Just caught up and have some feelings I'm going to blurt out here, in a similar way as to how the script must have been written.
Overall, I quite liked it despite spending most of the series as confused as the Doctor. Even with loads of exposition, I couldn't really follow it. I'm not sure the plot held up or made any legit sense, because there was so damn much of it to piece together. My OH also said a lot of the plot points seemed to be borrowed from other sci-fi shows and Marvel films.
BUT my attention was held throughout, even when clueless, and I think it was a step up from previous series. John Bishop added real warmth and charm, the kind I expected from Bradley Walsh but which just never seemed to manifest. Him, Yaz and Jericho made a fine trio, and I adored their adventures across the world in 1900s garb. I loved the way Liverpool played such a prominent role and I believe this is how DW should continue - with nods to regional and local history, instead of "oh no, London's in trouble... again."
The villains were some of the campest in Who lore and I genuinely enjoyed the Sontarans. Still, the plot leaned too heavily on the Moffat School of Convoluted Exposition, and throwing everything at the wall is pointless if no one's even following the gist of what's going on. However, the episode with the Weeping Angels was truly gripping and the stand-out of the series, partly because of its comparative simplicity - I note this is the only one Chibnall co-wrote with another writer, and wonder if its strength is not a coincidence.
They were laying the Doctor/Yaz on fairly thick by the end - I hope a last-min Doctor/companion love affair isn't going to strike again. On the whole I've liked Jodie (MUCH more than the Clara years, anyway) but as before with Capaldi, the writing has significantly let her down - and I would have much preferred someone less scatty and confused as the first female Doctor. But then that's the script all over, I suppose: scatty and confused - so maybe it couldn't be helped.