Docs updates for E/A#97209 Clarify invoicing details not copied on workspace duplication

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Follow-up documentation update for #97209, which $ Expensify/App#92166 — "Invoice created via duplicate workspace shows error."

That PR corrected the workspace duplication flow so that a source workspace's Invoicing details (Company name, Company website, and the connected bank account) are no longer copied to the duplicate. These details are provisioned per workspace, and copying them caused an error when opening an invoice created from a duplicated workspace.

The existing Duplicate Workspace article lists Invoices as one of the settings that can be carried over, but did not clarify that only the invoicing feature is enabled — the invoicing details themselves are not copied and must be re-entered. This PR adds a short FAQ entry to set that expectation.

Change

• Added an FAQ entry to docs/articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Duplicate-Workspace.md clarifying that Invoicing details (Company name, Company website, and connected bank account) are not copied when duplicating a workspace and must be set up again in the new workspace.

UI labels (Invoices, Invoicing details, Company name, Company website) were verified against the current app copy in src/languages/en.ts.

Applied guidelines

• docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md — exact, bolded UI labels; sentence case.
• docs/HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md — single workflow; FAQ ## question headings under the exempt # FAQ.
• docs/TEMPLATE.md — kept the change scoped to the existing article's FAQ.

---

@lorretheboy, 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 adds a single FAQ entry to docs/articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Duplicate-Workspace.md clarifying that Invoicing details (Company name, Company website, and the connected bank account) are not copied when duplicating a workspace and must be re-entered in the new workspace. The change is scoped, accurate, and slots cleanly into the article's existing FAQ section.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The question-and-answer is clear, concise, and scannable. It leads with a direct No. answer and follows with a plain-language explanation of why the details must be re-entered.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The FAQ heading is a natural-language question (Does duplicating a workspace copy my invoicing details?) matching real search intent, sits correctly under the exempt FAQ heading, and uses full feature names. No metadata or heading-hierarchy changes were introduced, so nothing regresses.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - UI labels (Invoices, Invoicing details, Company name, Company website) are bolded and match app copy in src/languages/en.ts, per the naming conventions. Terminology (Workspace, Members) is consistent with the rest of the article.

Key Findings

• The new FAQ entry follows the exact pattern of the surrounding entries (question heading + direct No./Yes. lead + explanation), keeping the section consistent.
• UI labels are bolded and verified against current app copy, satisfying the exact-label requirement.
• Single-workflow scope is preserved; no scope creep or extraneous cross-links were added.
• Minor: the entry uses an em dash to offset the label list. This is readable, but a comma-led or parenthetical phrasing would slightly improve scannability. Not blocking.

Recommendations

• No blocking changes required. The addition is accurate, well-placed, and compliant with the governance standards.
• Optional: consider lightening the em-dash construction for readability, e.g. the Invoicing details (including Company name, Company website, and the connected bank account) are not copied.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Duplicate-Workspace.md - Approved. One FAQ entry added; compliant with heading, label, and structure rules.

Note: This is a top-level summary review.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 8e45b3da73

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".

[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 @johncschuster

[melvin-bot]

@johncschuster 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]

[kavimuru]

@stephanieelliott Do we have to validate anything in this PR?

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/johncschuster in version: 9.4.76-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.76-1 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android