--- title: "ISO/IEC 42001 AI Management FAQ" canonical_url: "https://www.sorena.io/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq" source_url: "https://www.sorena.io/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/items" author: "Sorena AI" description: "ISO/IEC 42001 FAQ for ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System: practical decisions, evidence, owners, review cadence, and source-linked implementation guidance." published_at: "2026-05-09" updated_at: "2026-05-09" keywords: - "ISO/IEC 42001 FAQ" - "ISO/IEC 42001" - "ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System" - "ISO/IEC 42001 FAQ checklist" - "ISO/IEC 42001 FAQ evidence" - "ISO/IEC 42001 FAQ implementation" - "FAQ" - "global compliance" --- **[SORENA](https://www.sorena.io/)** - AI-Powered GRC Platform [Home](https://www.sorena.io/) | [Solutions](https://www.sorena.io/solutions) | [Artifacts](https://www.sorena.io/artifacts) | [About Us](https://www.sorena.io/about-us) | [Contact](https://www.sorena.io/contact) | [Portal](https://app.sorena.io) --- # ISO/IEC 42001 AI Management FAQ ISO/IEC 42001 FAQ for ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System: practical decisions, evidence, owners, review cadence, and source-linked implementation guidance. *FAQ* *Global* *ISO/IEC 42001* ## ISO/IEC 42001 FAQ ISO/IEC 42001 FAQ should help teams make a decision, assign owners, and collect evidence under ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System. Grounded in external ISO, NIST, EU, or framework sources where relevant. This is practical implementation guidance, supporting implementation planning and should be validated against jurisdiction-specific legal, contractual, and policy requirements before implementation. This page for ISO/IEC 42001: define AI system scope and ownership, collect policy, governance, and monitoring evidence, and trigger reviews when risk, system purpose, or stakeholder obligations change. ## Browse sub-FAQ modules ### [ISO/IEC 42001 AI Policy FAQ](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/ai-policy.md) How should teams handle AI Policy under ISO/IEC 42001? Practical answer with owners, evidence, review triggers, and external source references. - 4 items ### [ISO/IEC 42001 Certification FAQ](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/certification.md) How should teams handle Certification under ISO/IEC 42001? Practical answer with owners, evidence, review triggers, and external source references. - 4 items ### [ISO/IEC 42001 Generative AI FAQ](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/generative-ai.md) How should teams handle Generative AI under ISO/IEC 42001? Practical answer with owners, evidence, review triggers, and external source references. - 4 items ### [ISO/IEC 42001 High Risk AI FAQ](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/high-risk-ai.md) How should teams handle High Risk AI under ISO/IEC 42001? Practical answer with owners, evidence, review triggers, and external source references. - 4 items ### [ISO/IEC 42001 Human Oversight FAQ](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/human-oversight.md) How should teams handle Human Oversight under ISO/IEC 42001? Practical answer with owners, evidence, review triggers, and external source references. - 4 items ### [ISO/IEC 42001 Post Market Monitoring FAQ](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/post-market-monitoring.md) How should teams operate post-market monitoring evidence under ISO/IEC 42001? Practical answer with owners, evidence, review triggers, and external source references. - 4 items ### [ISO/IEC 42001 Provider And Deployer Roles FAQ](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/provider-and-deployer-roles.md) How should teams separate AI Provider And Deployer Roles under ISO/IEC 42001 and AI governance work? Practical answer with owners, evidence, review triggers, and external source references. - 4 items ### [ISO/IEC 42001 Risk Controls FAQ](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/risk-controls.md) How should teams handle Risk Controls under ISO/IEC 42001? Practical answer with owners, evidence, review triggers, and external source references. - 4 items Browse all indexed questions: [/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/items](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/items.md) ## All FAQ items *Page 1 of 2. Showing 20 of 32 items.* ### [How should teams handle AI Policy under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/ai-policy.md#how-should-teams-handle-ai-policy-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 AI Policy](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/ai-policy.md)* Start with the operational decision: define what AI Policy means in your ISO/IEC 42001 scope, who owns it, and what record proves the decision is current. - Name the accountable owner and reviewer for AI Policy. - Record the scope, assumptions, decision, approval date, evidence location, exception status, and next review trigger. - Escalate when AI Policy changes risk acceptance, service commitments, customer promises, regulatory duties, or certification evidence. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI management system requirements. - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI risk management guidance. ### [What evidence should prove AI Policy is current under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/ai-policy.md#what-evidence-should-prove-ai-policy-is-current-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 AI Policy](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/ai-policy.md)* The evidence should show the process operating. For this artifact, the strongest record usually includes AIMS scope, AI inventory, AI Policy, role map, risk and impact assessments, control evidence, monitoring records, human oversight, and management review outputs. - Use source records from the system of work, not screenshots created only for audit day. - Keep exceptions visible as risk acceptance, corrective action, or management-review input. - Update linked registers when the answer changes an owner, risk, control, service, supplier, or review date. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI risk management guidance. - [Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj?ref=sorena.io) - Binding EU AI regulation used for ISO/IEC 42001 comparison. ### [Who should approve AI Policy decisions under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/ai-policy.md#who-should-approve-ai-policy-decisions-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 AI Policy](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/ai-policy.md)* The person who can fund, operate, and correct the process should own the decision; governance should review consistency and exceptions. - Use a named owner, named backup, and named escalation forum. - Separate preparation work from risk acceptance and final approval. - Keep approval records with the evidence rather than in disconnected email threads. