IAPP AIGP Artificial Intelligence Governance Professional Exam Practice Test

Conformity assessmentsare a core requirement under theEU AI Actfor high-risk systems and serve to confirm that the AI meetsregulatory, safety, and ethical standardsbefore it is put into production.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“Conformity assessments… ensure that systems comply with legal requirements, safety criteria, and intended purpose before being placed on the market.” (p. 34)

“They are a critical step to demonstrate safety and trustworthiness in AI deployment.” (p. 35)

The core ethical concern when deploying diagnostic AI in a healthcare setting is ensuringfairness and accuracy across diverse patient populations. If the AI is trained on a dataset that isnot representativeof the population it will serve, it risks reinforcing health disparities and leading to misdiagnoses.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“Training datasets lacking in diversity can produce outputs that systematically underperform for certain groups… this can lead to inaccurate or biased outcomes in healthcare settings.” (p. 41)

“Bias, discrimination and fairness challenge… inadequate or nonrepresentative training data can result in AI systems that propagate historical disparities.” (p. 42)

While physician oversight may reduce risk,biased data can still shape clinical decision-making.

A– Economic benefit is not central to ethical risk here.

C– Important but less critical than data representativeness.

D– Error rate matters but is addressed via validation; it’s not the core ethical issue.

Importers of high-risk AI systems into the EU havespecific responsibilitiesunder the EU AI Act. They arenotthe parties responsible for affixing the CE marking or providing technical documentation—but they must verify that these have been done by the provider.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“Importers must verify that the appropriate conformity assessment has been carried out, the technical documentation is available, and the CE marking has been affixed.” (p. 34–35)

Thus:

A. Provide technical documentation– done by theprovider.

B. Affix the CE marking–provider'sresponsibility.

C. Verify the Declaration of Conformity–importer obligation.

D. Conduct a DPIA– relevant under data protection laws,not requiredunder the EU AI Act forimporters.

The most significant risk from combining the healthcare network’s existing data with the clinical research partner data is privacy risk. Combining data sets, especially in healthcare, often involves handling sensitive information that could lead to privacy breaches if not managed properly. De-identified data can still pose re-identification risks when combined with other data sets. Ensuring privacy involves implementing robust data protection measures, maintaining compliance with privacy regulations such as HIPAA, and conducting thorough privacy impact assessments. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on Data Privacy and Security.

Developing a social media presence for a non-profit is best served by non-AI solutions. This task primarily involves content creation, community engagement, and strategic planning, which are effectively managed by human expertise and traditional marketing tools. AI is more suitable for tasks requiring automation, large-scale data analysis, and personalized recommendations, such as e-commerce personalization, forecasting cost overruns, or automating customer service responses. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on AI Use Cases and Applications.

Open-source modelsoffer morecustomization flexibility, allowing organizations to fine-tune or adapt the model tofit their own workflows, branding, or compliance needs— making it preferable when deep control is needed.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“Open-source AI allows organizations to review, adapt, and control model behavior in line with organizational needs and policies.” (p. 39)

Model disgorgement is the technique used to remove the effects of improperly used data from an ML system. This process involves retraining or adjusting the model to eliminate any biases or inaccuracies introduced by the inappropriate data. It ensures that the model's outputs are not influenced by data that was not meant to be used or was used incorrectly. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on Data Management and Model Integrity.

When the accuracy of a model deteriorates, the best first step is to conduct champion/challenger testing. This involves deploying a new model (challenger) alongside the current model (champion) to compare their performance. This method helps identify if the new model can perform better under current conditions without immediately discarding the existing model. It provides a controlled environment to test improvements and understand the reasons behind the deterioration. This approach is preferable to directly replacing the model, performing audits, or running red-teaming exercises, which may be subsequent steps based on the findings from the champion/challenger testing.

Training an AI model is time-consuming primarily due tomodel complexity,large data volumes, and the need forhigh-quality, well-prepared data.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“Most AI requires sizeable amounts of high-quality data… to ensure desired and accurate output.” (p. 15)

“The accuracy of AI model outputs depends significantly on the quality of their inputs.” (p. 24)

“Complex AI systems… with many parameters… result in long development and training phases.” (p. 32)

B. Maturity of governanceaffects oversight, not training time.

D. Number of stakeholdersaffects alignment, not direct training duration.

Testing data is a subset of data used to provide a robust evaluation of a final model. After training the model on training data, it is essential to test its performance on unseen data (testing data) to ensure it generalizes well to new, real-world scenarios. This step helps in assessing the model's accuracy, reliability, and ability to handle various data inputs. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on Model Validation and Testing.

