[Payment due @QichenZhu] [No QA] Docs updates for E/A#97486 extend Book a call to partner manager and guide

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

#97486 extends the external Book a call button (Calendly scheduling link) from the Account Manager to the Partner Manager and Guide as well, on both the Help page and in chat headers (Concierge and 1:1 DMs). This updates the help site to reflect that behavior.

Updated Navigating-New-Expensify.md, which previously documented Book a call only for the Account Manager:

• Generalized the Help-page mention and the "How to book a call" section to cover the Account Manager, Partner Manager, and Guide.
• Documented that in Concierge, only one button shows at a time, following the precedence Account Manager → Partner Manager → Guide.
• Documented that the Guide's button only appears while no Account Manager is assigned.
• Updated the FAQ answer accordingly.

Fixed Issues

Docs update for #97486

Tests

Documentation-only change. Verify the rendered article reads correctly and the Book a call guidance matches the current app behavior.

• Verify no broken links or formatting issues in the rendered help article.

QA Steps

Same as Tests.

---

@c3024, 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.

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No code fix needed here — the only failing check is Check independent approval, which isn't a code issue I can fix by pushing to the branch.

This is a governance gate: it fails until someone other than the PR author approves the PR. Since this is a docs-only change, it just needs an independent reviewer to approve. Once you (or another reviewer) approve, this check turns green on its own.

Everything else is green (validate, verify, spellcheck, dryRun, CLA, etc.); build is still pending and the remaining unfinished checks are skipping/waiting, not failing.

Next step: mark the PR ready for review and get an independent approval — no branch changes required.

[c3024]

@MelvinBot mark the PR as ready for review.

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Done — this PR is now marked Ready for review.

[github-actions]

Readability: This FAQ answer packs multiple conditions (assignment, scheduling link, Concierge precedence order, Guide/Account Manager exclusivity) into one dense run-on paragraph, which hurts scannability (HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Section 1 — concise and actionable). Consider breaking the Concierge precedence rule into a short bulleted list, e.g. Account Manager -> Partner Manager -> Guide, with the note that the Guide's button only shows when no Account Manager is assigned.

[MelvinBot]

Addressed — rather than reformat the precedence rule as a list, I removed the technical ordering per QichenZhu's feedback. The FAQ answer now ends simply with "In Concierge, only one Book a call button shows at a time," which resolves the dense run-on. (Navigating-New-Expensify.md:252)

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR extends the existing Book a call guidance in Navigating-New-Expensify.md from the Account Manager to also cover the Partner Manager and Guide, and documents the Concierge single-button precedence (Account Manager, then Partner Manager, then Guide). The changes are accurate, well-scoped, and consistent with the surrounding article. Terminology and formatting align closely with the governance files.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - Clear and scannable; the generalization to "support contact" reads naturally. The main weakness is the FAQ answer and the Concierge-precedence paragraph, which pack the ordering rule and the Guide/Account Manager condition into single dense sentences.
• AI Readiness: 8/10 - Headings remain task/question-based, the single article title is preserved, and full contact-role names are used consistently, aiding retrieval. Slight trade-off: the renamed heading drops the specific "Account Manager" term in favor of the generic "support contact," mildly reducing keyword precision.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - UI labels are bolded and cased correctly (Book a call, Help, Concierge), no quotation-wrapped labels, and no prohibited vague navigation phrasing. Fully consistent with HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md.

Key Findings

• Correctly generalizes a single-role workflow to three roles without introducing scope creep or a second workflow.
• Concierge precedence and the Guide-only-when-no-Account-Manager condition are documented in both the body and the FAQ, which is good coverage.
• The updated in-page reference tracks the renamed heading, keeping the cross-reference intact.
• Minor: the Concierge paragraph and the FAQ answer are long run-on sentences that would read better as short lists or split sentences.

Recommendations

• Consider breaking the Concierge precedence explanation into a short bulleted list (Account Manager, then Partner Manager, then Guide) to improve scannability in both the body and the FAQ.
• Optional: current heading wording is acceptable; the intro sentence already names the three roles, which preserves keyword coverage.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Navigating-New-Expensify.md - Approved with minor readability suggestions.

Note: This is a summary review. No blocking issues were found.

[c3024]

@MelvinBot address the review comments.

[MelvinBot]

Addressed all four review comments in 2163307:

• Cross-linking (line 155): replaced the "See ... below" prose reference with a descriptive relative link — Learn [how to book a call with your support contact](#how-to-book-a-call-with-your-support-contact) below.
• Too-technical precedence order (lines 167 & FAQ): removed the "Account Manager → Partner Manager → Guide" ordering and the Guide/Account-Manager exclusivity detail per QichenZhu's feedback that users don't need it. Both spots now just say only one Book a call button appears at a time in Concierge.
• Readability (FAQ): removing the ordering also resolves the dense run-on paragraph the bot flagged — no separate bulleted list was needed since the technical clause is gone.

Replied inline on each thread as well. Docs-only change, so no app tests were required.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://96ef676e.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Navigating-New-Expensify

[MelvinBot]

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

The only check reporting fail is Check independent approval, and that isn't a build/test failure. It's the approval gate that stays red until an independent reviewer approves the PR. It can't be fixed with a code change — it clears once someone approves.

All other checks are green now (the build / Deploy ExpensifyHelp job was just still running when this was triggered — it has since passed):

• build (Deploy ExpensifyHelp) ✅
• checklist ✅
• check, validate, verify, dryRun, spellcheck, verifySignedCommits, CLA ✅

Next step: this just needs an independent reviewer's approval to turn Check independent approval green. No push required.

[melvin-bot]

🎯 @QichenZhu, thanks for reviewing and testing this PR! 🎉

A payment issue will be created for your review once this PR is deployed to production.
E/E issue linked to the PR - no internal issue.

If payment is not needed (e.g., regression PR review fix etc), react with 👎 to this comment to prevent the payment issue from being created.

[QichenZhu]

@stephanieelliott could you review this?

[MelvinBot]

The only failing check is Check independent approval — there's no code or test failure here, so there's nothing to push a fix for. Every real check (build, verify, check, spellcheck, dryRun, validate, verifySignedCommits) is passing.

Check independent approval is a policy gate, not a build failure: it requires an approving review from an eligible independent reviewer before the PR can go green. The PR was reviewed by QichenZhu (approved on the latest commit 2163307), but GitHub's reviewDecision is still REVIEW_REQUIRED, which is why the gate stays red.

To resolve: this needs a human action, not a code change — get the required independent approval (e.g. an eligible reviewer/reviewer-team approval on the latest commit). Once that lands, the check will clear on its own.

[c3024]

@stephanieelliott could you please review this?

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/stephanieelliott in version: 9.4.55-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 9.4.55-4 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android