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI management system requirements. - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI risk management guidance. ### [When should AI Policy be reviewed under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/ai-policy.md#when-should-ai-policy-be-reviewed-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 AI Policy](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/ai-policy.md)* Review it at planned intervals and whenever the underlying scope, service, supplier, control, risk, AI system, personal data flow, incident process, or customer commitment changes. - Set a planned review date and a change-trigger rule. - Use findings to update controls, procedures, contracts, risk registers, or training. - Carry unresolved items into management review or risk acceptance. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI management system requirements. - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI risk management guidance. ### [How should teams handle Certification under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/certification.md#how-should-teams-handle-certification-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 Certification](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/certification.md)* Start with the operational decision: define whether you are pursuing external certification, another third-party conformity assessment outcome, or an internal conformance record for your ISO/IEC 42001 scope, and record who owns that decision. - Name the accountable owner and reviewer for Certification. - Record the scope, assumptions, decision, approval date, evidence location, exception status, and next review trigger. - Escalate when Certification changes risk acceptance, service commitments, customer promises, regulatory duties, or Certification evidence. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI management system requirements. - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI risk management guidance. ### [What evidence should prove Certification is current under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/certification.md#what-evidence-should-prove-certification-is-current-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 Certification](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/certification.md)* The evidence should show the process operating. For this artifact, the strongest record usually includes AIMS scope, AI inventory, AI policy, role map, risk and impact assessments, control evidence, monitoring records, human oversight, and management review outputs. - Use source records from the system of work, not screenshots created only for audit day. - Keep exceptions visible as risk acceptance, corrective action, or management-review input. - Update linked registers when the answer changes an owner, risk, control, service, supplier, or review date. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI risk management guidance. - [Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj?ref=sorena.io) - Binding EU AI regulation used for ISO/IEC 42001 comparison. ### [Who should approve Certification decisions under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/certification.md#who-should-approve-certification-decisions-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 Certification](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/certification.md)* The person who can fund, operate, and correct the process should own the decision; governance should review consistency and exceptions. - Use a named owner, named backup, and named escalation forum. - Separate preparation work from risk acceptance and final approval. - Keep approval records with the evidence rather than in disconnected email threads. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI management system requirements. - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI risk management guidance. ### [When should Certification be reviewed under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/certification.md#when-should-certification-be-reviewed-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 Certification](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/certification.md)* Review it at planned intervals and whenever the underlying scope, service, supplier, control, risk, AI system, personal data flow, incident process, or customer commitment changes. - Set a planned review date and a change-trigger rule. - Use findings to update controls, procedures, contracts, risk registers, or training. - Carry unresolved items into management review or risk acceptance. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI management system requirements. - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI risk management guidance. ### [How should teams handle Generative AI under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/generative-ai.md#how-should-teams-handle-generative-ai-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 Generative AI](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/generative-ai.md)* Start with the operational decision: define what Generative AI means in your ISO/IEC 42001 scope, who owns it, and what record proves the decision is current. - Name the accountable owner and reviewer for Generative AI. - Record the scope, assumptions, decision, approval date, evidence location, exception status, and next review trigger. - Escalate when Generative AI changes risk acceptance, service commitments, customer promises, regulatory duties, or certification evidence. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html?ref=sorena.io) - ISO listing for AIMS requirements that supports keeping generative AI uses in scoped governance, owner assignment, monitoring, and continual-improvement evidence. - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - ISO risk-management listing that supports identifying, evaluating, treating, and monitoring generative AI risks across the AI system lifecycle. ### [What evidence should prove Generative AI is current under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/generative-ai.md#what-evidence-should-prove-generative-ai-is-current-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 Generative AI](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/generative-ai.md)* The evidence should show the process operating. For this artifact, the strongest record usually includes AIMS scope, AI inventory, AI policy, role map, risk and impact assessments, control evidence, monitoring records, human oversight, and management review outputs. - Use source records from the system of work, not screenshots created only for audit day. - Keep exceptions visible as risk acceptance, corrective action, or management-review input. - Update linked registers when the answer changes an owner, risk, control, service, supplier, or review date. