[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Updates the help site for [Payment due @daledah] Allow admins to merge card + cash expenses across draft reports.

That PR lets workspace admins merge a member's expenses that sit on different Draft or Outstanding reports, not only expenses on the same report. This sentence in How to Merge Duplicate Expenses is now incorrect:

Approvers and Workspace Admins can merge expenses on the same Draft or Outstanding report.

This PR splits it into two bullets. Approvers are still limited to the same report. Workspace admins can merge a member's expenses across that member's Draft and Outstanding reports. Roles are lowercased per docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md. The Draft and Outstanding labels match src/languages/en.ts.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/678389
PROPOSAL:

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review"
// Please describe what tests you performed that validates your changed worked.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate your changes and what areas do they need to test for regressions.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• If new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• If the PR adds or modifies the UI:
  • I asked an AI agent to review the changes for accessibility issues and addressed its findings.
  • I tested with a screen reader (VoiceOver on macOS) and verified all new/changed elements are reachable with a logical focus order.
  • I verified all new/changed elements have meaningful accessible names and roles.
  • I verified state changes are announced (e.g. checked/unchecked, expanded/collapsed, selected).
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

@youssef-lr, please review the files changed and confirm they reflect the current behavior. Then post a new comment saying @MelvinBot mark this PR as ready for review.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://7b8d7498.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/How-to-Merge-Expenses

[flaviadefaria]

LGTM!

[youssef-lr]

@flaviadefaria can you mark this ready for review please?

[flaviadefaria]

Ah, I thought you were meant to do this based on this comment in the OP:

@youssef-lr, please review the files changed and confirm they reflect the current behavior. Then post a new comment saying @MelvinBot mark this PR as ready for review.

But doing it now.

[melvin-bot]

Product reviewer checklist:

• I have verified the accuracy of the article
  • The article is within a hub that makes sense, and the navigation is correct
  • All processes, screenshots, and examples align with current product behavior.
  • All links within the doc have been verified for correct destination and functionality.
• I have verified the readability of the article
  • The article's language is clear, concise, and free of jargon.
  • The grammar, spelling, and punctuation are correct.
  • The article contains at least one image, or that an image is not necessary
• I have verified the formatting of the article
  • The article has consistent formatting (headings, bullet points, etc.) with other HelpDot articles and that aligns with the HelpDot formatting standards.
  • The article has proper text spacing and breaks for readability.
• I have verified the article has the appropriate tone and style
  • The article's tone is professional, friendly, and suitable for the target audience.
  • The article's tone, terminology, and voice are consistent throughout.
• I have verified the overall quality of the article
  • The article is not missing any information, nor does it contain redundant information.
  • The article fully addresses user needs.
• I have verified that all requested improvements have been addressed

For more detailed instructions on completing this checklist, see How do I review a HelpDot PR?

cc @heyjennahay

[melvin-bot]

@heyjennahay Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-19T19:21:48.565626Z	709de88	Draft marked ready

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes a small, targeted clarification to the "Who can merge duplicate expenses" section of the Merge Duplicate Expenses article. It splits a single bullet (covering approvers and workspace admins together) into two separate bullets: approvers can merge expenses on the same Draft or Outstanding report, while workspace admins can merge a member's expenses across that member's Draft and Outstanding reports. The change improves accuracy and also removes a trailing-whitespace issue from the original line.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Splitting the combined bullet into two role-specific bullets improves scannability and removes ambiguity about who can do what. Sentences are clear and action-oriented.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The change stays within the existing task-based ## Who can merge duplicate expenses heading, preserves single-workflow focus, and sharpens the role distinction, which aids semantic retrieval for role-specific queries. Metadata is unchanged and already compliant.
• Style Compliance: 7/10 - The edit moves away from the old "Workspace Admins" toward lowercasing, but "Workspace admins" still capitalizes "Workspace." Per HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md (Roles), role names must be fully lowercase in running text unless quoting a UI label, so this should read "workspace admins."

Key Findings

• Positive: The split clarifies a real distinction in permissions (approver scope vs. admin cross-report scope), which is more accurate and reduces potential support confusion.
• Positive: The old line had a trailing space; the edit cleans that up.
• Style issue: "Workspace admins" should be "workspace admins" (lowercase "workspace") to fully comply with the Roles capitalization rule. This was partially corrected from the original "Workspace Admins" but not completed.
• Note (pre-existing, not scored): surrounding bullets use capitalized report statuses ("Draft reports", "Outstanding reports"). The new line stays consistent with that existing pattern, which is appropriate for a change this small.

Recommendations

• Priority: Lowercase "Workspace admins" to "workspace admins" in the second new bullet to fully satisfy the Roles capitalization rule.
• Optional: "across their Draft and Outstanding reports" would read slightly tighter than "across that member's Draft and Outstanding reports," though the explicit phrasing is also acceptable for clarity.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/How-to-Merge-Expenses.md - Minor clarification to role permissions; approve with one small capitalization fix recommended.

Note: Detailed line-by-line feedback has been provided as inline comments.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/stephanieelliott in version: 9.5.15-1 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.5.15-3 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS