# DenQAI: revenue cycle exception queue

File-specific companion · 2026-09-10

## Purpose

Which revenue-cycle exceptions need action, by whom, and by when?

**Who:** Billing or operations lead with appropriate escalation reviewers

**Records:** Aggregate exception reports; source-system totals; supporting record locators; due and last-review windows.

## Complete the file

1. Assign exception_id and classification while preserving aggregate_amount and period.
2. Record evidence_status, controlling_record, accountable_owner, and a concrete next_action.
3. Set due_window and escalation_rule, then document resolution_code after evidence supports closure.

## Definitions

- **Exception classification:** Type of issue requiring investigation, such as timing or submission error.
- **Due window:** Defined period by which the assigned action is required.
- **Resolution code:** Documented closure category; define the permitted vocabulary before reporting totals.

## Fictional example

Fictional example: RCM-E02 covers an aggregate submission error of $2,400 for August; the billing owner verifies correction evidence before marking it resolved.

## Review and next action

Work the highest-consequence due exception and verify its resolution against the source system.

Amounts may overlap across exception types unless the owner defines deduplication. The queue does not authorize claim submission or write-offs.

[Related DenQAI guide](https://denqai.com/operations/workbench)

## AI coach prompt

Help me use DenQAI’s revenue cycle exception queue. My question is: Which revenue-cycle exceptions need action, by whom, and by when? Explain these terms in plain language: Exception classification, Due window, Resolution code. Ask one question at a time about the required records: Aggregate exception reports; source-system totals; supporting record locators; due and last-review windows. Walk through the supplied fictional example before asking me for inputs. Treat every missing value as unknown, not zero. Do not invent source records, contract terms, legal conclusions, or clinical facts. Use only permitted fictional or aggregate, non-identifying information. Follow this boundary: Amounts may overlap across exception types unless the owner defines deduplication. The queue does not authorize claim submission or write-offs. End with the missing evidence and this next step: Work the highest-consequence due exception and verify its resolution against the source system.

## AI review prompt

Review my permitted fictional or aggregate draft of DenQAI’s revenue cycle exception queue against the file instructions. Check each required field and period, units, evidence locator, assumptions, arithmetic where formulas are actually supplied, and unresolved contradictions. Check the sequence: Assign exception_id and classification while preserving aggregate_amount and period. Record evidence_status, controlling_record, accountable_owner, and a concrete next_action. Set due_window and escalation_rule, then document resolution_code after evidence supports closure. Separate facts from assumptions and missing records. Do not supply unsupported numbers or make a professional decision for me. Apply this limitation: Amounts may overlap across exception types unless the owner defines deduplication. The queue does not authorize claim submission or write-offs. Return corrections, questions for the responsible reviewer, and the next action.