[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#82075 spreadsheet member import approval fields

[MelvinBot]

Summary

Documents the spreadsheet-import behavior surfaced by #82075, which fixes member import via Import via Spreadsheet in a Control workspace so that approval workflows are correctly created.

The existing Invite Multiple Members via Spreadsheet section only described the upload steps. This PR updates Managing-Workspace-Members.md to:

• List the member fields you can map when importing (Email, Role, Submit to, Forward to, Over limit forward to, Approval limit, Custom field 1, Custom field 2).
• Explain that mapping the approval fields (Submit to, Forward to, Over limit forward to, Approval limit) sets up each member's approval workflow, viewable under Workflows.
• Note that the approval fields, the custom fields, and specialized roles (Auditor, Card Admin) require the Control plan, and that importing them into a non-Control workspace prompts an upgrade.
• Add an FAQ entry explaining why an upgrade prompt appears during spreadsheet import.

Related PR

• fix: New workflow is not added via Import Spreadsheet in a control WS #82075

All feature names, field labels, and role names were verified against the current src/languages/en.ts UI strings for exact capitalization.

@nkdengineer, please review the files changed and confirm they reflect the current behavior. Then mark this PR Ready for review.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://5960aae6.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Managing-Workspace-Members

[github-actions]

Heading/structure: This Control plan callout duplicates the new FAQ entry (## Why am I prompted to upgrade...) and mixes plan/upgrade guidance into the spreadsheet-import workflow. Per HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Section 6 (avoid combining setup with workspace design/plan concerns), keep the step section focused on the import task and let the FAQ cover the upgrade explanation to avoid redundancy.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR adds content to Managing-Workspace-Members.md documenting the spreadsheet member-import column mapping, the approval workflow fields, the Control plan requirement, and a new FAQ entry. The additions are well-targeted, use exact UI field labels, and stay within the existing single-workflow scope. Feedback below applies only to the added/modified lines in the diff.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - Clear prose with a scannable bulleted field list and a logical flow from steps to mapping to plan requirements. The "Control plan required" note is one long, bold-heavy sentence that could be split for easier scanning.
• AI Readiness: 7/10 - The new FAQ heading is question-based and retrieval-friendly, and full field/feature names are used exactly. The diff does not touch YAML metadata or internalScope, so the new fields/roles are not reflected in keywords; the content sits under a pre-existing non-task-based H1 that was not corrected.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - Field labels and role names are consistently bolded and match UI casing. The added content correctly avoids quotation marks and synonyms. Note that the surrounding (unchanged) section uses **three-dot menu** rather than the required three dots (vertical ellipsis) format, but that is pre-existing and not part of this diff.

Key Findings

• Positive: New FAQ entry is properly question-based and directly answers a realistic search query (the upgrade prompt), aligning well with AI retrieval guidance.
• Positive: All member fields and specialized roles (Submit to, Forward to, Over limit forward to, Approval limit, Custom field 1/2, Auditor, Card Admin) are bolded and exact, per PR verification against en.ts.
• Improvement: The "Control plan required" paragraph packs many bolded labels into a single sentence; consider splitting into two sentences for readability.
• Improvement: Consider linking the approval workflow / Workflows mention to the dedicated Workflows article using descriptive anchor text, since it is a prerequisite/deep-dive dependency.
• Note: Metadata (keywords/internalScope) was not updated to reflect the newly documented Control-plan fields and roles.

Recommendations

• Split the "Control plan required" note into shorter sentences to improve scannability.
• Add a relative cross-link to the Workflows article where approval workflows are mentioned, using descriptive anchor text.
• If frontmatter is in scope, add the new field/role terms to keywords and reflect the Control-plan boundary in internalScope.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Managing-Workspace-Members.md - Additions are compliant and high quality; minor readability and cross-linking/metadata enhancements suggested.

Note: This review focuses on the big-picture quality of the proposed changes only.

[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 @johncschuster

[melvin-bot]

@johncschuster 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]