[No QA] Update Approve-Expenses.md

[garrettmknight]

Explanation of Change

The Unapprove information was incorrect. Unapprove doesn't return the expense to the submitter.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/487857

Tests

• 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]."

• 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
  • MacOS: Desktop
• 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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
  • 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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • 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)
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• 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)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• 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.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• 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

MacOS: Desktop

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR provides a focused correction to the "Unapprove" functionality documentation in the Approve-Expenses.md file. The changes address an important accuracy issue by correcting misleading information about what happens when a report is unapproved, shifting from incorrect terminology about "sending back to submitter" to the accurate workflow behavior.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - Clear, well-structured language with logical flow. The updated explanations are more precise and easier to understand.
• AI Readiness: 7/10 - Good descriptive content with proper heading structure. Navigation instructions are clear and contextual.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - Consistent with Expensify documentation standards, proper terminology usage, and appropriate formatting.

Key Findings

Strengths:

• Corrects a significant accuracy issue in the workflow description
• Maintains consistency in terminology ("report" vs "expense")
• Clear, step-by-step navigation instructions
• Proper technical explanation of state transitions ("Processing state")
• Good use of contextual notes about limitations and accounting implications

Areas for Improvement:

• Minor inconsistency in navigation path ("Reports > Reports" could be clarified)
• Could benefit from more specific examples of when unapproving is appropriate

Impact Assessment

User Experience Impact: High Positive

• Eliminates confusion about unapprove workflow behavior
• Provides accurate expectations for both approvers and report owners
• Reduces potential support requests from incorrect workflow assumptions
• Maintains clear actionable steps for users

Recommendations

1. High Priority: The changes are accurate and should be implemented as-is
2. Future Enhancement: Consider adding a brief example scenario to illustrate when unapproving is most appropriate
3. Consistency: Verify that "Reports > Reports" navigation path is the correct terminology across all documentation

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Approve-Expenses.md - Improved: Critical accuracy corrections with enhanced clarity

Overall Score: 8/10 - This is a high-quality correction that significantly improves documentation accuracy and user understanding of the unapprove workflow.

Note: This focused change demonstrates good documentation maintenance practices by addressing accuracy issues promptly and clearly.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://14bc7d1c.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Approve-Expenses

[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 @sonialiap

[melvin-bot]

@sonialiap 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]

[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 @alexpensify

[melvin-bot]

@alexpensify 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 addresses a critical accuracy issue in the Approve-Expenses.md documentation by correcting the incorrect description of the "Unapprove" functionality. The changes clarify that unapproving doesn't return expenses to the submitter as previously stated, but instead returns reports to their previous processing state for the last approver to revise. The PR also adds valuable new content about rejecting individual expenses, improving the comprehensiveness of the documentation.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - Clear, well-structured content with good flow and appropriate technical language
• AI Readiness: 7/10 - Good descriptive headings and context, though some minor improvements possible
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - Follows HelpDot conventions well with proper terminology and formatting

Key Findings

Positive Aspects:

• Critical Accuracy Fix: Corrects a significant error about unapprove functionality that could have misled users
• Enhanced Completeness: Adds important "Reject an expense" section that was missing from the workflow coverage
• Improved Organization: Better separates report-level vs. expense-level actions for clarity
• Consistent Terminology: Uses proper Expensify terms like "workspace" and follows established UI language
• Clear Action Descriptions: Each procedure has numbered steps that are easy to follow

Areas for Improvement:

• Navigation Consistency: Minor inconsistency between "Reports > Expenses" and "Reports > Reports" in navigation instructions
• Technical Accuracy: Some sections could benefit from more specific status explanations
• Content Flow: The new reject section placement could be optimized for better logical flow

Recommendations

Priority Actions:

1. Review Navigation Paths: Ensure all navigation instructions are consistent and accurate across the document
2. Verify Technical Details: Double-check that the new explanation of unapprove functionality matches the actual system behavior
3. Consider Section Ordering: Evaluate whether the new "Reject an expense" section should be positioned closer to the "Hold an Expense" section for better workflow organization

Suggestions for Enhancement:

• Add cross-references to related help articles where appropriate
• Consider adding a brief comparison table showing when to use Hold vs. Reject vs. Unapprove
• Ensure the keywords in the YAML frontmatter include terms related to the new reject functionality

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Approve-Expenses.md - Significant improvements with critical accuracy fix and new content addition

Note: This PR makes important corrections to user-facing documentation and adds valuable missing functionality coverage. The changes demonstrate good understanding of the product and user needs.

[alexpensify]

I didn't realize that @sonialiap and I were tagged here. I completed the Concierge review, but under Sonia's assignment. Let me know if this one still fails.

[garrettmknight]

@alexpensify doesn't look like your reveiw was recorded, could you rereveiw?

[alexpensify]

Done!

[garrettmknight]

@alexpensify doesn't look like it went through

[alexpensify]

I've reviewed the Melvin comments

[melvin-bot]

@garrettmknight looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

[garrettmknight]

Looks like Melv wasn't picking up Al's review. It's just a help page update.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/garrettmknight in version: 9.2.39-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.2.39-3 🚀

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