[No QA] Update section header for account security

[Christinadobrzyn]

Explanation of Change

• Removing a number from the Account Security header

Fixed Issues

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 / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • MacOS / Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS / Desktop
• 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 followed proper code patterns (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 the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • 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
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • 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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • 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 followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• 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)
• 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.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• 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
  • If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
  • 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(themeColors.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 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.
• 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

[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 @Kel-Expensify

[melvin-bot]

@Kel-Expensify 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]

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://7eb0548d.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/expensify-classic/getting-started/Create-a-Company-Workspace

[github-actions]

Heading level violation: Per HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md (Sections 4 and 9), an article must have exactly one # heading (the article title), plus an optional # FAQ. All other content sections must use ##. This heading should be demoted to ##.

Note: While removing the numbered prefix "6." is a positive change (numbered prefixes like "Step 1" are forbidden generic headings), the heading level still needs to change from # to ##.

Suggested change

	# Secure Your Account
	## Secure Your Account

(This same # vs ## issue applies to several other section headings in this file — e.g., "# Meet Concierge", "# Add a Business Bank Account", "# Connect an Accounting System", "# Set Approval Rules", "# Navigating Multiple Workspaces" — but those are pre-existing and outside the scope of this PR's diff.)

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR removes the numbered prefix "6." from the heading # 6. Secure Your Account, changing it to # Secure Your Account. While removing the numbered prefix is a step in the right direction (numbered prefixes like "Step 6" are explicitly prohibited by the authoring guidelines), the change only partially addresses the governance violations present at this heading. The resulting heading still violates multiple mandatory rules.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 6/10 - Removing the numbered prefix improves scannability slightly, but the heading still reads as a section label rather than a task-based instruction. A heading like "How to secure your Expensify account" would be clearer for users scanning the page.
• AI Readiness: 3/10 - The changed heading violates two critical structural rules: (1) this article already has a # Create a Workspace heading as its title, and the governance rules mandate exactly one # heading per article (plus optional # FAQ) -- this heading should be ##, not #; (2) the heading lacks a task-based verb or question word prefix (How, What, Where, Who, Why, When), which hurts semantic retrieval. The YAML frontmatter is also missing the required internalScope field, though that is outside the scope of this diff.
• Style Compliance: 4/10 - "Secure Your Account" is a noun-phrase/imperative heading without a question word or "How to" prefix, which does not meet the task-based heading requirement. Per the pre-publish validation checklist, every ## heading must start with an action verb or question word. The heading should follow the pattern: "How to secure your Expensify account with Two-Factor Authentication."

Key Findings

• Positive: Removing the "6." prefix eliminates a "Step N"-style heading, which is explicitly listed as a forbidden generic heading in the authoring guidelines. This is a valid and correct fix.
• Heading level violation: The article contains seven # headings (Create a Workspace, Meet Concierge, Add a Business Bank Account, Connect an Accounting System, Set Approval Rules, Secure Your Account, Navigating Multiple Workspaces). The rules require exactly one # heading (the article title) with all other sections using ##. This heading should be ## How to secure your Expensify account rather than # Secure Your Account.
• Task-based heading rule not met: The resulting heading "Secure Your Account" is an imperative phrase, but the governance rules require headings to start with an action verb in context of a task description or a question word (How, What, Where, Who, Why, When). The correct form would be something like "How to secure your account with Two-Factor Authentication."
• Broader article issues (out of scope but worth noting): This article covers multiple distinct workflows (creating a workspace, meeting Concierge, adding a bank account, connecting accounting, setting approval rules, securing the account, navigating workspaces), which violates the "single workflow per article" core principle. The article would benefit from being split into separate articles.

Recommendations

1. Change heading level from # to ## to comply with the "exactly one # heading" rule. This is the most important structural fix for this diff.
2. Rewrite the heading to be task-based, e.g., ## How to secure your Expensify account with Two-Factor Authentication -- this satisfies the action verb/question word requirement and includes the feature name for AI retrieval.
3. Consider a follow-up PR to address the broader structural issues in this article (multiple # headings throughout, multiple workflows in a single article, missing internalScope in YAML metadata).

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/expensify-classic/getting-started/Create-a-Company-Workspace.md -- Single-line change removing numbered prefix from heading. The fix is directionally correct but incomplete: the heading level and phrasing still need adjustment per governance rules.

Review based on governance rules defined in docs/HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, and docs/TEMPLATE.md.

[melvin-bot]

@Kel-Expensify looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Kel-Expensify in version: 9.3.98-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.3.98-3 🚀

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