Certified Information Systems Auditor Practice Exam

The correct choice highlights how specific actions can compromise the objectivity of a quality assurance team. When the team corrects coding errors during the testing process, it blurs the line between evaluation and intervention. Quality assurance is primarily focused on assessing the quality and performance of the systems without influencing the development process. By taking on the role of corrector, the team becomes involved in the development cycle rather than remaining an independent evaluator, which could lead to bias in their assessment and ultimately undermine their independence.

Conducting independent audits maintains the objectivity of the quality assurance function, as it involves assessing processes without hands-on involvement. Providing training sessions, while it could foster better practices, also doesn't compromise independence as long as the training doesn’t influence the evaluation results. Performing audits in a collaborative manner can enhance communication and understanding but still maintains a degree of independence in evaluation as long as the auditing framework is respected. However, directly correcting problems intertwines the quality assurance responsibilities with those of the developers, thus impairing the team's independence.