ISO/IEC 23053 describes an ML system. ISO/IEC 42001 sets certifiable requirements for an AI management system. One is a vocabulary, the other is auditable.
ISO/IEC 23053 answers "what is in this AI system and how is it built". It gives a shared description of the task, model, data, tools and pipeline. ISO/IEC 42001 answers "what must the organisation do to manage AI responsibly", with requirements for context, leadership, planning, support, operation, performance evaluation and improvement, plus Annex A controls and an impact assessment. 42001 is certifiable. 23053 is not. In practice the two fit together: the 42001 system needs a description of each AI system, and 23053 supplies the vocabulary for that description. An amendment to 23053 changes the vocabulary, not the 42001 requirements.
Can the 42001 audit fail because of 23053?
Not directly. 23053 is not a normative reference of 42001. An auditor can still expect the description to be coherent, and the framework is the common way to make it so.
Do we need both?
If you want a certificate, you need 42001. If you want a description that a reader, an auditor and a supplier can share, 23053 is the vocabulary.
Where this comes from
The clause record states each unit in our own words and cites the source. The amendment page separates the public draft summary from the published base edition. The base record is ISO standard 74438.
Not legal advice; does not certify. The amendment wording is not held and is not stated.