Docs updates for E/A#93541 document My expenses default saved search

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

This documents the user-facing behavior introduced in #93541, which automatically seeds a default My expenses saved search (filtered to expenses the current user submitted) for accounts that both submit and approve expenses.

Previously, Using Spend in New Expensify said saved searches only appear after a member manually saves one. With this change, dual-role users will now see a My expenses entry in the Saved section that they did not create themselves, so the article now explains where it comes from and that it is seeded only once (deleting or renaming it will not bring it back).

What changed

• Added a "Why you have a My expenses saved search" section under How to save a search in Using-Reports-in-New-Expensify.md.
• Added My expenses saved search and default saved search keywords for retrieval.

Not documented

• The removal of the obsolete "Rename your saved searches here" product training tooltip in feat: seed default My expenses saved search for dual-role users and remove obsolete rename tooltip #93541 is an in-product tooltip that was never covered by the help site, so no docs change is needed for it.

Source PR

#93541

---

@aswin-s, please review the files changed and confirm they reflect the current behavior. Then post a new comment saying @MelvinBot mark this PR as ready for review.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR documents a small, well-scoped behavior change: the automatically seeded My expenses saved search for accounts that both submit and approve expenses. It adds a new section to Using-Reports-in-New-Expensify.md and two retrieval keywords. The change is focused, accurate to the source PR (#93541), and stays within a single workflow. This review scores only the added or modified lines in the diff.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Two short, clear paragraphs. Sentences are direct and scannable, and the second paragraph cleanly explains the one-time seeding behavior and the consequences of renaming or deleting it.
• AI Readiness: 8/10 - Heading is task/question-based ("Why you have..."), uses the full feature name "My expenses saved search," and the new keywords (My expenses saved search, default saved search) map to realistic search intent. Held back from higher because internalScope is still absent from the frontmatter (pre-existing gap, not introduced here) and the article-wide multiple top-level heading structure limits retrieval precision.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - UI labels are bolded and exact (My expenses, Saved, Spend), and the heading follows the task-based rule (starts with "Why"). Terminology is consistent with the naming conventions.

Key Findings

• Positive: The new "Why you have a My expenses saved search" section correctly uses a level-two heading, which aligns with the authoring spec (exactly one top-level heading per article). Logically it reads as a subsection of "How to save a search," which is appropriate placement.
• Positive: Exact, bolded UI terminology throughout; no vague navigation phrasing or prohibited language.
• Minor inconsistency: The surrounding article uses multiple top-level headings (e.g., "How to save a search", "Report types"), which violates Section 4 (exactly one top-level heading per article). The new section correctly uses a level-two heading, so it is more compliant than its neighbors but visually inconsistent with them. This is a pre-existing structural issue, not introduced by this PR.
• The new content adds no cross-links; given the scope, none are required, so this is acceptable.

Recommendations

• No blocking issues. The diff is publish-ready.
• Optional (out of scope for this PR): a future cleanup could normalize the article's section headings to a single top-level title with level-two subsections and add the mandatory internalScope metadata field, bringing the whole file in line with the authoring spec.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Using-Reports-in-New-Expensify.md - Added one task-based level-two section and two keywords. Compliant and clearly written; the only observation is the file-wide heading structure that predates this change.

Note: This is a top-level summary review of the proposed changes.

[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 @sakluger

[melvin-bot]

@sakluger 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]

[sakluger]

Right now, we only show the "My expenses" filter when a user is both a submitter and an approver (and since basically everyone is a submitter, that means we're only showing this to approvers). Let's ship this help site update as is for now, but I've asked in the original Slack thread if we should change the behavior to show to everyone.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/stephanieelliott in version: 9.4.51-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.51-1 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android