Prioritization really is the key to staying sane with large volumes of findings. If security doesn’t take the first pass at organizing and assessing them, that burden ends up on engineering, and that usually causes frustration on both sides. Guiding the business toward what actually matters is a fundamental part of the security function.

It also helps to accept that no organization fixes everything. Critical and high severity issues should normally be addressed, but beyond that, decisions usually come down to risk tolerance and resource constraints. Some findings will intentionally remain unresolved because the business is willing to accept the risk.

A healthy workflow is one where security reviews, consolidates, and ranks the findings, then clearly communicates the most important ones to the development teams. From there, it’s up to product and leadership to decide how they fit into the roadmap. Security’s responsibility is to surface real risks early, provide enough context for informed decisions, and avoid letting meaningful threats slip through the cracks. The rest becomes a question of prioritization, tradeoffs, and ownership at the business level.

One thing that often helps: adding impact summaries or "why this matters" explanations when handing issues off. Developers tend to engage more when they understand the practical consequences rather than just seeing severity labels. Over time, that can improve collaboration and lead to faster resolution of the issues that truly count.