Free ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Practice Test Questions 2026

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.

A. No, Samuel should also ensure that there is a process in place for reviewing and approving documented information for suitability and adequacy

B. Yes, documented information must be validated based on two criteria, i.e., content and format

C. No, Samuel should only check if documented information has been stored in the appropriate media

D. Yes, if the information is archived in a secure system

Based on Scenario 5, which of the following should NOT be Jonathan's responsibility? 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. Identifying and addressing audit risks

B. Determining audit objectives and criteria

C. Managing conflicts during the audit

D. Determining the audit scope

Based on Scenario 4, the audit team employed the same level of effort and techniques across all audit areas. Is this recommended?
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.

A. Yes, auditors should apply the same level of effort and techniques in all audit areas

B. No, auditors should follow a risk-based approach by focusing on the audit areas that pose the greatest risk

C. No, auditors should apply more effort and use more advanced techniques only in areas specifically mentioned by the auditee

D. Yes, to ensure consistency regardless of risk

H.

During a combined audit, if an auditor identifies a finding linked to one criterion, should they consider its potential impact on corresponding or related criteria of other management systems?

A. Yes, the auditor should consider the other criteria only if the finding is deemed significant

B. Yes, the auditor should consider the possible impact on the corresponding or similar criteria of the other management system

C. No, in such cases the auditor should always focus on the specific criterion identified

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.

A. Yes, the audit follow-up was scheduled six weeks after the initial audit

B. No, the audit follow-up should have been scheduled immediately after the initial audit

C. No, the audit follow-up should have been scheduled 15 weeks after the initial audit

Why is it important to have a clear and agreed audit scope?

A. To reduce the time required for the audit

B. To prevent any legal liabilities

C. To maintain confidentiality of audit findings

D. To ensure all aspects of the management system are audited

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:
During the stage 2 audit, the certification body and the company assigned the roles of technical experts. Is this acceptable?

A. No, the roles of technical experts must be assigned by the certification body prior to conducting the audit

B. No, the company must assign the roles of technical experts independently of the certification body's involvement

C. Yes, the role of technical experts must be agreed upon by the certification body and the company during the audit process

Did OptiFlow comply with ISO/IEC 42001 requirements when establishing its AI objectives? 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

A. No, because ISO/IEC 42001 requires organizations to update the AI objectives at least two times a year

B. Yes, AI objectives were established in compliance with ISO/IEC 42001 requirements

C. No, because ISO/IEC 42001 mandates that AI objectives must specifically include environmental impact assessments for each AI project

Scenario 4:
BioNovaPharm, a German biopharmaceutical company, has implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on ISO/IEC 42001 to optimize various aspects of drug discovery, including analyzing extensive biological data, identifying potential drug candidates, and streamlining clinical trial processes. After having the AIMS in place for over a year, the company contracted a certification body and is now undergoing an AIMS audit to obtain certification against ISO/IEC 42001.
Adopting a risk-based approach, the audit team focused on risk throughout their activities. The level of detail outlined in the audit plan corresponded to the scope and complexity of the audit. The team employed a ranking system for detailed audit procedures, prioritizing those with the highest risk.
Once the stage 1 audit began, the audit team started reviewing the auditee's documented information. To assess whether BioNovaPharm complies with the legal and regulatory requirements related to incident communication, the audit team examined evidence provided by the company’s external legal office. The evidence confirmed that BioNovaPharm applies the requirements of the EU Al Act, which mandates that providers of high-risk Al systems report serious incidents to relevant authorities.
Following the completion of the stage 1 audit, John, an audit team member, documented the stage 1 audit outputs, including the observations of the audit team that could result in nonconformities during the on-site audit. However, the audit team leader, Emma, who was overseeing the audit activities, observed that John failed to document significant observations related to the lack of transparency in the Al decision-making processes of BioNovaPharm. Considering that Emma observed John's lack of competence in undertaking some audit activities, a disciplinary note was recorded for John.

Question:
What type of evidence did the audit team obtain to assess BioNovaPharm's compliance with legal and regulatory incident reporting requirements?

A. Confirmative

B. Technical

C. Analytical

D. Observational

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

Audit evidence must be:

A. Verifiable

B. Physical

C. Refutable

D. Structured

Scenario 7 (continued):
Scenario 7: ICure, headquartered in Bratislava, is a medical institution known for its use of the latest technologies in medical practices. It has 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 holistic management 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 1 audit 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 were documented 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 stage 2 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, paying special 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 documented information. Essential processes related to Al model training, validation, and deployment were not documented accurately, hindering effective control and management of these critical activities. This issue was recorded as a minor nonconformity, signaling a need for enhanced 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:
Based on Scenario 7, for which of the following ISO/IEC 42001 clauses was the minor nonconformity issued?

A. Clause 7.3 Awareness

B. Clause 7.4 Communication

C. Clause 7.5 Documented information

D.