Since you're asking this question, I will assume that your field doesn't use alphabetical order. Based on your previous questions, I think these two answers lay out the relevant custom for your field.
My experience in physics is that a good approach to ordering a substantial number of authors is to start at the edges and work inwards. That is, who should be first (or co-first) author, who should be last? Then iterate inwards. In case your field doesn't necessarily put PIs and other senior authors at the end, you can adapt this to start from a single edge. Either way, eventually you get to a point where it's hard to tell who should go next, but, equally, the difference between being the 23rd or 24th author on a 40-author paper is negligible in terms of career impacts. So the further you get from the edge(s), the less the sorting matters, and the less you'll need (or want) to worry about getting the order of contributions absolutely right. Maybe use your judgement, or alphabetize authors after a certain point. In any case, it often helps if someone just proposes an author order and then asks if the others are OK with it, or if they want to make any modifications. You all need to agree to the order before submission, but generally speaking, if the order near the edge(s) is proper, few will worry about their precise position in the list.