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - ISO risk-management listing that supports identifying, evaluating, treating, and monitoring generative AI risks across the AI system lifecycle. - [Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj?ref=sorena.io) - Binding EU AI regulation used for ISO/IEC 42001 comparison. ### [Who should approve Generative AI decisions under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/generative-ai.md#who-should-approve-generative-ai-decisions-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 Generative AI](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/generative-ai.md)* The person who can fund, operate, and correct the process should own the decision; governance should review consistency and exceptions. - Use a named owner, named backup, and named escalation forum. - Separate preparation work from risk acceptance and final approval. - Keep approval records with the evidence rather than in disconnected email threads. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html?ref=sorena.io) - ISO listing for AIMS requirements that supports keeping generative AI uses in scoped governance, owner assignment, monitoring, and continual-improvement evidence. - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - ISO risk-management listing that supports identifying, evaluating, treating, and monitoring generative AI risks across the AI system lifecycle. ### [When should Generative AI be reviewed under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/generative-ai.md#when-should-generative-ai-be-reviewed-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 Generative AI](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/generative-ai.md)* Review it at planned intervals and whenever the underlying scope, service, supplier, control, risk, AI system, personal data flow, incident process, or customer commitment changes. - Set a planned review date and a change-trigger rule. - Use findings to update controls, procedures, contracts, risk registers, or training. - Carry unresolved items into management review or risk acceptance. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html?ref=sorena.io) - ISO listing for AIMS requirements that supports keeping generative AI uses in scoped governance, owner assignment, monitoring, and continual-improvement evidence. - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - ISO risk-management listing that supports identifying, evaluating, treating, and monitoring generative AI risks across the AI system lifecycle. ### [How should teams handle High Risk AI under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/high-risk-ai.md#how-should-teams-handle-high-risk-ai-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 High Risk AI](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/high-risk-ai.md)* Start with the operational decision: define what High Risk AI means in your ISO/IEC 42001 scope, who owns it, and what record proves the decision is current. - Name the accountable owner and reviewer for High Risk AI. - Record the scope, assumptions, decision, approval date, evidence location, exception status, and next review trigger. - Escalate when High Risk AI changes risk acceptance, service commitments, customer promises, regulatory duties, or certification evidence. Sources for this answer: - [NIST Special Publication 800-30](https://www.nist.gov/publications/guide-conducting-risk-assessments?ref=sorena.io) - NIST says organizations identify the purpose, scope, assumptions, constraints, information sources, and risk model before conducting a risk assessment. - [The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0](https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.CSWP.29?ref=sorena.io) - CSF 2.0 says organizations should consider their mission, stakeholder expectations, threat landscape, and requirements when understanding and prioritizing cybersecurity risks. ### [What evidence should prove High Risk AI is current under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/high-risk-ai.md#what-evidence-should-prove-high-risk-ai-is-current-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 High Risk AI](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/high-risk-ai.md)* The evidence should show the process operating. For this artifact, the strongest record usually includes AIMS scope, AI inventory, AI policy, role map, risk and impact assessments, control evidence, monitoring records, human oversight, and management review outputs. - Use source records from the system of work, not screenshots created only for audit day. - Keep exceptions visible as risk acceptance, corrective action, or management-review input. - Update linked registers when the answer changes an owner, risk, control, service, supplier, or review date. Sources for this answer: - [NIST Special Publication 800-30](https://www.nist.gov/publications/guide-conducting-risk-assessments?ref=sorena.io) - NIST describes maintaining and updating risk assessments when facts change and when monitoring identifies changes to systems or environments. - [The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0](https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.CSWP.29?ref=sorena.io) - CSF 2.0 says current and target profiles should be updated as changes occur and that organizations should continuously manage and reduce cybersecurity risks. ### [Who should approve High Risk AI decisions under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/high-risk-ai.md#who-should-approve-high-risk-ai-decisions-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 High Risk AI](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/high-risk-ai.md)* The person who can fund, operate, and correct the process should own the decision; governance should review consistency and exceptions. - Use a named owner, named backup, and named escalation forum. - Separate preparation work from risk acceptance and final approval. - Keep approval records with the evidence rather than in disconnected email threads. Sources for this answer: - [NIST Special Publication 800-30](https://www.nist.gov/publications/guide-conducting-risk-assessments?ref=sorena.io) - NIST describes risk assessments as supporting decision makers and senior leaders/executives. - [The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0](https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.CSWP.29?ref=sorena.io) - CSF 