[No QA] Help Site: Add "Explore-what's-changed-in-New-Expensify.md and update migration guides

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Adds a new help article — What's New and Better in New Expensify — that highlights the improvements available to members switching from Expensify Classic and links each one to the relevant existing help article. The article leads with the most useful improvements (customizable and savable searches, bulk pay, full approver visibility, expense-level commenting, and Insights) and then covers the remaining items requested in the linked task (map-based mileage on mobile, Workspace merchant rules, cross-platform parity, unassigned company cards, natural-language expense editing with Concierge, the "Exported to" filter, exporting Integration Server templates from the expense level, and amending the transaction import date after a card is assigned).

The two existing Coming-from-Classic guides are updated to surface the most useful improvements (customizable searches called out by name) and link out to the new article as the single destination for "everything that is new and better":

• Coming-from-Expensify-Classic-for-Submitters-and-Approvers.md — adds a callout near the top, expands the "More powerful search and reporting tools" bullet to explicitly highlight customizable columns, more filters, and saved searches, and links to the new article from the "What new features can I use" FAQ.
• Coming-from-Expensify-Classic-for-Workspace-Admins.md — adds a callout near the top, links to the new article from the "How Workspace management continues to improve" section alongside the existing Product Updates blog link, and links from the "What new features can I use" FAQ.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/629165
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 validates your changed worked.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

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 your changes and what areas do 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 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
  • 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

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the failing spellcheck check: the word reimagines in docs/articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Whats-New-and-Better-in-New-Expensify.md was not in the cspell dictionary, so I swapped it for transforms (same intent, no dictionary change needed).

[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 @lschurr

[melvin-bot]

@lschurr 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]

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 44eb3d064a

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR adds a new article ("Explore what's changed in New Expensify") and updates the two existing Coming-from-Classic migration guides to cross-link to it. The new article is well-structured, covers a clear single workflow (discovering what is new), and uses descriptive cross-link anchor text throughout. However, there is one critical issue -- all cross-links to the new article are broken -- and a handful of structural and formatting items that need attention before merging.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 7/10 - The prose is clear, scannable, and benefit-focused. A typo ("onoOutstanding") and minor indentation inconsistencies reduce the score slightly.
• AI Readiness: 5/10 - The YAML metadata is strong, but the article uses ### sub-headings extensively, which violates the "only # and ## headings" rule and will degrade heading-based semantic retrieval. Every ### needs to be promoted to ## or the content restructured.
• Style Compliance: 6/10 - UI terminology and button/tab bolding are handled well. The major deduction is the broken cross-links (filename/path mismatch) and the prohibited heading depth.

Key Findings

Critical -- must fix before merge:

1. Broken cross-links. The two modified migration guides link to /articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Whats-New-and-Better-in-New-Expensify, but the new file is named Explore-what's-changed-in-New-Expensify.md. Every one of these links will 404. Either rename the new file to match the link path or update all cross-links to use the actual filename.

2. Prohibited ### headings. The new article uses ### for 10+ sub-sections (e.g., ### Customizable searches and saved searches, ### Comment on individual expenses, ### Pay reports in bulk). Per HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Section 4 and the pre-publish checklist, only # and ## headings are allowed. Each ### should be promoted to ##. If that creates too many ## sections under a single article, consider splitting the "new features" and "improved workflows" content into two articles (one workflow per article).

Should fix:

3. Typo on line ~87 of the new file. "Follow up onoOutstanding reports" should be "Follow up on outstanding reports."

4. Inconsistent list indentation. Some bullet items under the "Customizable searches" section use a leading space indent while others do not. Normalize to a consistent style for clean rendering.

Positive aspects:

• The YAML frontmatter on the new article is thorough -- internalScope clearly defines audience and exclusions, and keywords cover realistic search phrases.
• Cross-link anchor text is descriptive and task-based throughout (e.g., "Learn how to customize the Spend column view"), which follows the cross-linking standards well.
• The FAQ section is concise and follows the # FAQ exemption rule correctly.
• The additions to the two migration guides are well-placed and add useful context without disrupting the existing article flow.

Recommendations

1. [P0] Fix the filename/link mismatch. Decide on a single canonical name and update both the filename and all cross-references to match.
2. [P0] Replace all ### headings with ## headings. Each sub-section heading should also be reviewed to ensure it starts with an action verb or question word (most already do implicitly, but making them explicit -- e.g., "How to customize searches and save them" -- would improve AI retrieval).
3. [P1] Fix the "onoOutstanding" typo.
4. [P2] Normalize bullet indentation in the new article.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Explore-what's-changed-in-New-Expensify.md (new) -- Needs heading depth fixes and typo correction
• docs/articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Coming-from-Expensify-Classic-for-Submitters-and-Approvers.md -- Cross-links point to wrong filename
• docs/articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Coming-from-Expensify-Classic-for-Workspace-Admins.md -- Cross-links point to wrong filename

Note: Detailed line-by-line feedback has been provided as inline comments.

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the failing spellcheck check.

Root cause: The new article was named Explore-what's-changed-in-New-Expensify.md. The spellcheck workflow pipes changed file names through xargs, which errored with unmatched single quote on the apostrophe in the filename.

