The three options for findings that are justified in the scenario are:
*Nonconformity (NC) - The information for the acceptance of residual information security risks should be updated after the risk treatment is implemented. Clause 6.1.3.f
*Nonconformity (NC) - The IT security manager should be aware of and understand his authority and area of responsibility. Clause 7.3
*Nonconformity (NC) - The risk treatment plan No. 123 should be approved by the risk owner, the Facility Manager in this case. Clause 6.1.3.f According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.3.f, the organisation must retain documented information that includes the information for the acceptance of residual information security risks, and the approval of the risk treatment plan by the risk owner1. Therefore, option A and G are justified as nonconformities, because the organisation failed to update the information for the acceptance of residual risks, and the risk treatment plan was approved by the IT security manager, who is not the risk owner.
According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 7.3, the organisation must ensure that the persons assigned to perform the roles and responsibilities for the ISMS are competent, and are aware of the consequences of not conforming to the ISMS requirements2. Therefore, option E is justified as a nonconformity, because the IT security manager, who is responsible for the information security risk management process, was not aware of his authority and area of responsibility.
The other options are not justified as findings, because they are either irrelevant or incorrect. For example:
*Option B is irrelevant, because it is not related to the information security risk treatment plan No. 123, which is the focus of the audit.
*Option C is incorrect, because it is not an opportunity for improvement, but rather a benefit of the risk treatment plan No. 123, which is already implemented.
*Option D is incorrect, because it is not a nonconformity, but rather a requirement for the organisation to provide the resources needed for the ISMS, which is not the same as the resources needed for the risk treatment plan No. 123.
*Option F is incorrect, because it is not a nonconformity, but rather a requirement for the organisation to provide the resources needed for the continual improvement of the ISMS, which is not the same as the resources needed for the risk treatment plan No. 123.
*Option H is irrelevant, because it is not a finding, but rather a good practice, which is not the objective of the audit.
References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.3.f; 2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 7.3; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC
27001:2022

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.7 requires the audit team leader to conduct a follow-up audit to verify the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the auditee in response to the nonconformities identified during a previous audit1. The follow-up audit should be conducted in accordance with the same principles and processes as the initial audit, and should result in a conclusion on the status of the nonconformities and any remaining issues1.
Therefore, when conducting a follow-up audit, an ISMS auditor should consider the following actions:
* Recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditee has cleared most of the nonconformities, including the major one, and only one minor nonconformity remains outstanding. A minor nonconformity is defined as a failure to achieve one or more requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 or a situation which raises significant doubt about the ability of an ISMS process to achieve its intended output, but does not affect its overall effectiveness or conformity2. Therefore, this finding does not prevent or preclude the continuation of certification, as long as it is addressed by appropriate corrective actions within a reasonable time frame. The auditor should recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit, which is a regular audit conducted by the certification body to confirm the ongoing conformity and effectiveness of an ISMS3.
* Agree with the auditee/audit client how the remaining nonconformity will be cleared, by when, and how its clearance will be verified: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditee has demonstrated commitment and capability to implement corrective actions for the nonconformities identified during the previous audit. The auditor should agree with the auditee/audit client on a realistic, achievable, and effective corrective action plan for the remaining nonconformity, including a clear deadline and verification method. The auditor should also document this agreement in the follow-up audit report1.
* Advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a systematic and consistent approach to conducting and reporting the follow-up audit. The auditor should advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity, such as recommending its closure at the next surveillance audit or agreeing on a corrective action plan with the auditee/audit client. The auditor should also provide sufficient information and evidence to support their decision1.
* Close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the organisation has achieved satisfactory results in the follow-up audit. The auditor should close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised by implementing effective corrective actions for most of them and agreeing on a plan for the remaining one. The auditor should also communicate the follow-up audit conclusion to the auditee/audit client and other relevant parties1.

According to ISO 27001:2022 Annex A Control 8.30, the organisation shall ensure that externally provided processes, products or services that are relevant to the information security management system are controlled. This includes developing and entering into licensing agreements that cover code ownership and intellectual property rights, and implementing appropriate contractual requirements related to secure design and coding in accordance with Annex A 8.25 and 8.2912 In this case, the organisation and the developer have performed security tests that failed, which indicates that the secure design and coding requirements of Annex A 8.29 were not met. The IT Manager explains that the encryption and pseudonymisation functions failed because they slowed down the system and service performance, and that an extra 150% of resources are needed to cover this. However, this does not justify the acceptance of the test results by the Service Manager, who is not authorised to approve the test according to the software security management procedure. The Service Manager should have consulted with the IT Manager, who is the owner of the process, and followed the procedure for handling nonconformities and corrective actions. The Service Manager's decision to continue the service based on access control alone exposes the organisation to the risk of compromising the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of personal data processed by the mobile app. Therefore, there is a nonconformity (NC) with clause 8.1, control A.8.30.
References:
1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

The main purpose of a Stage 1 audit is to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the organisation's ISMS documentation, and to assess whether the organisation is prepared for the Stage 2 audit, where the implementation and operation of the ISMS will be verified. The Stage 1 audit also involves verifying the scope, objectives, and context of the ISMS, as well as identifying any areas of concern or nonconformities that need to be addressed before the Stage 2 audit.
References:
ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) objectives and content from Quality.org and PECB ISO/IEC 27006:2015 Information technology - Security techniques - Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of information security management systems Section 7.3.1

This activity is permitted, provided that the certification body minimizes disturbance to the certification process, making option A the correct answer. ISO/IEC 17021-1, which governs certification bodies providing management system certification, explicitly allows certification bodies to evaluate the competence and performance of their auditors. This includes on-site witnessing of auditors during actual certification audits.
The purpose of such evaluations is to ensure auditor competence, consistency, and adherence to certification procedures. ISO/IEC 17021-1 requires certification bodies to maintain confidence in their certification activities by monitoring and evaluating auditors in real audit situations. Conducting these evaluations on-site is a common and accepted practice, especially for initial competence assessments or periodic performance reviews.
However, the certification body must ensure that the evaluation does not interfere with the audit objectives or disrupt the client's operations. Option B is incorrect because there is no requirement or justification for suspending the client's business activities. Certification audits are designed to be conducted alongside normal operations whenever possible. Option C is incorrect because while remote evaluations may be used in some circumstances, the standard does not prohibit on-site evaluations.
Therefore, an on-site evaluation of an auditor during a certification audit is permitted, provided that it is carefully managed and does not disrupt the certification process or the auditee's normal operations.