[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#98381 invite members to an expense report

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Help site follow-up for #98381, which made Invite member available on expense reports (previously it only appeared on group chats).

The shipped rules from that PR are: you can invite only while the expense report is in Draft, only if you submitted the report or are a Workspace Admin on that workspace, and never on an archived report or on an expense submitted to an individual. An invited member gains visibility of every expense on the report.

Two changes:

New article — docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Invite-Members-to-an-Expense-Report.md

There was no article covering this workflow, only a one-line FAQ answer. The new article documents who can invite, the step-by-step flow, what an invited member can see, and why the button may be missing.

Corrections — docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Expense-and-Report-Actions.md

The existing action table described this feature inaccurately:

• The Invite member row said Draft and Outstanding reports / All roles. Both are wrong — it is Draft only, and only for the submitter or a Workspace Admin.
• The Submitter role list said "Invite members to their report" without the Draft-only limit.
• The FAQ answer said to choose Invite; the button on the report's Members page is Invite member. Invite is the submit button on the following screen.

All UI labels were verified against dev NewDot on web: report header → Details → Members → green Invite member button → Invite members page → green Invite submit button.

Written against docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, docs/HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, and docs/TEMPLATE.md.

@M00rish, 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.

Fixed Issues

$ #98381
PROPOSAL:

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Docs-only change: no app code is touched. Review the rendered markdown and confirm the described behavior matches the product.

• 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".
// Docs-only change under docs/articles; no product QA is expected.

• 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 followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • 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 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)
• 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)
• 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 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.
• 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

[MelvinBot]

@M00rish this is the help site follow-up for #98381.

I couldn't add you as an assignee — GitHub only allows assigning collaborators of Expensify/App, and the API rejects both assignment and review requests for your account. Once you comment here, an internal team member can assign you, or you can self-assign.

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.

[M00rish]

@MelvinBot mark this PR as ready for review.

[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 @sakluger

[melvin-bot]

@sakluger 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]

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR is a strong, well-scoped documentation follow-up to #98381. It adds one new article (Invite-Members-to-an-Expense-Report.md) covering the invite-to-expense-report workflow and corrects three inaccuracies in Expense-and-Report-Actions.md. The changes are tightly aligned with the governance files: single workflow per article, complete metadata, task-based headings, UI-exact labels, and clean cross-linking.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Clear, concise, benefit-focused intro; sequential numbered steps; scannable bullet lists. Sentences are direct and easy to follow.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - Full YAML frontmatter with a strong internalScope, realistic keywords, only # and ## headings, and task/question-based section headings that match search intent. Includes a "How to..." heading with the feature name.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - UI labels (Draft, Invite member, Invite, Members, Details) are bolded, in sentence case, and match the verified dev UI. Correctly distinguishes the Invite member button from the Invite submit button. FAQ structure and cross-link anchor text follow the conventions.

Key Findings

• Accurate correction of the action table: Invite member now correctly shows Draft reports and Submitter, Workspace Admin instead of the previous incorrect Draft and Outstanding reports / All roles.
• The new article properly separates the two similarly named UI elements (the Invite member button vs. the Invite submit button), which was the root cause of the old FAQ inaccuracy.
• Cross-links use relative paths, descriptive "Learn how to..." anchor text, and are placed outside numbered steps, per the Cross-Linking Standards.
• The screenshot placeholder uses the exact non-rendered HTML comment format with a specific, justified Purpose.
• Minor: the navigation phrasing "Click the report header to open Details" describes a specific element (acceptable), but leans on generic "click the header" wording; consider naming the target element explicitly where possible.
• Minor: no separate web/mobile navigation guidance. Acceptable if the flow is structurally identical across platforms, but confirming platform parity (or noting it) would fully satisfy the Cross-Platform Clarity Rule.

Recommendations

• Confirm platform parity for the invite flow, or add a unified note (e.g., "on the left on web, on the bottom on mobile") if navigation differs.
• Consider tightening "Click the report header" phrasing to reference the exact header element label if one exists in the UI.
• No blocking issues. Changes are accurate, well-structured, and governance-compliant.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Invite-Members-to-an-Expense-Report.md - New article; compliant with metadata, heading, step, cross-link, and screenshot rules.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Expense-and-Report-Actions.md - Accurate corrections to the action table, submitter role list, and FAQ answer.

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

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 0de88e9120

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically 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".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[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	⚠️ Failed 2026-09-28T04:15:12.113744Z	86be8b8	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]

Vague navigation / missing exact UI label: "select the report header" is a non-deterministic navigation phrase (see HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md — Prohibited Language and Core UI Referencing Rules; always reference the exact UI label). It also skips a step: the verified path is report header → Details → Members → Invite member (per the PR description), so Details is missing. Consider: "Open the report, select Details, select Members, then select Invite member."

[github-actions]

Button label not bolded: "The Invite member option" references the UI button Invite member, which must be bold per HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md (Button Naming Standards — bold all button names). Use "The Invite member option".

Broken cross-link: This links to /articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Invite-Members-to-an-Expense-Report, but that article does not exist in the repo and is not added in this PR (only this file is changed). Per HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Pre-Publish Validation, cross-links must resolve. Either add the target article in this PR or remove the link.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes targeted corrections to Expense-and-Report-Actions.md, aligning the Invite member action with the behavior shipped in E/A98381. It tightens the Submitter role list, corrects the action table (status and eligible roles), rewrites the FAQ answer with an exact UI navigation path, and adds a cross-link to a dedicated invite article. The changes are accurate, well-scoped, and improve correctness. Scores below reflect only the added/modified lines in the diff.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The new FAQ answer is clear, sequential, and scannable. The action table edits read cleanly. Minor: a stray double blank line was introduced at the end of the FAQ block.
• AI Readiness: 8/10 - Edits use full feature names (Invite member) and exact statuses (Draft). The FAQ heading is exempt from task-based rules, so its phrasing is fine. The cross-link anchor is descriptive and search-aligned. Slight risk: the linked article Invite-Members-to-an-Expense-Report is not part of this diff, so retrieval could break if that file is not published alongside this change.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - Strong. Button names are bolded in exact UI casing (Members, Invite member, Invite), terminology matches conventions (Workspace Admin, Draft), and navigation phrasing avoids prohibited vague wording. The cross-link is relative and placed after an explanatory sentence, per the linking standards.

Key Findings

• Accuracy is the main win: the table previously claimed Draft and Outstanding reports / All roles, now correctly Draft reports / Submitter, Workspace Admin.
• UI labels are precise and consistent with the naming conventions (the corrected FAQ distinguishes the Invite member button from the Invite submit button).
• The cross-link target article is referenced in the PR description but does not appear in this PR diff. Confirm it is included in this PR or already live, otherwise the relative link will 404.
• A double blank line was introduced before the final FAQ paragraph block; trim to a single blank line for clean rendering.

Recommendations

• Verify the Invite-Members-to-an-Expense-Report article ships with (or before) this change so the cross-link resolves.
• Remove the extra trailing blank line added in the FAQ section.
• Optional: confirm the leading /articles/... link path style matches the repo existing relative-link convention (this file uses articles/... without a leading slash elsewhere).

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Expense-and-Report-Actions.md - Accurate, style-compliant corrections; minor formatting and cross-link dependency to confirm.

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

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://f7181a29.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

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

[stephanieelliott]

will be handled in #99955