Skip to content

[No QA] Add details on reimbursement amount discrepancies - #74991

Merged
twisterdotcom merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
twisterdotcom-patch-3
Nov 13, 2025
Merged

twisterdotcom merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
twisterdotcom-patch-3

Conversation

@twisterdotcom

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

Added explanations for discrepancies in reimbursement amounts due to currency conversion and transaction fees.

Fixed Issues

https://expensify.slack.com/archives/CCH2935LG/p1762960201577439?thread_ts=1762924767.637129&cid=CCH2935LG

--->

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

Added explanations for discrepancies in reimbursement amounts due to currency conversion and transaction fees.
@twisterdotcom
twisterdotcom requested a review from a team as a code owner November 12, 2025 20:53
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Nov 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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 @lydiabarclay

@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot requested review from lydiabarclay and removed request for a team November 12, 2025 20:53
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Nov 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@lydiabarclay 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]

@twisterdotcom twisterdotcom changed the title Add details on reimbursement amount discrepancies [No QA] Add details on reimbursement amount discrepancies Nov 12, 2025
Comment thread docs/articles/new-expensify/wallet-and-payments/Enable-Global-Reimbursement.md Outdated
Comment thread docs/articles/new-expensify/wallet-and-payments/Enable-Global-Reimbursement.md Outdated
Comment thread docs/articles/new-expensify/wallet-and-payments/Enable-Global-Reimbursement.md Outdated
Comment thread docs/articles/new-expensify/wallet-and-payments/Enable-Global-Reimbursement.md Outdated
Comment thread docs/articles/new-expensify/wallet-and-payments/Enable-Global-Reimbursement.md Outdated
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR adds two critical FAQ sections addressing common user pain points around reimbursement amount discrepancies in global payments. The content directly addresses real-world confusion around currency conversion and transaction fees, making it a valuable addition to the documentation. The explanations are technically sound and provide concrete examples that help users understand complex financial processes.

Scores Summary

  • Readability: 7/10 - Clear overall structure with good concrete examples, but some sentences are overly complex and could be broken down for better comprehension
  • AI Readiness: 8/10 - Good use of descriptive headings and clear context, though some technical terms lack definitions
  • Style Compliance: 6/10 - Generally follows Expensify voice but has minor formatting inconsistencies and terminology that could be more user-friendly

Key Findings

Strengths:

  • Addresses real user confusion with practical, actionable information
  • Provides concrete example (CAD → USD → CAD conversion) that makes the concept tangible
  • Includes important detail about bounce-back scenarios and reconciliation
  • Fits naturally into the existing FAQ structure
  • Technically accurate explanation of double conversion

Areas for Improvement:

  • First FAQ uses "FX" without defining it (jargon that may not be clear to all users)
  • Long sentences in the first FAQ could be split for better readability
  • Passive voice in places ("is always seen by") reduces clarity
  • Missing explanation of what "International Reimbursement ID" is and where to find it
  • Could benefit from linking to related help articles about currency settings

Recommendations

Priority Actions:

  1. Define jargon: Replace "FX" with "foreign exchange (FX)" on first use, or use "currency conversion fees" throughout
  2. Simplify first FAQ answer: Break the long second sentence into 2-3 shorter sentences for better comprehension
  3. Add context for International Reimbursement ID: Include a brief explanation or link showing where users can find these IDs
  4. Use active voice: Change "is always seen by the employee" to "the employee sees" for clearer, more direct communication

Suggestions for Enhancement:

  • Consider adding a brief note about approximate fee percentages if available
  • Link to workspace currency settings documentation where relevant
  • Add a tip box highlighting that exchange rates are set by different providers on different days

Files Reviewed

  • docs/articles/new-expensify/wallet-and-payments/Enable-Global-Reimbursement.md - New FAQ sections added successfully; content is valuable but needs minor refinements for optimal clarity

Overall Score: 7/10

This is solid documentation that fills an important gap. With minor revisions to improve readability and define technical terms, it would be excellent. The content directly addresses user confusion and provides the right level of detail.

@OSBotify

OSBotify commented Nov 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://bfe7b84e.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

@twisterdotcom
twisterdotcom marked this pull request as draft November 12, 2025 22:29
@twisterdotcom

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Blimey, leave it out bot! I get it, I'm bad at this. Doing the things.

@twisterdotcom
twisterdotcom marked this pull request as ready for review November 12, 2025 22:56
@twisterdotcom

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Okay, good to go @lydiabarclay

The verification process can take anywhere from a few business days to several weeks, depending on whether all required documentation is provided when it begins.

## Why is my employee not receiving the full deposit?
Some employees may receive a slightly smaller reimbursement than expected when paid into a bank account with a different currency. This happens due to foreign exchange (FX) fees when transmitting payments across borders, or fees charged by the receiving bank. The employee absorbs these fees, while the company sees the full report amount on their statement.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Readability violation: The phrase "the employee" appears twice in this sentence. Consider using "your employee" or "employees" for better clarity and consistency with Expensify's conversational tone.

Suggested revision: "Some employees may receive a slightly smaller reimbursement than expected when paid into a bank account with a different currency. This happens due to foreign exchange (FX) fees when transmitting payments across borders, or fees charged by the receiving bank. Your employees absorb these fees, while your company sees the full report amount on its statement."

