Pass the iSQI AI Testing CT-GenAI Questions and answers with Dumpstech

Data security is a paramount concern when using GenAI in testing, as test environments often contain sensitive business logic or PII (Personally Identifiable Information). To protect this data "at rest" (stored in databases or vector stores) and "in transit" (being sent to the LLM), a combination of technical controls is required.Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)is a fundamental security pillar that ensures only authorized individuals or services can access specific datasets or trigger GenAI workflows. This prevents unauthorized users from feeding sensitive enterprise data into public AI models. While encryption (omitted in Option A as an alternative to obfuscation) and TLS (falsely suggested to be disabled in Option C) are essential technical layers for protecting data in transit, RBAC provides the organizational "gatekeeping" necessary to manage who can interact with the AI system. In a professional GenAI strategy, testers must ensure that the tools they use adhere to strict access policies, ensuring that the "Input Data" used for prompting remains within the secured organizational boundary and is not leaked to unauthorized entities or public training sets.

While a basic chatbot is primarily designed for textual interaction and information retrieval, anLLM-powered agent(or AI Agent) is characterized by itsagency—the ability to use tools and trigger actions in the external world. In a software testing context, an agent does not just "talk" about testing; it can actually perform testing tasks. For example, an agent could be given the goal to "verify the login module," and it would independently decide to call an API, generate a test script, execute it against a test environment, and then analyze the results to report a bug in Jira. This ability totrigger automated actions(Option C) through "function calling" or tool integration is what makes agents far more powerful than simple conversational interfaces (Option D). Agents can reason about "how" to achieve a goal, selecting the appropriate tools (like Selenium, Postman, or specialized internal utilities) to complete the task. This moves the AI from being a passive advisor to an active participant in the test automation ecosystem, requiring testers to focus more on goal definition and result validation.

Shadow AIrefers to the use of artificial intelligence tools and services within an organization without explicit approval or oversight from the IT or Security departments. In a software testing environment, this often occurs when testers use public, consumer-grade LLMs to analyze proprietary code or sensitive requirement documents to speed up their work. The primary compliance concern is theviolation of established data handling and regulatory compliance standards(such as GDPR, HIPAA, or SOC2). When sensitive test data is fed into a "shadow" AI tool, that data may be stored on external servers or used to train future iterations of the model, leading to massive data leaks and legal exposure. This bypasses the organization's security controls, such as data masking and role-based access. Unlike "authorized" AI which undergoes a rigorous vendor risk assessment, Shadow AI creates an invisible attack surface. For a test organization, mitigating this risk involves providing approved, secure AI alternatives and implementing strict policies and monitoring to ensure that internal intellectual property is never processed by unvetted external services.

Embeddingsare a fundamental concept in modern Natural Language Processing (NLP) and LLMs. They are high-dimensional numerical vectors—essentially lists of numbers—that represent the meaning (semantics) of a piece of text (a word, sentence, or document). Unlike traditional keyword matching, which looks for identical strings of characters, embeddings allow the model to understand the "closeness" of concepts. For example, in a vector space, the word "bug" would be mathematically closer to "defect" or "error" than to "feature" or "requirement." This captures the semantic relationship between terms. This technology is the backbone of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) used in testing: when a tester queries a documentation set, the system converts the query into an embedding and looks for other chunks of text with similar vector values. This allows the AI to retrieve relevant context even if the exact keywords do not match. It is not about logical rules (Option C) or groups of tokens (Option A), but rather a mathematical representation of language that enables machines to process human meaning.

This scenario describes a form ofRequest Manipulation, specifically a type of "Prompt Injection" or "Adversarial Prompting." In this attack vector, the user (or an external attacker) provides malicious or deceptive input—in this case, via an image in a multimodal LLM—to bypass the model's intended constraints or to steer its logic toward an unintended outcome. By crafting an image that tricks the LLM into seeing "acceptance criteria" that aren't actually there, the attacker manipulates the model’s request processing to generate false validation results. This is different fromData Poisoning(Option A), which involves corrupting the training data before the model is even built. It is also distinct fromData Exfiltration(Option B), which aims to steal data from the model. In a testing environment, request manipulation is a significant risk because it can lead to "Silent Failures," where the AI reports that tests have passed or requirements are met based on deceptive input, thereby compromising the integrity of the entire Quality Assurance process.

