[no QA] Docs updates for E/A#99688 Auto report for multi-submitter expense moves

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Help site follow-up for feat: add Auto report option for expenses spanning multiple submitters (Expensify/App#99688), which added a new Auto report destination to the Move to report flow.

Before that PR, Move to report was hidden whenever a bulk selection spanned more than one submitter. It is now offered for those selections, and the right-hand panel shows a single Auto report row instead of a report list and Create report. The help site only documented the single-submitter flow, so it now describes behavior an admin will not see for a mixed-submitter selection.

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

• Added ## How to move company card expenses that belong to more than one submitter with the three-step flow and what the backend does with each expense (adds it to that submitter's most recent draft report, or creates one for them).
• Added ## What to know before using Auto report covering the conditions the code enforces: the selection must span more than one submitter, every expense must be a company card expense, per diem / manual distance / odometer distance expenses are excluded, the action requires being online, the destination can't be chosen, and failures surface as an error on the affected expenses.
• Added two FAQ entries for the two questions an admin is most likely to search: why Auto report is the only option, and why Move to report is missing for a mixed-submitter selection.
• Added the matching search keywords to the article metadata.

UI labels used in the article were verified against the live web app: the Spend tab, the Move to report bulk action, and the Create report row in the right-hand panel. Auto report and its description come from iou.autoReport / iou.autoReportDescription in src/languages/en.ts as added by the source PR.

No other article under docs/articles mentions this flow, so this is the only file that needed updating.

Fixed Issues

$
PROPOSAL:

This is a docs-only follow-up to feat: add Auto report option for expenses spanning multiple submitters (Expensify/App#99688). It does not fix an issue on its own, so no issue is linked here.

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must confirm the documented behavior before marking this PR as "ready for review".

This is a documentation-only change, so there is nothing to run locally. Review the rendered article text and confirm it matches the shipped behavior:

1. As a workspace admin, go to Spend and select unreported company card expenses belonging to two or more submitters.
2. Click Move to report from the bulk action menu and confirm the right-hand panel shows only Auto report, with no report list and no Create report row.
3. Click Auto report and confirm each expense lands on its submitter's draft report, or a new report when they have none.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests to run 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

---

@daledah, 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 help site update needed here.