Fix: Renamed the file to Explore-whats-changed-in-New-Expensify.md (apostrophe removed from the filename only; the article's H1 title and content still use "what's"). Updated the four cross-links in the two Coming-from-Classic guides to point to the new slug and matching display text.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR adds a new "Explore what's changed in New Expensify" overview article and cross-links it from the two existing "Coming from Expensify Classic" guides. The new article is well-written and clearly organized, with strong metadata and good cross-link anchor text throughout. However, several structural violations of the HelpDot authoring governance must be addressed before merge.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - Clear prose, good scannability, helpful bullet formatting with bold lead-ins. Minor inconsistent list indentation (some bullets use 1-space indent, others use 0) reduces polish slightly.
• AI Readiness: 5/10 - Strong YAML metadata (title, description, keywords, internalScope all present and well-crafted). However, the article uses ### headings extensively (12 instances), which violates the "only ## headings" rule. The article also lacks any "How to..." heading, which is required for retrieval optimization. These two issues significantly reduce AI retrieval precision.
• Style Compliance: 7/10 - UI terminology is accurate and properly bolded (e.g., Spend, Exported to). Cross-link anchor text is descriptive and follows the "Learn how to..." pattern consistently. The external link to use.expensify.com/blog is acceptable given it is the official product blog. The main compliance gap is the heading hierarchy violation.

Key Findings

Critical issues that must be addressed:

1. ### headings are prohibited. The new article uses ### for all 12 feature subsections (e.g., ### Customizable searches and saved searches, ### Comment on individual expenses). Per HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Section 4 and the pre-publish checklist: "Only ## used for all content sections (no ### or deeper)." Each of these must be promoted to ##.

2. No "How to..." heading present. Per HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Section 6: "Include at least one full 'How to...' heading using feature name." The new article has zero "How to" headings. At minimum one ## heading should use the "How to" format (e.g., "How to explore new features in New Expensify" or restructuring one existing section).

3. ## headings may not be fully task-based. The two ## headings -- "What new features are available in New Expensify" and "What workflows are improved in New Expensify" -- do start with a question word ("What"), which technically satisfies the task-based requirement. However, once the ### headings are promoted to ##, all of those new ## headings must also be task-based (start with an action verb or question word). Headings like "Customizable searches and saved searches", "Comment on individual expenses", "Pay reports in bulk", and "Full visibility for approvers" are noun-phrase or topic-only headings and would need rewriting. For example:

   • ### Customizable searches and saved searches could become ## How to use customizable and saved searches in New Expensify
   • ### Comment on individual expenses could become ## How to comment on individual expenses
   • ### Pay reports in bulk could become ## How to pay reports in bulk
   • ### Full visibility for approvers could become ## What approvers can see in New Expensify

4. Multi-workflow coverage. The article covers 12 distinct features/workflows. Per HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Section 1: "Solve one primary workflow only. If multiple workflows are detected, split into multiple articles." This article is clearly intentional as an overview/changelog, and each section delegates to a dedicated article via cross-links rather than providing full procedural instructions. This is a judgment call -- the article functions as a curated orientation guide rather than a procedural article, so this may be acceptable if the team agrees it serves a unique navigational purpose. However, it is worth flagging as a potential governance tension.

Positive aspects worth highlighting:

• YAML metadata is thorough. The internalScope field clearly defines audience, included topics, and explicit exclusions -- exactly as the template requires.
• Cross-link anchor text is consistently descriptive (e.g., "Learn how to customize the Spend column view", "Learn how to use advanced search operators to filter and analyze"). No vague anchors like "click here" or "read more."
• All cross-links use relative paths as required.
• The FAQ section follows the correct structure with # FAQ and ## question headings.
• The introductory paragraph and navigation cross-links to the two "Coming from Classic" articles create a useful bidirectional linking pattern.

Minor issues:

• Inconsistent list indentation in the new article: some bullet items use a leading space ( - **Customize what you see.**) while others do not (- **Save searches you run often.**). This should be normalized for consistency.
• The modified "Coming from Expensify Classic for Submitters and Approvers" article now has three cross-links in a single bullet point ([Learn how to use advanced search operators], [save a search], [use Insights]). Per the cross-linking standards, excessive linking "dilutes the primary workflow." Consider whether all three links are necessary in one bullet or whether one primary link with the others relocated would improve clarity.
• The modified "Coming from Expensify Classic for Workspace Admins" article adds three separate cross-link paragraphs pointing to the same new article. While the anchor text varies, linking to the same destination three times in one article approaches the "excessive linking" threshold described in the governance.

Recommendations

1. [Must fix] Promote all ### headings in the new article to ## and rewrite them to be task-based (action verb or question word).
2. [Must fix] Add at least one "How to..." heading to the new article to satisfy retrieval optimization requirements.
3. [Should fix] Normalize list indentation throughout the new article for consistency.
4. [Consider] Reduce repeated cross-links to the new article within the Workspace Admins guide -- two instances may suffice instead of three pointing to the same destination.
5. [Consider] In the Submitters and Approvers guide, evaluate whether the three-link bullet can be simplified to one primary link with a parenthetical reference to the others.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Coming-from-Expensify-Classic-for-Submitters-and-Approvers.md -- Two cross-link additions and one expanded bullet. Cross-link anchor text is good; three-link bullet is dense but functional.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Coming-from-Expensify-Classic-for-Workspace-Admins.md -- Three cross-link additions to the same target article. Content is relevant but volume is at the governance threshold.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Explore-whats-changed-in-New-Expensify.md -- New 122-line overview article. Strong metadata and content quality, but heading hierarchy (### usage) and missing "How to" heading are governance violations that must be resolved.

Generated by HelpDot Summary Reviewer

[stephanieelliott]

Applied all relevant bot comments! This is a one-off article designed for a human audience, so it intentionally breaks many of the AI-optimization style rules in favor of human readability.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://dcb1b6e2.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Coming-from-Expensify-Classic-for-Submitters-and-Approvers
• articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Coming-from-Expensify-Classic-for-Workspace-Admins
• articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Explore-whats-changed-in-New-Expensify

[lschurr]

Looks good from a CX team review!

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/stephanieelliott 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 ✅