[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#97337 Add search operators for custom fields and reimbursement IDs

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

E/A#97337 added three new advanced search filters to the Reports/Expenses Search page: Custom field 1, Custom field 2, and International reimbursement IDs. These are usable both as filter rows and as typed search operators, but the help site's search operators reference didn't list them.

This updates Use Search Operators to Filter and Analyze to document the three new report operators:

• submitter-user-id: – Custom field 1 value on the report
• submitter-payroll-id: – Custom field 2 value on the report
• order-deal-numbers: – International reimbursement IDs on the report

Also added custom field and international reimbursement IDs to the article's keywords for discoverability.

Labels/casing were verified against the live New Expensify UI (the three filter rows render as exactly Custom field 1, Custom field 2, and International reimbursement IDs) and against src/languages/en.ts, following HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, and TEMPLATE.md.

Related PR

• E/A#97337 (source PR)

---

@shubham1206agra, 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.

[shubham1206agra]

@stephanieelliott Can you please look into this?

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment
Small, well-scoped update to Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze.md. It adds three new report search operators (submitter-user-id:, submitter-payroll-id:, order-deal-numbers:) to the existing How to filter reports using search operators list, and extends the frontmatter keywords with custom field and international reimbursement IDs. Mirrors source PR E/A 97337 and fits the established list format.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - New bullets follow the exact operator/description pattern of the surrounding list; concise, scannable, clearly worded.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - Added keywords improve discoverability for real search intent; additions sit under a task-based How to filter reports using search operators heading. No heading hierarchy or metadata regressions.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - Operator syntax uses code formatting consistent with the article. Descriptions reference UI labels (Custom field 1, Custom field 2, International reimbursement IDs), verified against the live UI and en.ts per the PR description.

Key Findings

• Additions match the existing list style (backticked operator, en dash, short description); no change to structure, headings, or scope.
• Keyword additions align with the new operators and match real user phrasing, aiding AI retrieval.
• Minor note: descriptions use raw field concepts (Custom field 1 value) rather than bolded UI labels, but since these describe operator meanings in a reference list rather than click instructions, bold button/tab rules do not strictly apply.
• No new cross-links, no multi-workflow expansion, no metadata violations.

Recommendations

• Optional: clarify what Custom field 1 and Custom field 2 map to for readers unfamiliar with those report fields.
• No blocking issues. Accurate, in-scope, and safe to merge pending SME confirmation that operator names match current behavior.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze.md - Passes. Three operator bullets and two keywords added; conforms to governance.

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

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: f385bcb663

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 @jliexpensify

[melvin-bot]

@jliexpensify 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]

[MelvinBot]

There's nothing to fix here — no CI check is actually broken.

The only "failing" check is Check independent approval, which isn't a code/CI failure. It's a merge gate that stays red until an independent reviewer approves the PR; it clears on its own once someone approves. Every real check passes:

• ✅ validate, verify, check, checklist, dryRun
• ✅ spellcheck, actionlint, validateSchemas, validateImmutableActionRefs
• ✅ CLA, verifySignedCommits, Request reviewers for new Onyx.connectWithoutView calls
• ⏳ build is still queued (not failed)

Since this is a docs-only PR and all substantive checks are green, no fix/push is needed — the PR just needs a review approval to turn Check independent approval green.

[jliexpensify]

LGTM

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://1186498f.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze