[No QA] [Payment due @Krishna2323] [No QA] Docs updates for E/A#89472 Clarify duplicate warning hidden on settled reports

[MelvinBot]

Summary

• Updates two help site articles to explicitly state that the Potential duplicate label and warning do not appear on settled or paid reports
• Aligns documentation with the behavior change in fix: suppress duplicate banner on settled/paid reports #89472

Files changed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/How-to-Find-and-Resolve-Flagged-Duplicate-Expenses.md — Added clarification in the "Who Can Use Duplicate Detection" section
• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Why-Expenses-Duplicate.md — Updated the FAQ answer for "Will Expensify warn me about duplicate expenses?"

@Krishna2323, please review the files changed and confirm they reflect the current behavior. Then mark this PR Ready for review.

[Krishna2323]

LGTM!

[melvin-bot]

🎯 @Krishna2323, thanks for reviewing and testing this PR! 🎉

A payment issue will be created for your review once this PR is deployed to production.
E/E issue linked to the PR - no internal issue.

If payment is not needed (e.g., regression PR review fix etc), react with 👎 to this comment to prevent the payment issue from being created.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR adds a single clarifying sentence to two articles, informing users that the Potential duplicate label/warning does not appear on settled or paid reports. The changes are minimal, well-targeted, and consistent with the existing tone and structure of both articles. No structural or metadata changes are introduced.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The added sentences are clear, concise, and integrate naturally into the existing paragraphs. They provide useful boundary information (when the feature does not apply), which helps set correct expectations.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The first file correctly bolds the UI label Potential duplicate, preserving exact terminology for semantic retrieval. The second file references the warning without re-bolding, which is acceptable since the bolded term appears earlier in the same sentence. No metadata updates are needed for this scope of change.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - Both additions use correct UI terminology. Minor observation: File 1 refers to a "label" and File 2 refers to a "warning" for the same UI element. While both terms appear in the pre-existing (unchanged) text, future consistency work could standardize on whichever term matches the UI exactly.

Key Findings

• Both additions are factually consistent with each other and convey the same information: duplicate indicators are absent on settled/paid reports.
• The Potential duplicate UI label is correctly bolded in the first file's addition, following HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md formatting rules.
• The changes are scoped appropriately -- they add boundary-condition information without expanding the workflow scope of either article.
• No governance violations are introduced by these changes.

Recommendations

• Consider verifying whether the product UI uses the word "label" or "warning" to describe the Potential duplicate indicator, and standardize across both articles in a future pass. This is a minor consistency suggestion and not a blocker.
• No other actions are needed. The changes are ready as proposed.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/How-to-Find-and-Resolve-Flagged-Duplicate-Expenses.md -- One sentence added to the "Who Can Use Duplicate Detection" section clarifying that the label does not appear on settled or paid reports. No issues found.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Why-Expenses-Duplicate.md -- One sentence added to the FAQ answer for "Will Expensify warn me about duplicate expenses?" with the same clarification. No issues found.

Note: These changes are minimal and well-formed. No inline comments were necessary.

[Krishna2323]

@stephanieelliott who'll merge this PR?

[MelvinBot]

Status: ✅ Ready to merge.

• Mergeable: yes
• Review decision: approved
• Checks: all required checks passing (the two review runs showing as cancelled were superseded by later successful runs of the same workflow — the latest review run is ✅)
• HelpDot preview deploy: ✅ (preview)
• Outstanding feedback: none

The PR is docs-only (two .md files in docs/articles/...) so there's no app/QA work needed. Since this is a HelpDot PR opened by MelvinBot with you as assignee, it just needs an Expensify team member with merge rights on the App repo to push the button — stephanieelliott is a reasonable ping for that.

[Krishna2323]

@stephanieelliott who'll merge this PR?

@stephanieelliott friendly bump.

[stephanieelliott]

I'll merge it @Krishna2323!

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://9581d6ff.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Why-Expenses-Duplicate

[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 @twisterdotcom

[melvin-bot]

@twisterdotcom 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]

[stephanieelliott]

Adding another reviewer here to merge - I'm blocked since I committed to the PR

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/twisterdotcom in version: 9.4.0-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.4.0-7 🚀

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