Every close, every review cycle, every approval chain has the same shape once a model arrives. The ordinary items sail through. What lands in front of a person is the weird remainder: a missing number, a contradiction, a case the rule did not contemplate. That queue is smaller and meaner. It is also the actual job.
Most tools are designed for the sail-through. The remainder gets a filter and a prayer.
give the remainder a desk
An exception queue needs an owner, a definition of what belongs in it, and enough context that the person does not rebuild the case. What the system already checked. What failed the check. What a reasonable next step is. What they are allowed to approve alone.
Sort it by consequence, not by age. A small item that can spend money incorrectly outranks a large item that is merely late.
If you automate the easy half and ignore the hard half, you automated the half that was not the point.
certify, don't just click
The person at the end of this queue is not clearing a backlog. They are saying, with their name, that this one is acceptable. The screen should feel like that. A note when they override. A pause on the ones that cannot be undone. A record someone else can audit without asking them to remember.
Staff the queue. Review what keeps landing in it. Those repeats are either a rule you should write down or a mistake the first pass should have caught.