[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#94420 card admins cannot invite card assignees

[MelvinBot]

Why these docs need updating

PR #94420 changes the company card assignment flow so that Card Admins can no longer invite non-members while assigning a card. The assignee search now checks for Members write access before offering non-member results — Card Admins only see existing Workspace members, while Workspace Admins keep the invite-while-assigning flow.

The FAQ in Assign-Company-Cards.md previously stated that anyone assigning a card could invite a non-member while assigning it. That is now only true for Workspace Admins, so the article needed to distinguish the two roles.

What changed

• Updated the FAQ answer for "Can I assign a company card to someone who is not a member of the Workspace?" to clarify:
  • Workspace Admins can enter any name, email, or phone number and invite non-members during assignment.
  • Card Admins can only assign cards to existing Workspace members; searching for a non-member returns no result, and they must ask a Workspace Admin to invite the person first.

Related

• Source PR: fix: prevent card admins from inviting company card assignees #94420
• Fixed issue: [Due for payment 2026-07-02] Company cards - Not here page is shown when selecting email of non-member as card admin #93601

---

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

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://83ea3d83.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/connect-credit-cards/Assign-Company-Cards

[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 @greg-schroeder

[melvin-bot]

@greg-schroeder 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 updates a single FAQ answer in Assign-Company-Cards.md to reflect a behavioral change from source PR #94420: Card Admins can no longer invite non-members while assigning a company card, whereas Workspace Admins retain that ability. The change is tightly scoped, accurate, and improves clarity by distinguishing the two roles. It is a small, high-quality edit.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The role-based bulleted structure is far more scannable than the original single paragraph. Bolded role names make the distinction immediately clear. Sentences are clear and action-oriented.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - Full feature terminology (company card, Workspace member) is used, and the role distinction adds retrievable specificity for real queries like "can a card admin invite a non-member." The article's existing metadata already lists card admin in keywords and internalScope, so this change aligns well with search intent. The heading is a FAQ question (exempt from task-based rules).
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - Correct terminology ("Workspace", "member"), consistent bold on role names, and no prohibited vague navigation phrases. Workspace Admins and Card Admins are treated consistently within the answer.

Key Findings

• The edit correctly splits a now-inaccurate blanket statement into role-specific guidance, directly matching the source code behavior (Members write-access check).
• The Card Admin bullet provides a clear, actionable resolution path ("Ask a Workspace Admin to invite the person to the Workspace first, then assign the card"), which is excellent for user self-service.
• Minor: the two list bullets use a leading space ( - **Workspace Admins**...). This matches the existing style used elsewhere in this file, so it is internally consistent, though standard Markdown list style uses no leading space. Not blocking.
• Minor: role names are bolded as emphasis in this answer, while the same roles appear unbolded in the "Who can assign company cards" section. Consider aligning for internal consistency.

Recommendations

• No blocking changes required.
• Optionally align the bolding of role names with the rest of the article (the "Who can assign company cards" section references the same roles without bold).
• Optionally normalize the leading-space list indentation, though it matches the file's existing convention.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/connect-credit-cards/Assign-Company-Cards.md - Approved. Accurate, well-structured FAQ update with a minor optional consistency note.

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

[stephanieelliott]

Little bump @greg-schroeder

[ShridharGoel]

@greg-schroeder Gentle bump on this

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/greg-schroeder in version: 9.4.45-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.4.45-14 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android