The AI risk that would not have been identified during the procurement process based on the categories of information requested by the third-party consultant is security. The consultant focused on accuracy rates, diversity of training data, and system functionality, which pertain to performance and fairness but do not directly address the security aspects of the AI system. Security risks involve ensuring that the system is protected against unauthorized access, data breaches, and other vulnerabilities that could compromise its integrity. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on AI Security and Risk Management.

Business A is integrating a generative AI model licensed from a third party (Business B) and is primarily concerned with the risk of toxic or obscene outputs being delivered to users. In this scenario,testing and validationof the AI model for such content risks is the most direct and effective governance strategy.

According to theAI Governance in Practice Report2025, organizations thatdeployAI must engage inperformance monitoring protocolsand ensure systems perform adequately for theirintended purposes, including filtering harmful content:

“Operational governance… development of: →Performance monitoring protocols to ensure systems perform adequately for their intended purposes.” (p. 12)

“Product governance... includes: →System impact assessments to identify and address risk prior to product development or deployment.” (p. 11)

Furthermore, under theEU AI Act, which sets the global standard many organizations aim to align with, there is a clear obligation to test and monitor systems for potential harmful behavior:

“The act imposes regulatory obligations… such as establishing appropriate accountability structures,assessing system impact, providing technical documentation,establishing risk management protocols and monitoring performance...” (p. 7)

Option B directly reflects this best practice ofpre-deployment testing and validationto ensure that the model aligns with Business A’s minimum content safety requirements.

Let’s now evaluate the incorrect options:

A. Fine-tuning on verified user-generated textmay improve model alignment but does not guarantee that the model will generalize correctly, especially if Business A lacks access to model internals (common in third-party licensing scenarios). Fine-tuning also introduces its own risks and may be contractually restricted.

C. A user reporting featureisreactive, not preventive. While helpful for long-term monitoring and mitigation, it does not prevent the initial harm of toxic outputs, which isBusiness A's primary concern.

D. Requesting documentation from Business Bis useful for transparency and risk management, but it does not replaceindependent verificationthat the model meets Business A’s content safety standards.

Thus,testing the model's behavior for unacceptable outputs before deploymentis the most aligned approach with AI governance best practices and obligations.

Once a company moves from being adeployerto also acting as aprovider or developer, it assumesnew obligationsunder regulations like the EU AI Act. One of the core requirements for providers is to produce and maintaintechnical documentation, including descriptions of the model, associated risks, and mitigation strategies.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“Providers of high-risk AI systems must draw up technical documentation demonstrating the system’s conformity with the requirements... including potential risks and safeguards applied.” (p. 34)

“This documentation must be available before placing the system on the market.” (p. 35)

After completing model testing and validation, the most important step prior to deploying the model into production is to perform a readiness assessment. This assessment ensures that the model is fully prepared for deployment, addressing any potential issues related to infrastructure, performance, security, and compliance. It verifies that the model meets all necessary criteria for a successful launch. Other steps, such as defining a model-validation methodology, documenting maintenance teams and processes, and identifying known edge cases, are also important but come secondary to confirming overall readiness. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on Deployment Readiness.

Establishing a global AI governance infrastructure involves several key elements, including providing training to foster a culture that promotes ethical behavior, creating policies and procedures to manage third-party risk, and understanding differences in norms across countries. While publicly disclosing ethical principles can enhance transparency and trust, it is not a core element necessary for the establishment of a governance infrastructure. The focus is more on internal processes and structures rather than public disclosure. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on AI Governance and Infrastructure.

An AI system’sfunction,industry, anddeployment locationdefine itsrisk profile, which directly influences theinternal governance structuresan organization must put in place.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“There are many challenges and potential solutions for AI governance, each with unique proximityand significance based on an organization’s role, footprint, broader risk-governance profile and maturity.” (p. 4)

“AI governance starts with defining the corporate strategy for AI… and formulating policy standards and operational procedures to reflect industry, use case, and location.” (p. 11)

A– Organizational accountability is broader and not directly scoped by industry or function.

C– Diversity of data sources is tied to data strategy.

D– Explainability is more influenced by model type, not use context.

Reviewing the terms of use is essential when gathering data from a clinical research partner. This step ensures that the healthcare network complies with all legal and contractual obligations related to data usage. It addresses data ownership, usage limitations, consent requirements, and privacy obligations, which are critical to maintaining ethical standards and avoiding legal repercussions. This review helps ensure that the data is used in a manner consistent with the agreements made and the regulatory environment, which is fundamental for lawful and ethical AI development. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on Legal and Regulatory Considerations.

