Scenario 8 (continued):Scenario 8:Scenario 8: InnovateSoft, headquartered in Berlin, Germany, is a software development company...

Scenario 8 (continued):

Scenario 8:

Scenario 8: InnovateSoft, headquartered in Berlin, Germany, is a software development company known for its innovative solutions and commitment 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 the evidence, 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 inaccurately reflecting the efficiency of their software development processes. In response, the company provided new evidence and additional information to alter the audit conclusions for a couple of minor nonconformities identified. After thorough consideration, the audit team leader clarified that the new evidence did not significantly alter the core conclusions drawn for the nonconformities. Therefore, the certification 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 the audit team on resolving the identified nonconformities. The audit team leader offered solutions to address the issues, fostering a collaborative 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 audit evidence was based on a sample, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty. The method and time frame of reporting and grading findings were 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 corrective actions planned to address the detected nonconformities. However, the submission slightly exceeded the specified period of 45 days set by the certification body, arriving three days later. InnovateSoft explained this by attributing the delay to unexpected challenges encountered during the compilation of the action plans.

InnovateSoft received minor nonconformities. After the closing meeting, the audit team leader suggested solutions for resolving the nonconformities, at the request of the auditee.

Question:

Was the audit team leader’s decision to suggest solutions for the identified nonconformities acceptable?