Docs updates for E/A#99689 Reports tab Select all shows report count

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Docs-only follow-up to #99689, which changed what the Select all selection count shows on the Reports tab of the Spend page.

Before that PR, choosing Select all on the Reports tab labelled the button with the number of matching expenses. It now labels it with the number of matching reports, which means the button count and the footer Expenses count legitimately differ — for example, 110 selected above a footer reading Expenses: 93. The help site never described either count, so a member seeing two different numbers has nothing to check against. That mismatch is what the linked issues were originally reported as.

This updates docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Getting-Started-with-the-Spend-Page.md:

1. Adds How to select every matching report on the Spend page — documents the two options the select-all checkbox offers once a search has more results than the page has loaded (Select all on this page vs Select all), the brief loading state while Expensify counts the matching reports, and the offline fallback to the loaded-page count.
2. Adds What the selection count on the Reports tab counts — states plainly that the button counts reports while the footer counts expenses.
3. Clarifies the existing Expenses footer bullet to say it always counts expenses, including on the Reports tab (unchanged by Label Reports tab "Select all" with matching-report count #99689 — the footer still reads the expense count).
4. Adds two FAQ entries covering the differing counts and the momentary loading state.
5. Extends the keywords metadata with the select-all and selection-count search phrases.

No behavior change and no product code touched.

Label and UI verification: Spend, Reports, and Filters were confirmed against the live web UI. Select all, Select all on this page, N selected, Total spend, and Expenses were confirmed against the shipped strings in src/languages/en.ts and their call sites (SearchSelectAllMenu.tsx, SearchPageFooter.tsx) — the test account had no reports, so the multi-select header could not be driven live.

Fixed Issues

$ #99689
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 the documented behavior matches the app.

• 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 you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate these changes and what areas they need to test for regressions.

• 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

---

@dilshodmackbook-sketch, 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.

[stephanieelliott]

No update needed on this, per tightened Melvinbot criteria (see https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/685679). Please comment or reopen if you disagree!