[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#99644 document locked cash expense default on splits

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Help site follow-up for #99644, which forces a split's reimbursable value to the workspace default when the Cash expense default rule locks the field.

The help site didn't describe this behavior. Workspace-Rules.md only said the rule lets you "choose whether cash expenses are reimbursable by default", which doesn't distinguish the two selectable defaults from the two fixed Always modes, and Split-Expenses.md said nothing about the Reimbursable toggle disappearing on splits. That gap is what makes the (now correct) behavior look like a bug to members.

Two targeted edits:

1. docs/articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Workspace-Rules.md — expanded the Cash expense default bullet to name all four options (Reimbursable, Non-reimbursable, Always reimbursable, Always non-reimbursable), define what counts as a cash expense, and state that an Always option fixes the value and hides the Reimbursable toggle on the expense and on every split created from it.
2. docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Split-Expenses.md — added an FAQ entry, ## Why don’t I see the Reimbursable toggle on a split?, covering both the locked-rule case and imported company card expenses, which are always non-reimbursable.

Keywords in both files were extended so the new content is retrievable.

All labels were verified against the live UI on web before writing: the setting is Cash expense default; its four options are Reimbursable, Non-reimbursable, Always reimbursable, and Always non-reimbursable; the split entry point is Split under More; and the toggle label is Reimbursable. With Always non-reimbursable selected, a split row showed only Description, Category, Date, and Report — no Reimbursable field. With Reimbursable selected, the toggle was present on the split row.

Written against docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, docs/HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, and docs/TEMPLATE.md: UI labels are bold and use exact UI casing, the new heading is a question-word FAQ heading at ##, and the cross-link uses a relative URL with descriptive anchor text.

UI verification screenshots

Cash expense default options:

Split row with Always non-reimbursable selected — no Reimbursable field:

Split row with Reimbursable selected — Reimbursable toggle present:

Fixed Issues

$ #99140
PROPOSAL:

Tests

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

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — documentation-only change.

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests before marking this PR as "ready for review", or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

• 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

---

@truph01, 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://174938ef.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Split-Expenses
• articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Workspace-Rules

[truph01]

@MelvinBot Mark this PR as ready

[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 @lschurr

[melvin-bot]

@hoangzinh @truph01 @lschurr One of you needs to 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]

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Done — this PR is now Ready for review.

Checks: all green. The only failure is Check independent approval, which is expected on a PR that hasn't been reviewed yet.

One thing left for you: the ### Tests section still has the placeholder line asking the human co-author to fill it in. I don't fill out Tests/QA on someone's behalf, so please replace it with the steps you ran. QA Steps is covered by the [No QA] title prefix.

---

view run

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR is a focused, well-scoped help-site follow-up to E/A#99644. It documents that the Cash expense default rule can lock a cash expense's reimbursable value and that, when locked, the Reimbursable toggle disappears on the expense and on every split created from it. The change touches two files with a total of 7 additions and 3 deletions: an expanded bullet in Workspace-Rules.md, a new FAQ entry in Split-Expenses.md, and matching keyword extensions in both. The changes are accurate, verified against the live UI, and integrate cleanly into existing article structure.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Clear, scannable prose. The expanded Cash expense default bullet is a single dense sentence chain but reads logically and defines "cash expense" before using it. The FAQ answer is direct and covers both the locked-rule and company-card cases.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - Keywords were extended in both files with realistic search phrases (e.g. "reimbursable toggle missing", "cash expense default", "always reimbursable"). The new FAQ heading is a natural-language question that maps to real user intent. internalScope is present and unchanged (correctly not broadened). Full feature names used throughout.
• Style Compliance: 10/10 - All UI labels are bold with exact UI casing (Cash expense default, Reimbursable, Non-reimbursable, Always reimbursable, Always non-reimbursable). The new heading sits under # FAQ and is a question-word heading, satisfying both the FAQ exemption and the task-based rule. The cross-link uses a relative URL with descriptive anchor text ("Learn how to configure Workspace Rules"), and the link is placed after the explanatory sentence rather than inside a step.

Key Findings

• Strong adherence to naming conventions: every option and toggle is named exactly as it appears in the UI, with bold formatting and correct casing.
• The added content closes a genuine documentation gap — the prior copy ("choose whether cash expenses are reimbursable by default") did not distinguish the two selectable defaults from the two fixed Always modes, which made correct behavior look like a bug.
• The FAQ entry correctly handles the imported company card edge case (always non-reimbursable, toggle also hidden), not just the rule-driven case.
• Minor nit only: the expanded bullet packs four options plus a definition into one long sentence. It is compliant and readable, but if it grows further, consider a short nested list for the four options.
• Keyword additions are appropriate and non-duplicative; retrieval for the new behavior should be solid.

Recommendations

• No blocking changes required. The diff is publish-ready from a governance standpoint.
• Optional: consider splitting the four Cash expense default options into a brief sub-list within the bullet if future edits add more detail, to preserve scannability.

Files Reviewed

• `docs/articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Workspace-Rules.md` - Compliant. Expanded Cash expense default bullet + keyword additions. Accurate and well-formatted.
• `docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Split-Expenses.md` - Compliant. New `## Why don't I see the Reimbursable toggle on a split?` FAQ entry + keyword additions. Correctly placed under `# FAQ`.

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: f505e2a1fd

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".

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/stephanieelliott in version: 9.4.73-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.73-3 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android