[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#98753 Document Domains navigation suggestions in Search

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Help site follow-up for #98753, which adds Domain navigation suggestions to Search.

Navigating-New-Expensify.md documented the Search "Go to" destinations as Home, Inbox, Spend, Workspaces, and Account, so it no longer matched the product. This PR updates that article to cover what #98753 shipped:

• Adds Domains to the list of top-level destinations in the "How to jump to a destination using Search" steps and in the matching FAQ answer.
• Adds a new ## How to jump to a domain page using Search section for the Domain members, Domain admins, Groups, and SAML suggestions, including matching by domain name and the domain name shown on the right of each row.
• States that domain suggestions appear only for domains you administer, so Domain Admins understand why other members don't see them.
• Adds two FAQ entries and updates description, keywords, and internalScope so the article is retrievable for domain-navigation searches.
• Adds one screenshot placeholder, per the screenshot guidelines.

Labels were verified against the live UI on web rather than taken from the diff: Search shows Go to Account, Go to Domains, Go to Home, Go to Inbox, Go to Spend, and Go to Workspaces, and the Domains page is reached through the left navigation Workspaces item, which has Workspaces and Domains tabs. The domain subpage labels (Domain members, Domain admins, Groups, SAML) come from the domain strings in src/languages/en.ts, because the test account administers no domain and could not render those rows.

Written against docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, docs/HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, and docs/TEMPLATE.md: one # title plus # FAQ, ## sections only, task-based headings, bolded UI labels using the exact UI casing, and a relative cross-link.

No product code is changed — this PR touches one Markdown file under docs/articles.

Fixed Issues

$ #92752
PROPOSAL:

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what tests you performed that validate your changes worked.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

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

• 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

---

@nabi-ebrahimi, 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.

[nabi-ebrahimi]

I reviewed the documentation changes and confirmed they match the implemented behavior in #98753.

@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 @lschurr

[melvin-bot]

@marufsharifi @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]

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR updates Navigating-New-Expensify.md to document the new Domains navigation suggestions in Search (follow-up to E/A#98753). It adds Domains to the existing "Go to" destination list, introduces a new task-based section for jumping to domain pages, adds two FAQ entries, and refreshes description, keywords, and internalScope. The changes are well-scoped, accurate to the product, and closely aligned with the governance files.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Clear, sequential numbered steps and well-structured conditional statements (e.g., who sees suggestions and why). Scannable and concise.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - New heading ## How to jump to a domain page using Search is task-based and includes "How to" plus feature context. Metadata updates (keywords, description, internalScope) reflect real domain-navigation search intent; internalScope keeps the required audience/covers/excludes structure. Only single-level title and FAQ headings are used.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - UI labels are bolded with exact casing (Domain members, Domain admins, Groups, SAML, Domains). FAQ follows question format. Cross-link is relative with descriptive anchor text and points to an existing article (/articles/new-expensify/domains/Domain-Admins). Screenshot placeholder uses the exact HTML comment format with a specific Purpose.

Key Findings

• New ## How to jump to a domain page using Search section is task-based, feature-specific, and searchable, meeting the AI retrieval requirement for a full "How to..." heading.
• Conditional/edge-case coverage is strong: it explains that suggestions appear only for administered domains and that deleting domains are hidden.
• Metadata was thoughtfully expanded (Domains, Domain admin navigation, domain search suggestions) to improve retrieval.
• Screenshot placeholder is compliant and has a clear, non-generic Purpose tied to distinguishing multiple domains.
• Minor: the phrasing "without going through Workspaces > Domains" uses a breadcrumb-style path; it is accurate to the product and acceptable, but confirm it matches the exact live navigation labels.

Recommendations

• Confirm the domain subpage labels (Domain members, Domain admins, Groups, SAML) render exactly as written in the live UI, since the PR notes the test account could not display those rows.
• Ensure the suggested screenshot is captured before publish so the placeholder is resolved.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Navigating-New-Expensify.md - Approved with minor verification notes; changes are compliant with the governance guidelines.

Note: This assessment is based solely on the proposed diff.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/stephanieelliott in version: 9.4.92-0 🚀

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

[izarutskaya]

@stephanieelliott Can I check it off the list if no need QA?

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/lakchote in version: 9.4.92-8 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android