[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#90796 Remove submitter from Change Workspace on submitted reports

[MelvinBot]

Summary

• Updates the Expense and Report Actions help site article to reflect that submitters can only use Change workspace on Draft reports, not on submitted (Outstanding) reports
• Splits the "Change workspace" table rows to show separate permissions: submitters on Draft reports only, approvers and admins before export
• Aligns documentation with the code change in Remove submitter from Change Workspace gate on submitted expense reports #90796

Test plan

• Verify the help site renders the updated tables correctly
• Confirm the permission descriptions match the current product behavior

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://e4bd6207.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Expense-and-Report-Actions

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes a small, targeted correction to the Expense and Report Actions article, splitting the "Change workspace" row in two reference tables to reflect that submitters can only change workspaces on Draft reports, while approvers and admins retain the ability before export. The change is accurate, well-scoped, and improves the precision of the permission documentation.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Splitting the combined row into two distinct rows improves clarity and scannability. The table structure remains consistent and the conditions ("Draft reports" vs "Before export") are easy to parse at a glance.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - No changes to metadata or headings, which is appropriate for a table-only correction. The existing article structure is preserved. No issues introduced.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - Action names are correctly bolded. The new rows correctly capitalize "Approver" in the first table (the old row had lowercase "approver"), which is an improvement. One minor observation: the first table uses "Workspace Admin" while the second table uses "Admin" for the same role. This inconsistency exists in the surrounding (unchanged) content, but the new rows perpetuate it. Consider aligning terminology across both tables in a follow-up if the product UI uses a consistent label.

Key Findings

• The permission split accurately reflects the behavioral change from PR Remove submitter from Change Workspace gate on submitted expense reports #90796 -- submitters lose "Change workspace" after submitting, while approvers and admins retain it until export.
• Both the report-level and expense-level action tables are updated consistently with each other.
• The capitalization of "Approver" was corrected in the first table's new rows, which is a positive normalization.
• The two tables use slightly different phrasing for the same condition ("Before export" vs "Before report is exported"). This is pre-existing and outside the scope of this PR, but worth noting for future cleanup.

Recommendations

• Consider standardizing role names across both tables ("Workspace Admin" vs "Admin") in a follow-up PR to avoid ambiguity for readers scanning both tables.
• No blocking issues -- this PR is ready to merge as-is.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Expense-and-Report-Actions.md - Two table rows split into four to clarify "Change workspace" permissions by role. Changes are correct and well-formatted.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes a narrowly scoped, accurate update to two permission tables in the Expense and Report Actions article. It splits a single "Change workspace" row into two rows in each table, clarifying that submitters can only change the workspace on draft reports, while approvers and admins retain the ability to do so before export. The change is clean and well-structured.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The split rows are easy to scan and clearly differentiate the two permission cases. The table formatting is consistent with the surrounding rows.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The article's existing YAML metadata, heading structure, and internalScope remain intact and appropriate. The table content uses clear, unambiguous language that supports retrieval.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - See the terminology note below. The changes largely follow governance conventions, with one minor inconsistency worth flagging.

Key Findings

Positive aspects:

• The permission split is clearly communicated and easy to understand at a glance.
• Table structure and formatting are consistent between both tables and match the existing pattern.
• The "What It Does" column text is preserved exactly, avoiding unnecessary rewording.

Terminology inconsistency (minor):

• In Table 1 (Report Actions), the "Who Can Use It" column uses lowercase for roles: "approver" (line 119, existing row for Hold) and the new row says "Approver, Workspace Admin" with a capital A. The existing Hold row uses lowercase "approver" while this new row capitalizes "Approver". This inconsistency exists in the original file as well, so it is not introduced by this PR, but it is worth noting.
• More relevant to this PR: Table 1 uses "Approver, Workspace Admin" while Table 2 uses "Approver, Admin". This mirrors the existing convention in each table (Table 2 consistently uses "Admin" rather than "Workspace Admin" throughout), so it is internally consistent within each table. No action needed, but the difference between tables is worth being aware of for future cleanup.

No issues found with:

• UI terminology (bold formatting on "Change workspace" is correct)
• Table structure and Markdown formatting
• Heading hierarchy (no headings were changed)
• YAML frontmatter (unchanged and compliant)

Recommendations

• No blocking changes required. The PR is ready to merge from a documentation quality perspective.
• Optional future improvement: Consider standardizing role terminology across both tables (e.g., consistently using either "Workspace Admin" or "Admin" and consistent capitalization of "approver/Approver"). This is a pre-existing issue, not introduced by this PR.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Expense-and-Report-Actions.md - Two table rows split into four to clarify submitter vs. approver/admin permissions for "Change workspace". Changes are accurate, well-formatted, and compliant with governance rules.

[melvin-bot]

Concierge 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 as a Concierge Team member?

cc @CortneyOfstad

[melvin-bot]

@CortneyOfstad 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]

[CortneyOfstad]

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible 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 checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: HybridApp
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: HybridApp
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and 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)
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
• 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 a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/CortneyOfstad in version: 9.4.1-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.4.1-6 🚀

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