Operate the review queue
A practical review model for evidence, approval, requested changes, overdue review escalations, and pull-back requests.
Review is a control point, not a side conversation
Prepared work should not disappear into email or chat. It should enter a queue where the reviewer can see the task, evidence, preparer, timing, comments, and decision history.
A clean review process protects accountability: preparers know what changed, reviewers know what they approved, and managers can see where sign-off is slowing the close.
Use the right review lane
Different review lanes exist so each stakeholder can act without blurring responsibilities.
| Lane | Use it for | Expected action |
|---|---|---|
| Task Review | Prepared close work waiting for approval. | Approve, request changes, or open the task for context. |
| Manager Oversight | Manager visibility into reviews and bottlenecks. | Observe, follow up, or escalate without taking over reviewer ownership. |
| Timesheet Review | Submitted time that affects reporting and workload. | Approve time or send it back for correction. |
| Pull-back Requests | Completed work that needs to reopen. | Approve the pull-back so the task returns to IN_PROGRESS when appropriate. |
Review queue operating steps
Use the queue every day during close week. Waiting until the end of the day turns review into a bottleneck.
- Open Task Review for prepared work waiting on approval.
- Check evidence before approving so sign-off is tied to support, not memory.
- Request changes with a clear note when the preparer needs to revise the work.
- Escalate overdue reviews when an aging handoff puts the close at risk.
- Use Manager Oversight as a view-only lane for managers who need context without changing the review.
- Approve pull-back requests when a completed task needs to reopen into IN_PROGRESS.
Set an evidence standard
Evidence should make the reviewer comfortable approving the work without searching across drives, chats, and email threads. When support is missing, the reviewer should request changes rather than approve from memory.
The review queue is only as strong as the evidence discipline behind it. Treat missing support as a workflow issue, not a personal follow-up.