2.0 describes governance roles, responsibilities, and authorities as part of managing cybersecurity risk. ### [When should High Risk AI be reviewed under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/high-risk-ai.md#when-should-high-risk-ai-be-reviewed-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 High Risk AI](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/high-risk-ai.md)* Review it at planned intervals and whenever the underlying scope, service, supplier, control, risk, AI system, personal data flow, incident process, or customer commitment changes. - Set a planned review date and a change-trigger rule. - Use findings to update controls, procedures, contracts, risk registers, or training. - Carry unresolved items into management review or risk acceptance. Sources for this answer: - [NIST Special Publication 800-30](https://www.nist.gov/publications/guide-conducting-risk-assessments?ref=sorena.io) - NIST says risk assessments are ongoing and must be updated when changes occur. - [The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0](https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.CSWP.29?ref=sorena.io) - CSF 2.0 says cybersecurity risk management is a continuous process and profiles are updated as needed. ### [How should teams handle Human Oversight under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/human-oversight.md#how-should-teams-handle-human-oversight-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 Human Oversight](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/human-oversight.md)* Start with a plain rule: Human Oversight is the human control point for an AI decision or process. In practice, that means a named person reviews the scope, assumptions, and risk, can challenge or stop the decision, and keeps the record current. - Name the accountable owner and reviewer for Human Oversight. - Define what the human must review, what they can approve, and when they must escalate or stop the process. - Record the scope, assumptions, decision, approval date, evidence location, exception status, and next review trigger. - Escalate when Human Oversight changes risk acceptance, service commitments, customer promises, regulatory duties, or certification evidence. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI management system requirements. - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI risk management guidance. ### [What evidence should prove Human Oversight is current under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/human-oversight.md#what-evidence-should-prove-human-oversight-is-current-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 Human Oversight](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/human-oversight.md)* The evidence should show the process operating. For this artifact, the strongest record usually includes AIMS scope, AI inventory, AI policy, role map, risk and impact assessments, control evidence, monitoring records, Human Oversight, and management review outputs. - Use source records from the system of work, not screenshots created only for audit day. - Keep exceptions visible as risk acceptance, corrective action, or management-review input. - Update linked registers when the answer changes an owner, risk, control, service, supplier, or review date. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI risk management guidance. - [Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj?ref=sorena.io) - Binding EU AI regulation used for ISO/IEC 42001 comparison. ### [Who should approve Human Oversight decisions under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/human-oversight.md#who-should-approve-human-oversight-decisions-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 Human Oversight](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/human-oversight.md)* The person who can fund, operate, and correct the process should own the decision; governance should review consistency and exceptions. - Use a named owner, named backup, and named escalation forum. - Separate preparation work from risk acceptance and final approval. - Keep approval records with the evidence rather than in disconnected email threads. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI management system requirements. - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI risk management guidance. ### [When should Human Oversight be reviewed under ISO/IEC 42001?](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/human-oversight.md#when-should-human-oversight-be-reviewed-under-isoiec-42001) *Module: [ISO/IEC 42001 Human Oversight](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/human-oversight.md)* Review it at planned intervals and whenever the underlying scope, service, supplier, control, risk, AI system, personal data flow, incident process, or customer commitment changes. - Set a planned review date and a change-trigger rule. - Use findings to update controls, procedures, contracts, risk registers, or training. - Carry unresolved items into management review or risk acceptance. Sources for this answer: - [ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI management system requirements. - [ISO/IEC 23894:2023 standard page](https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html?ref=sorena.io) - Primary ISO listing for AI risk management guidance. ## FAQ Pagination - Canonical index (page 1): [/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/items](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/items.md) - Page 1 rule: `/page/1` is intentionally not generated; use the canonical index markdown URL. - Current page: 1 of 2 Pages: [1](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/items.md) | [2](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/items/page/2.md) [Next page](/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/items/page/2.md) *Recommended next step* *Placement: after implementation guidance* ## Operationalize ISO/IEC 42001 FAQ Capture owners, evidence, decisions, and review dates in one workflow record so AI governance controls and escalation points stay auditable over time. - [Open Assessment Autopilot for ISO/IEC 42001](/solutions/assessment.md): Convert ISO/IEC 42001 FAQ into accountable tasks, evidence requests, and review checkpoints. - [Talk through ISO/IEC 42001 implementation](/contact.md): Review your current scope, evidence gaps, and next implementation steps. --- [Privacy Policy](https://www.sorena.io/privacy) | [Terms of Use](https://www.sorena.io/terms-of-use) | [DMCA](https://www.sorena.io/dmca) | [About Us](https://www.sorena.io/about-us) (c) 2026 Sorena AB (559573-7338). All rights reserved. Source: https://www.sorena.io/artifacts/global/iso-42001/faq/items