The EU AI Act imposes severalmandatory obligationson high-risk AI systems, butpublishing a detailed report on training dataisnotone of them.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“It mandates drawing up technical documentation for high-risk AI systems, and requires high-risk AI systems to come with instructions for use that disclose various information, including characteristics, capabilities and performance limitations.” (p. 34)

“To make high-risk AI systems more traceable, it also requires AI systems to be able to automatically allow for the maintenance of logs throughout the AI life cycle.”

“Conducting post-market monitoring” and “conformity assessments” areexplicitrequirements for high-risk systems. (p. 34–35)

However,publishingdetailed training data is typicallyrequired only for general-purpose AI systems with systemic risk, not standard high-risk AI systems.

A. Log retention,B. Post-market monitoring, andC. Conformity assessmentsareall requiredunder the EU AI Act for high-risk systems.

To protect the company's intellectual property, the most pertinent contractual provision is ensuring that the AI provider will defend and indemnify the company against infringement claims. This clause means the provider will take responsibility for any intellectual property disputes that arise, thereby safeguarding the company from potential legal and financial repercussions related to the use of the tool. Other options, while beneficial, do not directly address the protection of intellectual property. This concept is detailed in the contractual best practices section of the IAPP AIGP Body of Knowledge.

When designing an integrated compliance strategy for responsible AI, the least likely step would be employing a new software platform to modernize existing compliance processes. While modernizing compliance processes is beneficial, it is not as directly related to the strategic integration of ethical principles and stakeholder concerns. More critical steps include conducting assessments of existing compliance programs to identify overlaps and integration points, consulting experts on ethical principles, and launching surveys to understand stakeholder concerns. These steps ensure that the compliance strategy is comprehensive and aligned with responsible AI principles. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on AI Governance and Compliance Integration.

For the artist to receive copyright protection, the most effective approach is to demonstrate that the final artwork includes sufficient creative input by the artist. By updating or altering the images in a way that reflects the artist's personal creativity, the artist can claim originality, which is a core requirement for copyright protection under U.S. law. The other options do not directly address the originality and creative input required for copyright. This is highlighted in the sections on copyright protection in the IAPP AIGP Body of Knowledge.

The most critical reason for documenting AI-related risks is toreduce exposure to legal, regulatory, and reputational liabilities. Clear documentation demonstrates thatrisks were identified, assessed, and addressed, which is essential for accountability and defensibility in the face of audits, litigation, or enforcement actions.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“An effective AI governance model is about collective responsibility… which should encompass oversight mechanisms such as privacy, accountability, compliance.” (p. 13)

“Accountability… is based on the idea that there should be a person or entity that is ultimately responsible for any harm resulting from the use of the data, algorithm and AI system's underlying processes.” (p. 28)

While transparency, alignment with standards, and knowledge sharing are all secondary benefits,risk documentation’s primary role is liability mitigation.

To evaluate the effectiveness of an AI-based ad recommendation tool, the most relevant metric is the output data, specifically assessing the delta between the prediction and actual ad clicks. This metric directly measures the tool's accuracy and effectiveness in making accurate recommendations that lead to user engagement. While monitoring algorithmic patterns and input data can provide insights into the model's behavior and targeting accuracy, and GPU performance can indicate the robustness and efficiency of the tool, the primary indicator of effectiveness for an ad recommendation tool is how well it predicts actual ad clicks.

Testing results need to bedocumented thoroughlyto ensuretraceability, accountability, and compliance. This is central to enabling audits, investigations, or regulatory inquiries into the system’s development and performance.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“Documentation and recordkeeping are essential components… to demonstrate AI system compliance, trace system behavior, and support audits and conformity assessments.” (p. 34–35)

“Maintaining audit trails across development and deployment enables transparency and accountability.” (p. 12)

AandBare benefits, but not theprimary governance justification.

D– Limiting future testing is not a recommended goal.

The EU AI Act outlines what must be included intechnical documentationfor high-risk systems. These requirements are designed to supportconformity assessment, transparency, and traceability.

From theAI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“It mandates drawing up technical documentation… must include a general description of the AI system, the intended purpose, and a detailed description of the elements and development process.” (p. 34)

“Documentation… includes training, testing, evaluation procedures, andappropriateness of performance metrics.” (p. 34–35)

Therisk management systemis addressed separately through arisk management plan, not within the technical documentation itself.

Thus:

A, C, and Dare explicitly required in thetechnical documentation.

B, while important, is part of therisk management process, not a required section oftechnical documentation.

