With numbering, a distinction needs to be made between its cardinal and its ordinal value. For example, Peh has an ordinal value of seventeen, and Shin and ordinal value of 21.
I have at various times mentioned that, at least in my personal view, if there is going to be an early or historically based correlation made between letter value and Hebrew letter, it is the ordinal value, rather than its cardinal, that is important.
To only number twenty-one of the twenty-two cards makes sense, especially if one also has interests in the Sefer Yetzirah, for then the addition of those numbered cards gives the triangular number of 231 (1+2+3...+21) - also, therefore, the number of 'gates' between each two letters, and hence between any two adjacent cards selected.
In such a case, I would suggest that it makes more sense to have the Fool as final card, allocated Tav, for then, each card number can be also seen as ordinal representation of letter value. Of course, we need to simultaneously remember that early extant decks were left, in any case, un-numbered.
Having it placed between cards XX and XXI breaks the 'obvious' ordinal value of the final two letters, and placing it before Alef breaks the ordinal value of all letters.
Yet, there is also no doubt that many have quite effectively seen sense and sensibilities in placing the Fool either as first card, as penultimate, or, as mentioned, as final.
In my personal view, and as mentioned elsewhere, it is neither Bateleur nor Fool who 'does the journey' (a concept in any case expounded more over the past thirty years than with early decks), but, rather, each individual.