PECB ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

According to ISO/IEC 27001 standards, if the auditee decides to accept the risk instead of implementing corrective actions for a nonconformity, this decision should be justified and documented. Documenting such decisions is essential for maintaining the integrity of the ISMS and for demonstrating that the decision was made based on informed judgment.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 10.2 (Nonconformity and corrective action):

When a nonconformity occurs, the organization shall … take action to control and correct it, and deal with the consequences; evaluate the need for action to eliminate the cause(s) of the nonconformity, in order that it does not recur or occur elsewhere; implement any action needed; review the effectiveness of any corrective action taken.

The auditor’s responsibility is to verify effectiveness of corrective actions. This means the auditor must look for evidence of change that actually addresses the root cause and prevents recurrence — not just temporary fixes, promises, or documentation.

Let’s analyse the distractors:

A. Incorrect — corrective action should not allow recurrence.

B. Incorrect — refers to preventive action, which ISO 27001:2022 no longer uses as a separate concept; instead, it is integrated into risk management.

C. Weak — merely “reducing probability” is not sufficient; ISO 27001 requires elimination of causes to prevent recurrence.

D. Incorrect — “assurance from the auditee” is not acceptable evidence; auditors need objective evidence, not verbal commitment.

E. Incorrect — “comfort” is not an audit principle; ISO 19011 requires objective evidence.

F. Correct — aligns directly with ISO 27001 clause 10.2: “review the effectiveness of any corrective action taken … so that nonconformity does not recur.”

Thus, the correct nonconformity statement is:

“When reviewing the effectiveness of action taken in response to a nonconformity, an auditor seeks evidence of change that will prevent recurrence of the issue.”

The immediate consequence is suspension of certification, making option A correct. ISO/IEC 17021-1 clearly states that certified organizations must allow scheduled surveillance audits to verify continued conformity with the standard. Surveillance audits are mandatory and form part of the three-year certification cycle.

Refusing or failing to undergo a surveillance audit prevents the certification body from confirming that the ISMS remains effective and compliant. This creates a loss of confidence in the validity of the certification. As a result, certification bodies are required to suspend certification until the audit can be conducted and conformity re-established.

Option B is incorrect because certification validity is conditional upon ongoing surveillance. Certification does not remain valid if mandatory audits are refused. Option C is incorrect because transferring certification does not remove the obligation to undergo surveillance audits; a transfer would still require evidence of conformity and audit continuity.

Suspension is a protective mechanism to ensure that ISO/IEC 27001 certificates remain credible and trustworthy. If the organization later agrees to the audit and resolves issues, the certification may be reinstated. Therefore, refusal to undergo a surveillance audit leads to immediate suspension.