decision-making while the leader retains ultimate authority."
* Clause 5.1of ISO/IEC 42001 emphasizestop management leadership and commitment, including engagement and consultation with relevant roles across the organization.
Reference:ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 5.1; ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Auditor Guide, Section 5 ("Leadership Styles").
質問 # 43
Which core element focuses on ensuring that the creators and operators of AI systems are responsible for the outcomes and impacts of those systems?
- A. Privacy and Security
- B. Fairness and Non-Discrimination
- C. Safety and Reliability
- D. Accountability
正解：D
解説：
Accountabilityis the core principle that ensures individuals or organizations involved in thedesign, development, and deploymentof AI systems areresponsible for their outcomes, decisions, and impacts.
According toISO/IEC 42001:2023 - Clause 5.3andClause 6.1.2, accountability requires organizations to define roles and responsibilities, ensure that systems are monitored for risks, and establishescalation or remediation procedureswhen negative impacts occur.
ThePECB Lead Auditor Guide - Domain 1highlights accountability as a key requirement for maintaining trust, legal compliance, and ensuring AI systems operate under clear lines ofgovernance and oversight.
質問 # 44
......
PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor 認定試験の出題範囲：
| トピック | 出題範囲 |
|---|---|
| トピック 1 |
|
| トピック 2 |
|
| トピック 3 |
|
| トピック 4 |
|
| トピック 5 |
|
合格率 取得する秘訣はISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor認定試験エンジンPDF：https://jp.fast2test.com/ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor-premium-file.html
今すぐ試そう！高評価PECB ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor試験問題集：https://drive.google.com/open?id=1duwSY15Kf50w9dG41xwnB_LXdxjpcQ6I