Prompt Chainingis a technique where a complex task is decomposed into several smaller, sequential steps, where the output of one step serves as the context or input for the next. This is far more reliable than a "one-shot" approach (Option A) because it reduces the cognitive load on the LLM and allows for intermediate verification. In the scenario of test analysis, the most logical and effective chain begins by extracting discretetest conditionsfrom the raw requirements. Once these conditions are established, the next "link" in the chain is toprioritize them based on risk(impact and likelihood), which requires the model to reason specifically about the importance of each condition. The final step is tomap these prioritized conditions back to the original requirementsto identify any "coverage gaps." This systematic flow (Option B) mirrors the professional test analysis process defined in the ISTQB/CT-GenAI standards. By following this sequence, the tester ensures that the AI-generated output is logically derived and thorough, providing a clear "audit trail" from the initial requirement to the final prioritized test suite.

LLMOps(Large Language Model Operations) is the set of practices used to manage the lifecycle of LLMs in production. When an organization integrates an AI chatbot into its test processes, the primary operational concern ismaintaining data privacy and minimizing security risks, especially if using third-party APIs. Unlike traditional software, LLMs are "black boxes" that process every piece of data sent to them. A core LLMOps responsibility is ensuring that any "Prompt Data" (code, requirements, or logs) is not used by the provider to train their public models and that the communication channels are fully secured. While scalability (Option A) and latency (Option C) are important technical metrics, they are secondary to the catastrophic legal and reputational risk of a data breach. LLMOps in a testing context involves implementing data masking tools, monitoring for "Prompt Injection" attacks, and managing the "Grounding" data in vector databases to ensure it remains current and protected. This ensures the AI remains a safe and reliable asset within the enterprise testing ecosystem, rather than a liability for the organization’s intellectual property.

As Generative AI is integrated into the testing lifecycle, the role of the human tester undergoes a significant shift from "author" to "orchestrator and reviewer." In traditional testing, a significant portion of a tester's time is spent manually drafting test cases, scripts, and documentation. With GenAI, these artifacts can be generated in seconds. Consequently, the tester’s responsibility shifts towardreviewing, refining, and validatingthe AI-generated testware to ensure accuracy, relevance, and compliance with project goals. This "Human-in-the-Loop" (HITL) approach is critical because LLMs are prone to hallucinations and may lack the deep domain context of a human expert. Testers must apply their critical thinking to verify that the AI-generated scripts actually cover the necessary edge cases and do not contain logical errors. This evolution does not mean the end of human oversight (Option B) or a move exclusively to white-box testing (Option C). Instead, it elevates the tester to a higher-level analytical role, focusing on quality strategy and the final verification of AI outputs rather than the repetitive task of initial content creation.

Differentiating between prompting techniques is essential for a tester to select the right tool for the task.Few-shot promptingis characterized by providing the model with a few examples of inputs and desired outputs, allowing it to learn the pattern and format.Prompt Chaininginvolves breaking a complex task into a sequence of smaller, interconnected prompts, where the output of one step becomes the input for the next (e.g., first extract requirements, then generate test cases from those requirements).Meta-promptingis a more advanced technique where the user asks the LLM to help design, write, or refine the prompt itself—essentially using the AI as a "prompt engineer" to optimize the instructions. Option D correctly identifies these core characteristics. Options A, B, and C contain fundamental mischaracterizations: for instance, Few-shotrequiresexamples (contradicting A), and Chaining is theoppositeof a single prompt (contradicting A). Mastering these distinctions allows testers to move from simple "chatting" to sophisticated AI orchestration that can handle complex, multi-stage testing workflows with high reliability.

A successful Generative AI strategy for testing is heavily dependent on the quality of the data used for grounding (RAG) and prompting. The principle of "Garbage In, Garbage Out" is magnified with LLMs; therefore, a key strategic pillar is the prioritization of accurate, relevant, and high-quality input data. This involves establishing defined quality procedures to ensure that the requirements, codebases, and historical defect logs fed into the model are "clean" and representative of the current system state. Strategy must avoid the "unfiltered" approach (Option C), as including contradictory or obsolete data can lead to hallucinations or irrelevant test cases. While synthetic data (Option D) is a powerful tool for privacy, it cannot entirely replace the nuanced reality found in secured enterprise data. Furthermore, legacy data (Option A) often contains valuable insights for regression testing. Consequently, the strategy should focus on building a robust data pipeline that ensures only verified, contextually appropriate information is utilized, thereby increasing the reliability of AI-generated testware and ensuring it aligns with the organization's quality standards.