If it is possible to provide a rationale for a specific output of an AI system, that system can best be described as explainable. Explainability in AI refers to the ability to interpret and understand the decision-making process of the AI system. This involves being able to articulate the factors and logic that led to a particular output or decision. Explainability is critical for building trust, enabling users to understand and validate the AI system's actions, and ensuring compliance with ethical and regulatory standards. It also facilitates debugging and improving the system by providing insights into its behavior.

Providing the loan applicants with information about the model capabilities and limitations would not directly support fairness testing by the compliance team. Fairness testing focuses on evaluating the model's decisions for biases and ensuring equitable treatment across different demographic groups, rather than informing applicants about the model.

The primary purpose of an AI impact assessment is to anticipate and manage the potential risks and harms of an AI system. This includes identifying the possible negative outcomes and implementing measures to mitigate these risks. This process helps ensure that AI systems are developed and deployed in a manner that is ethically and socially responsible, addressing concerns such as bias, fairness, transparency, and accountability. The assessment often involves a thorough evaluation of the AI system's design, data inputs, outputs, and the potential impact on various stakeholders. This approach is crucial for maintaining public trust and adherence to regulatory requirements.

The correct answer isB – The tech company. The party thatdevelops and trains the foundational modelis responsible for ensuring thelawful collection of training data.

From the AIGP ILT Guide – Foundational Models & Data Governance:

“Responsibility for the lawfulness of data collection typically lies with the party that trains the model—usually the provider or developer of the foundational model.”

AI Governance in Practice Report2025confirms:

“General Purpose AI providers are required to ensure that training data is lawfully acquired, including compliance with intellectual property and privacy requirements.”

The marketing agency is only auserordownstream integrator, not responsible for original data collection.

Under the EU AI Act, high-risk AI systems likeCrime Buster9619 would require a detailed conformity assessment before being deployed in the EU market. This assessment ensures that the AI system complies with all relevant regulations and standards, addressing potential risks related to privacy, security, and discrimination. The company would not need to register the tool with the EU database (A), seek approval from an EU authority (B), or face a ban (D) as long as it meets the necessary conformity requirements​​​​.

The U.S. mortgage company's AI platform relates to housing and credit, making the Fair Housing Act (A), Fair Credit Reporting Act (B), and Equal Credit Opportunity Act (C) relevant. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 deals with employment discrimination and is not directly relevant to the mortgage application context (D).

The correct answer isB. "Candidate quality" isnota negative consequence of using AI—rather, it is the intendedbenefitof using such tools (e.g., more efficient filtering of strong candidates).

From the AIGP ILT Guide:

“Automation bias, disparate impact, and privacy risks are well-documented concerns in AI-assisted hiring. These risks may arise when AI models replicate biases present in training data or obscure the decision logic.”

AI Governance in Practice Report2025(Bias and Fairness Section) also warns:

“Improper AI use in hiring can lead to disparate impact, where neutral criteria disproportionately disadvantage protected groups.”

Candidate quality is agoal, not a risk, makingB the correct answerfor what isnota negative outcome.

===========

The GDPR requires that individuals have the right to not be subject to decisions based solely on automated processing, including profiling, unless specific exceptions apply. One effective control is to establish a human-in-the-loop procedure (D), ensuring human oversight and the ability to contest decisions. This goes beyond just-in-time notices (A), data safeguarding (B), or review rights (C), providing a more robust mechanism to protect individuals' rights.

Retraining the model with data that reflects demographic parity is the best strategy to mitigate the bias uncovered in the loan applications. This approach addresses the root cause of the bias by ensuring that the training data is representative and balanced, leading to more equitable decision-making by the AI model.

The correct answer isD. While modernization through software may support efficiency, it isnot a foundational or essential componentof designing an integrated strategy.

From the AI Governance in Practice Report2025:

“Integrated strategies rely on senior management support, ethical reviews, and stakeholder engagement... The use of tools and platforms may come later as an operational enhancement.”

Also confirmed in AIGP Body of Knowledge:

“Key components of a governance framework include leadership buy-in, ethical analysis, and stakeholder input. Tools are supporting elements—not strategic drivers.”

===========

Random forest algorithms are classified as discriminative models. Discriminative models are used to classify data by learning the boundaries between classes, which is the core functionality of random forest algorithms. They are used for classification and regression tasks by aggregating the results of multiple decision trees to make accurate predictions.

The correct answer isC. Thechoice of architecture(e.g., neural networks vs. decision trees) is typically part of thedesign and developmentphase, not the initial planning.

From the AIGP Body of Knowledge – AI Lifecycle Module:

“Planning involves scoping, context definition, stakeholder identification, governance planning, and assumptions—not yet model selection.”

Confirmed in the ILT Participant Guide:

“Design decisions such as architecture or algorithm type come after planning—usually during development based on technical feasibility and data availability.”

During the first month of monitoring the model for bias, it is most important to continue disparity testing. Disparity testing involves regularly evaluating the model's decisions to identify and address any biases, ensuring that the model operates fairly across different demographic groups.

All of the options listed may pose copyright risks when teachers use generative AI to create course content, except for students must expressly consent to this use of generative AI. While obtaining student consent is essential for ethical and privacy reasons, it does not directly relate to copyright risks associated with the creation and use of AI-generated content.

The correct answer isA. Only GPAI modelswith systemic riskmustpublish a detailed summary of training datato meet transparency and accountability standards under the EU AI Act.

From the AI Governance in Practice Report2025(EU AI Act Section):

“For GPAI systems with systemic risk, providers must publish sufficiently detailed summaries of the content used to train the model.”

Also, the AIGP ILT Guide confirms:

“The obligation to disclose summaries of training data applies only to systemic-risk GPAI models, not all general-purpose models or high-risk systems.”

This unique requirement is part of the Act’s effort to increasetransparency and auditabilityfor powerful foundational models.

===========

According to the Canadian Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, high-impact AI systems must notify the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry upon initial deployment. This requirement ensures that the authorities are aware of the deployment of significant AI systems and can monitor their impacts and compliance with regulatory standards from the outset. This initial notification is crucial for maintaining oversight and ensuring the responsible use of AI technologies. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge, domain on AI laws and standards.

The correct answer isA. While location of processors may have implications (such as for data transfers under GDPR), thereis noabsoluterequirement thatthird-party processors be based in the same country.

From the AI Governance in Practice Report2025and ILT Guide:

“Data controllers are responsible for ensuring that third-party processors have adequate protections, but not necessarily that they reside in the same jurisdiction. What is required is legal safeguards (e.g., SCCs) for international transfers, not same-country location.”

In contrast, DPIAs, DSARs, and implementation of technical/organizational safeguardsare explicitlyrequired underGDPR and responsible AI frameworks.

===========

The correct answer isB. AllowingPIIto be freely entered into prompts without safeguards is considered amajor privacy and security riskand is not a responsible governance practice.

From the AIGP ILT Guide – Generative AI & Third-Party Risk Management:

“Use of personal or sensitive information in AI prompts can result in unintended exposure, regulatory breaches, and downstream liability.”

The AI Governance in Practice Report2025highlights:

“PII should be minimized or protected by design. Prompt engineering should prevent entry of personally identifiable data unless legally and technically safeguarded.”

A, C, and D are established best practices under responsible AI procurement and use.

===========

The EU AI Act explicitly prohibits the use of AI systems for social scoring by public authorities, as it can lead to discrimination and unfair treatment of individuals based on their social behavior or perceived trustworthiness. While AI can be used to promote equitable distribution of welfare benefits, manage border control, and even detect an individual's intent for law enforcement purposes (within strict regulatory and ethical boundaries), implementing social scoring systems is not permissible under the Act due to the significant risks to fundamental rights and freedoms.

Before offering an AI solution in the EU market, a Canadian company must take several steps to comply with the EU AI Act. These steps include establishing a risk and quality management system (B), engaging a third-party auditor to perform a bias audit (C), and drawing up technical documentation and instructions for use (D). However, there is no requirement to register the AI solution in a public EU database (A). This registration step is not specified as part of the compliance requirements under the EU AI Act for such solutions​​​​.

The 1956 Dartmouth summer research project on AI is best known as a meeting focused on the founding of the AI field. This conference is historically significant because it marked the formal beginning of artificial intelligence as an academic discipline. The term "artificial intelligence" was coined during this event, and it laid the foundation for future research and development in AI.

An AI model is best defined as a program that has been trained on a set of data to find patterns within that data. This definition captures the essence of machine learning, where the model learns from the data to make predictions or decisions. Reference: AIGP BODY OF KNOWLEDGE, which provides a detailed explanation of AI models and their training processes​​.

The primary reason the EU is considering updates to its Product Liability Directive is to address digital services and connected products. The current directive does not adequately cover the complexities and challenges posed by modern digital and connected technologies. By updating the directive, the EU aims to ensure that it remains relevant and effective in addressing the liabilities associated with these advanced products, ensuring consumer protection and fair market practices in the digital age.

According to the GDPR, individuals have the right to not be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects them. However, there are exceptions to this right, one of which is when the decision is based on the data subject's explicit consent. This means that if an individual explicitly consents to the automated decision-making process, there is no requirement for human intervention to confirm or replace the decision. This exception ensures that individuals can have control over automated decisions that affect them, provided they have given clear and informed consent.