According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.2, information security objectives are the specific results that an organisation intends to achieve with its information security management system (ISMS). The standard specifies that information security objectives must fulfil the following criteria:
* They must be communicated appropriately (A): The organisation must ensure that the relevant internal and external parties are informed about the information security objectives and their roles and responsibilities in achieving them. This can help to create awareness, commitment, and accountability for information security. This criterion is related to clause 6.2.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022.
* They must be available as documented information (B): The organisation must maintain and retain documented information on the information security objectives, including their scope, level, indicators, and time frame. This can help to provide evidence, traceability, and consistency for information security. This criterion is related to clause 6.2.1 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022.
* They must be consistent with the IS Policy (G): The organisation must ensure that the information security objectives are aligned with the information security policy, which is the top-level statement of the organisation's intentions and direction for information security. This can help to support the strategic objectives and the context of the organisation. This criterion is related to clause 5.2 of ISO/IEC
27001:2022.
* They must be achievable (H): The organisation must ensure that the information security objectives are realistic and attainable, considering the available resources, capabilities, and constraints. This can help to avoid setting unrealistic or unfeasible expectations and to monitor and measure the progress and performance of information security. This criterion is related to clause 6.2.1 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022.
References:
* ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Requirements1
* PECB Candidate Handbook ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor2
* ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor - PECB3
* ISO 27001:2022 certified ISMS lead auditor - Jisc4
* ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Transition Training Course5
* ISO 27001 - Information Security Lead Auditor Course - PwC Training Academy6

The four options for the actions you could take are A, C, F, and G. These options are consistent with the guidance and requirements of ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.712. You could agree with the auditee/audit client how the remaining nonconformity will be cleared, by when, and how its clearance will be verified (A), and document the agreement in the audit report1. You could close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised , and report the outcome to the audit client and other relevant parties1. You could note the progress made but hold the audit open until all corrective action has been cleared (F), and determine the need for another follow-up audit or other actions1. You could also advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity (G), as they are responsible for the overall management and coordination of the audit programme3. The other options are either not appropriate or not necessary for the situation. You should not recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit (B), as this may compromise the audit objectives and the audit programme1. You should not recommend suspension of the organisation's certification as they have failed to implement the agreed corrections and corrective actions within the agreed timescale (D), as this is not within your role or authority as an ISMS auditor4. You should not advise the auditee that you will arrange for the next audit to be an online audit to deal with the outstanding nonconformity (E), as this may not be feasible or effective depending on the nature and complexity of the nonconformity1. You should not conduct an unannounced follow-up audit on-site to review the one outstanding minor nonconformity once it has been cleared (H), as this may not be in accordance with the audit agreement or the audit programme1. References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause 6.7 \n2: PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Preparation Guide, Domain 6:
Closing an ISO/IEC 27001 audit \n3: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause
5.3 \n4: ISO/IEC 27006:2022, Information technology - Security techniques - Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of information security management systems, Clause 9.6

According to the PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, a correction is an action to eliminate a detected nonconformity, such as rework, repair, or replacement1. The examples of A, B, C, and E are corrections because they fix the errors or defects that caused the nonconformities, such as a missing signature, a missing guide, a wrong date, or a wrong colour code. The other examples (D, F, G, and H) are not corrections, but corrective actions, because they address the root causes of the nonconformities, such as inadequate training, poor planning, ineffective documentation, or unclear responsibility2. References: 1:
PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 35, section 4.5.12: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 36, section 4.5.2.

According to the PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, the audit team leader should obtain information about the additional sites to inform the individual(s) managing the audit programme, as this may affect the audit objectives, scope, criteria, duration, resources, and risks. The audit team leader should also review the audit plan and make any necessary adjustments in consultation with the auditee and the audit client1. References: 1: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 27, section
4.3.2.2.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 5.2 requires top management to establish an information security policy that provides the framework for setting information security objectives1. Clause 6.2 requires top management to ensure that the information security objectives are established at relevant functions and levels1. Therefore, when verifying that the information security policy and objectives have been established by top management, an ISMS auditor should review relevant documents and records that demonstrate top management's involvement and commitment.
To verify that the mobile device policy and objectives are implemented and effective, an ISMS auditor should review relevant documents and records that demonstrate how the policy and objectives are communicated, monitored, measured, analyzed, and evaluated. The auditor should also sample and verify the implementation of the controls that are stated in the policy.
Three options for the audit trail that are relevant to verifying the mobile device policy and objectives are:
Review the internal audit report to make sure the IT department has been audited: This option is relevant because it can provide evidence of how the IT department, which is responsible for managing the mobile devices and their security, has been evaluated for its conformity and effectiveness in implementing the mobile device policy and objectives. The internal audit report can also reveal any nonconformities, corrective actions, or opportunities for improvement related to the mobile device policy and objectives.
Sampling some mobile devices from on-duty medical staff and validate the mobile device information with the asset register: This option is relevant because it can provide evidence of how the mobile devices that are used by the medical staff, who are involved in processing and storing residents' data, are registered in the asset register and have physical protection enabled. This can verify the implementation and effectiveness of two of the controls that are stated in the mobile device policy.
Review the asset register to make sure all company's mobile devices are registered: This option is relevant because it can provide evidence of how the company's mobile devices that are within the ISMS scope are identified and accounted for. This can verify the implementation and effectiveness of one of the controls that are stated in the mobile device policy.
The other options for the audit trail are not relevant to verifying the mobile device policy and objectives, as they are not related to the policy or objectives or their implementation or effectiveness. For example:
Interview the reception personnel to make sure all visitor and employee bags are checked before entering the nursing home: This option is not relevant because it does not provide evidence of how the mobile device policy and objectives are implemented or effective. It may be related to another policy or objective regarding physical security or access control, but not specifically to mobile devices.
Review visitors' register book to make sure no visitor can have their personal mobile phone in the nursing home: This option is not relevant because it does not provide evidence of how the mobile device policy and objectives are implemented or effective. It may be related to another policy or objective regarding information security awareness or compliance, but not specifically to mobile devices.
Interview the supplier of the devices to make sure they are aware of the ISMS policy: This option is not relevant because it does not provide evidence of how the mobile device policy and objectives are implemented or effective. It may be related to another policy or objective regarding information security within supplier relationships, but not specifically to mobile devices.
Interview top management to verify their involvement in establishing the information security policy and the information security objectives: This option is not relevant because it does not provide evidence of how the mobile device policy and objectives are implemented or effective. It may be related to verifying that the information security policy and objectives have been established by top management, but not specifically to mobile devices.