Some employees may receive a slightly smaller reimbursement than expected when paid into a bank account with a different currency. This happens due to foreign exchange (FX) fees when transmitting payments across borders, or fees charged by the receiving bank. The employee absorbs these fees, while the company sees the full report amount on their statement.

## Why is the reimbursement amount different from the expense amount?
If your workspace and employees use different currencies, the reimbursement amount received by the employee will differ from the original expense amount. Exchange rates set by different providers on different days can cause the final amount to differ slightly from the original expense. Transaction fees may also contribute to this difference.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Readability violation: Using "the employee" and "the original expense" creates unnecessary distance. Consider using "your employees" and more direct language for better scannability.

Suggested revision: "If your workspace and employees use different currencies, the reimbursement amount received will differ from the original expense amount. Exchange rates set by different providers on different days can cause the final amount to vary slightly. Transaction fees may also contribute to this difference."

## Why is the reimbursement amount different from the expense amount?
If your workspace and employees use different currencies, the reimbursement amount received by the employee will differ from the original expense amount. Exchange rates set by different providers on different days can cause the final amount to differ slightly from the original expense. Transaction fees may also contribute to this difference.

If a payment bounces and must be returned to the business bank account, the conversion fee is incurred again. This means the returned payment will be credited to your business bank account for an amount different from the original withdrawal. Track and reconcile these differences using the 'International Reimbursement ID' stored in each report's details.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

AI Readiness violation: The phrase "stored in each report's details" is vague. Where exactly should users find the International Reimbursement ID? Provide a specific navigation path or location.

Suggested revision: "Track and reconcile these differences using the International Reimbursement ID found in the report details section" (or specify the exact location if known)

Markdown violation: Use backticks for UI element names instead of single quotes: International Reimbursement ID instead of 'International Reimbursement ID'

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR adds valuable clarification to the Global Reimbursement documentation by addressing common questions about reimbursement amount discrepancies. The additions are practical and address real user concerns about payment differences due to currency conversion and transaction fees.

Scores Summary

  • Readability: 7/10 - Generally clear but contains some complex sentence structures and could benefit from simplification
  • AI Readiness: 8/10 - Good use of descriptive FAQ questions, though could improve with additional context about when discrepancies occur
  • Style Compliance: 7/10 - Follows FAQ structure correctly but has minor issues with terminology consistency and sentence complexity

Key Findings

Strengths:

  • Addresses practical, real-world scenarios users will encounter
  • Properly structured as FAQ entries in existing format
  • Provides actionable information (e.g., using 'International Reimbursement ID' for tracking)
  • Good coverage of multiple scenarios (FX fees, currency differences, bounced payments)
  • Maintains existing YAML metadata and document structure

Areas for Improvement:

  • Sentence length and complexity: Some sentences are quite long and could be broken down for better readability (e.g., the third paragraph in the second FAQ entry)
  • Terminology precision: Uses "company" in one FAQ and "workspace" in the explanation - should be consistent with Expensify terminology (prefer "workspace")
  • Passive voice: Some sentences use passive constructions ("fees charged by the receiving bank") which could be more direct
  • Reading level: A few phrases exceed 8th-grade reading level target ("absorbs these fees", "incurred again")

Specific Issues:

  1. First FAQ answer: "The employee absorbs these fees, while the company sees the full report amount on their statement" - could be clearer about what this means practically
  2. Second FAQ answer, first paragraph: Long sentence starting with "Exchange rates set by different providers..." should be split
  3. Second FAQ answer, final paragraph: Complex sentence structure about bounced payments could be simplified
  4. Missing explicit mention of which currencies/countries are most affected by these discrepancies

Recommendations

Priority Actions:

  1. Simplify the long sentences in the second FAQ answer for better readability
  2. Replace "company" with "workspace" to match Expensify terminology standards
  3. Consider adding a brief introductory sentence to the second FAQ answer that sets context before diving into technical details

Suggestions for Enhancement:

  • Add a concrete example with numbers (e.g., "00 USD expense might result in a 8.50 CAD equivalent after fees")
  • Consider linking to related articles about currency settings or workspace configuration
  • Add a note about which currency pairs typically see larger discrepancies

Files Reviewed

  • docs/articles/new-expensify/wallet-and-payments/Enable-Global-Reimbursement.md - Two new FAQ entries added (8 lines). Content is valuable but needs minor refinement for readability and style compliance.

Overall Score: 7.5/10

The documentation addition is solid and addresses important user questions. With minor revisions to improve readability and terminology consistency, this would be excellent documentation. The content is accurate and helpful, but the presentation could be more accessible to a broader audience.

@twisterdotcom
twisterdotcom merged commit 2a4810f into main Nov 13, 2025
17 of 18 checks passed
@twisterdotcom
twisterdotcom deleted the twisterdotcom-patch-3 branch November 13, 2025 00:34
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Nov 13, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@twisterdotcom 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.

@melvin-bot melvin-bot Bot added the Emergency label Nov 13, 2025
@twisterdotcom

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Ah, just missed the PR reviewer checklist

@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/twisterdotcom in version: 9.2.58-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.2.58-3 🚀

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants