Pass the Isaca AI-Centric Security Management AAISM Questions and answers with CertsForce

AAISM technical coverage identifies recall as the metric that specifically measures a model’s ability to capture all true positive cases out of the total actual positives. A high recall means the system minimizes false negatives, ensuring that relevant instances are not overlooked. Precision instead measures correctness among predicted positives, specificity focuses on true negatives, and the F1 score balances precision and recall but does not by itself indicate the completeness of capturing positives. The official study guide defines recall as the most direct metric for evaluating how well a model identifies all relevant positive cases, making it the correct answer.

The AAISM framework stresses that the most effective way to maintain oversight of organizational AI usage is by maintaining a comprehensive inventory of all AI systems and the business units using them. Such an inventory provides a centralized, transparent record of where AI is deployed, ensuring accountability, monitoring, and compliance. While board approval, dashboards, and KPIs are important governance tools, they do not provide holistic visibility across the enterprise. The inventory ensures traceability and governance alignment, making it the best method to maintain visibility of AI usage.

The AAISM governance framework specifies that the foundation of continuous monitoring is real-time tracking of key risk indicators. This ensures immediate detection of deviations, model drift, and operational anomalies. Automated alerts, dashboards, and reporting templates all support monitoring, but they rely on the presence of accurate, real-time KRI measurement as their source. Without live monitoring, the other controls are reactive rather than proactive. The most important course of action in establishing effective continuous monitoring is therefore real-time KRI tracking.

Membership inference attacks attempt to determine whether a particular data point was part of a model’s training set, which risks violating privacy. The AAISM study guide highlights differential privacy as the most effective mitigation because it introduces mathematical noise that obscures individual contributions without significantly degrading model performance. Ensemble methods improve robustness but do not specifically protect privacy. Threat modeling and red teaming help identify risks but are not direct controls. The explicit mitigation control aligned with privacy preservation for membership inference is differential privacy.

AAISM highlights fine-tuning foundational models as one of the most effective strategies for reducing hallucination risk. By tailoring the model with domain-specific, curated, and verified datasets, organizations can reduce the frequency of irrelevant or fabricated outputs. Testing and validation help evaluate risks but do not directly minimize hallucinations. Training on larger datasets may improve generalization but does not guarantee accuracy. Developer training in AI risk supports governance but is not a technical control against hallucinations. The best mitigation is fine-tuning to align the chatbot with trusted, context-specific knowledge.

AAISM risk management guidance clarifies that the organization’s risk tolerance is the most important factor in determining how much monitoring is needed. Risk tolerance specifies the amount of risk the organization is willing to accept and defines the threshold for triggering monitoring or mitigation activities. Risk appetite is broader and strategic, while tolerance sets the operational limits. The number of users may influence scale, and compensating controls may affect resilience, but neither dictates monitoring intensity as directly as risk tolerance.

The AAISM study content emphasizes that data quality management is a central pillar of AI risk reduction. Missing data introduces bias and undermines predictive accuracy if not addressed systematically. The most effective remediation is to apply statistical imputation and related methods to fill in or adjust for missing values in a way that minimizes bias and preserves data integrity. Retraining on flawed data does not solve the underlying issue. Deleting outliers may harm model robustness, and hyperparameter tuning optimizes model mechanics but cannot resolve missing information. Therefore, the proper corrective technique for missing data is the application of statistical methods to reduce bias.