[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#95057 Add Link company card to Getting started slot

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Documentation update for the changes in #95057, which adds a Link company card step to the Home Getting started slot for the track and budget my expenses intent and makes the accounting categories and company card steps follow their workspace More features toggles.

Updated Expensify-Home-Overview.md in the "How the Getting started section works on Home" section:

• Added linking a company card to the list of checklist tasks shown for the track and budget my expenses intent.
• Noted that the accounting categories and company card steps follow their Categories and Company cards toggles in the workspace More features menu — turning a feature off hides the matching step, and turning it back on restores it.

Related PR

• [Home Page] Update the "Getting started" slot for the Track expenses for my business intent #95057

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

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: bb24eb6ce5

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 modifies a single section ("How the Getting started section works on Home") in Expensify-Home-Overview.md. The stated goal is to add a Link company card step and document how the accounting categories and company card steps follow their More features toggles. However, the actual diff moves in the opposite direction: it removes the specific appearance conditions and the concrete checklist items, replacing them with two vague, generalized sentences. The net change is a loss of information and specificity rather than the described addition.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 7/10 - The two new sentences are grammatically clean and scannable, but the first sentence bundles two unrelated ideas ("shows a checklist... and appears only under certain conditions") into one clause, which reduces clarity.
• AI Readiness: 4/10 - The new content strips out the specific, searchable details (free trial condition, intent names, individual checklist tasks). Phrases like "appears only under certain conditions" and "the intent selected when setting up your Expensify account" are vague and reduce semantic retrieval precision. The changes do not add the Link company card step or the More features / Categories / Company cards toggle behavior promised in the PR description.
• Style Compliance: 6/10 - No prohibited language and "Getting started" is bolded correctly. But the removed content contained UI-exact intent labels (manage my team, track and budget my expenses) that are no longer present, and the replacement fails to reference the exact UI elements the PR claims to document.

Key Findings

• Diff/description mismatch (critical): the PR description says it adds a Link company card checklist item and documents More features toggle behavior, but the diff contains none of that. It only deletes existing detail and generalizes.
• Loss of retrievability: removing the free-trial condition, the two intent names, and the enumerated checklist tasks makes the section significantly less useful for both readers and AI retrieval.
• Vague phrasing introduced: "appears only under certain conditions" conflicts with the deterministic/specific-language expectations in the authoring guidelines.
• Positive: the surviving prose is concise and correctly formatted, and no new style violations were introduced.

Recommendations

• Restore the appearance conditions (free trial + intent selection) rather than collapsing them into "certain conditions."
• Actually add the promised content: the Link company card checklist item for the track and budget my expenses intent, and a sentence noting that the accounting categories and company card steps follow the Categories and Company cards toggles in the workspace More features menu.
• Keep the UI-exact intent labels (manage my team, track and budget my expenses) bolded, per the naming conventions.
• Reconcile the diff with the PR description before merge, since they currently contradict each other.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Expensify-Home-Overview.md - Needs changes: content was generalized/removed rather than expanded; does not match the stated intent of the PR.

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

[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]

[twisterdotcom]

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible 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 checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: HybridApp
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: HybridApp
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • 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 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)
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• 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 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.
• For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[twisterdotcom]

Now that I have committed to resolve the conflicts though, we will need another reviewer to approve and merge.

[MelvinBot]

I looked into the failing check and there's nothing to fix in code here.

The only failing check is Check independent approval — specifically its Verify peer review step. That check isn't a build or test failure; it's the gate that stays red until someone other than the PR author approves the PR. It clears itself once this PR gets an independent review approval.

The only other non-passing status is build, which is still pending (queued), not failed. Every real CI check — build, check, spellcheck, verify, validate, validateSchemas, dryRun, etc. — is passing.

This is also a docs-only ([No QA]) change touching a single markdown file, so there's no code or test to modify.

Next step: mark the PR Ready for review and get an independent approval — that will turn Check independent approval green. No push from me is 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 @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]

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://b0c40ddd.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Expensify-Home-Overview

[MelvinBot]

Re-checked — still nothing to fix in code, and the state has actually improved since my last comment.

• The previously-queued build check has now finished and passed.
• The only remaining red check is Check independent approval (its Verify peer review step). That's not a build/test failure — it's the gate that stays red until someone other than the PR author approves the PR, and it clears on its own once that happens.

Every other CI check is passing. This is a docs-only ([No QA]) change to a single markdown file, so there's no code or test to modify and no commit for me to push.

Next step: mark the PR Ready for review and get an independent approval — that turns Check independent approval green.