The best action to take in this scenario is to determine whether any additional effective arrangements are in place to verify individual access to secure areas, such as CCTV. This action is consistent with the audit principle of evidence-based approach, which requires the auditor to obtain sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support the audit findings and conclusions1. By verifying the existence and effectiveness of other security controls, the auditor can assess the extent and impact of the nonconformity observed, and determine the appropriate audit finding and recommendation.
The other options are not the best actions to take in this scenario, because they are either premature or inappropriate. For example:
*Option A is inappropriate, because it is not the auditor's role to suggest specific solutions or improvements to the auditee, but rather to report the audit findings and recommendations based on the audit criteria and objectives2. A large sign in reception may not be an effective or feasible solution to address the issue of tailgating, and it may not reflect the root cause of the problem.
*Option C is premature, because it assumes that the control A.7.1 'security perimeters' is not adequately implemented, without verifying the existence and effectiveness of other security controls that may compensate for the observed nonconformity. The auditor should not jump to conclusions based on a single observation, but rather gather sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support the audit finding3.
*Option D is premature, because it assumes that the control A.7.6 'working in secure areas' is not adequately implemented, without verifying the existence and effectiveness of other security controls that may compensate for the observed nonconformity. The auditor should not jump to conclusions based on a single observation, but rather gather sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support the audit finding3.
*Option E is inappropriate, because it is not related to the observed nonconformity, which is about the access control to secure areas, not the information security requirements agreed upon with the supplier. The auditor should not raise a nonconformity based on irrelevant or incorrect audit criteria4.
*Option F is inappropriate, because it is not the auditor's role to suggest specific solutions or improvements to the auditee, but rather to report the audit findings and recommendations based on the audit criteria and objectives2. Requiring contractors to be accompanied at all times when accessing secure facilities may not be an effective or feasible solution to address the issue of tailgating, and it may not reflect the root cause of the problem.
References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, 5.2; 2: ISO 19011:2018, 6.6; 3: ISO 19011:2018, 6.2; 4: ISO 19011:2018,
6.3; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018

The audit team leader knowingly falsified the audit report to downplay nonconformities.
Fraud involves intentional deception or misrepresentation of information, making this a fraudulent act.
A: Ordinary negligence (Incorrect):
Ordinary negligence is a failure to exercise reasonable care, but this case involved intentional misconduct.
B: Gross negligence (Incorrect):
Gross negligence is extreme carelessness but does not involve deliberate misrepresentation.
Relevant Standard Reference:
Explanation:
Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth

* B. This clause requires the organisation to determine the interested parties that are relevant to the ISMS, and the requirements of these interested parties12. This clause is relevant to the verification of the scope of the ISMS because it helps the organisation to identify the stakeholders that have an influence or an interest in the information security of the organisation, such as customers, suppliers, regulators, employees, etc. The organisation should also consider the needs and expectations of these interested parties when defining the scope of the ISMS, and ensure that they are met and communicated.
* E. This clause requires the organisation to establish an information security policy that provides the framework for setting the information security objectives and guiding the information security activities13. This clause is relevant to the verification of the scope of the ISMS because it helps the organisation to define the direction and principles of the ISMS, and to align them with the strategic goals and context of the organisation. The information security policy should also be consistent with the scope of the ISMS, and should be communicated and understood within the organisation and by relevant interested parties.
* F. This clause requires the organisation to determine the internal and external issues that are relevant to the purpose and the context of the organisation, and that affect its ability to achieve the intended outcomes of the ISMS14. This clause is relevant to the verification of the scope of the ISMS because it helps the organisation to understand the factors and conditions that influence the information security of the organisation, such as the legal, technological, social, economic, environmental, etc. The organisation should also monitor and review these issues, and consider them when defining the scope of the ISMS.
* H. This clause requires the organisation to determine the boundaries and applicability of the ISMS to establish its scope15. This clause is relevant to the verification of the scope of the ISMS because it helps the organisation to describe the information and processes that are included in the ISMS, and to document the scope in a clear and concise manner. The organisation should also consider the issues, requirements, and interfaces identified in clauses 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 when determining the scope of the ISMS, and ensure that the scope is appropriate to the nature and scale of the organisation.
References:
1: PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 17 2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Requirements, clause
4.2 3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Requirements, clause 5.2 4: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Requirements, clause 4.1 5: ISO/IEC
27001:2022 - Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Requirements, clause 4.3

A sampling plan for the audit is a method of selecting a representative subset of the audit evidence to evaluate the conformity of the ISMS1. The advantages of using a sampling plan are:
It reduces the audit duration by focusing on the most relevant and significant aspects of the ISMS2.
It gives confidence in the audit results by ensuring that the sample is sufficient, reliable, and unbiased3.

The purpose of retaining documented information related to the ISMS of an organisation is to the extent necessary, to have confidence that the processes have been carried out as planned. This means that the documented information provides evidence of the conformity and effectiveness of the ISMS, as well as the achievement of the information security objectives and the continual improvement of the ISMS. Documented information also supports the analysis and evaluation of the ISMS performance and the identification of opportunities for improvement. References: = ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 7.5.1; PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 17.