Update Admin Approval dialog scenarios in documentation

[PP-IvanDem]

Clarified behavior of Admin Approval dialog based on SecureRun settings.

[github-actions]

Auto-Fix Summary

7 issues fixed, 1 skipped across 1 files

Category	Fixes
Contractions	1
QuestionHeadings (rewrite)	1
Dale: passive-voice	5

Skipped (needs manual review)	Reason

| docs/policypak/components/leastprivilegemanager/technotes/tipssecurerun/adminapprovalwork.md:10 — Dale: passive-voice | 'the decision on whether to show the Admin Approval dialog will work, as it has done up to version 23.6.3571' — 'will work'/'has done' are active; no confident active rewrite that preserves the versioned reference |

Ask @claude on this PR if you'd like an explanation of any fix.

[PP-IvanDem]

@claude fix all issues

[github-actions]

Fix complete:

• Apply editorial suggestions in docs/policypak/components/leastprivilegemanager/technotes/tipssecurerun/adminapprovalwork.md
• Verify changes
• Commit and push

Summary:

Both editorial suggestions from the review were applied to SCENARIO 1 (line 18):

• Clarity — Replaced the ambiguous "the checkbox makes no difference" with the named control: "the Show Admin Approval dialog for untrusted applications option makes no difference." The reader now knows exactly which option is meant.
• Completeness — Reworded "processes based on image file ownership" to "processes based on the file's owner (image file ownership)," connecting the term to the "owned by an untrusted principal" concept used in SCENARIO 2.

Committed as c273bc3.

[github-actions]

Fix complete:

• Apply editorial suggestions in adminapprovalwork.md (Clarity + Completeness on line 18)
• Verify changes
• Commit and push

Summary:

docs/policypak/components/leastprivilegemanager/technotes/tipssecurerun/adminapprovalwork.md (SCENARIO 1):

• Clarity — Replaced the unnamed "checkbox" with the option's actual name: Show Admin Approval dialog for untrusted applications option, so the reader knows which control is meant.
• Completeness — Aligned "image file ownership" with the file-owner wording used in SCENARIO 2: "will not appear for processes based on the file's owner (image file ownership)."

Pushed to PP-IvanDem-Patch.

[github-actions]

Documentation PR Review

Editorial Review

docs/policypak/components/leastprivilegemanager/technotes/tipssecurerun/adminapprovalwork.md

• Clarity — Lines 2–3 (frontmatter) vs. line 7: The H1 heading was rewritten from a question to a statement ("# How the ... option in Admin Approval works"), but the frontmatter title and description still read as a question ("How does the option ... work?"). The page title (browser tab, search results, sidebar) now diverges from the visible heading. Suggested fix: update the frontmatter title and description to match the new statement form — e.g. title: "How the \"Show Admin Approval dialog for untrusted application\" option in Admin Approval works".

• Structure — Lines 18 and 20: "SCENARIO 1" and "SCENARIO 2" are all-caps inline labels, and the two scenarios are presented inconsistently — Scenario 1 is a single paragraph, while Scenario 2 uses a bulleted list. This breaks parallelism and reads as raw labels rather than document structure. Suggested fix: use consistent, sentence-case emphasis for both — e.g. **Scenario 1:** and **Scenario 2:** — and consider matching their presentation (both as short intro sentences followed by bullets where applicable).

• Clarity — Line 18: "The Admin Approval dialog will not appear for processes based on the file's owner (image file ownership)." The phrase "for processes based on the file's owner" is easy to misread as "processes that are based on the owner." Suggested fix: "When SecureRun is disabled, the dialog no longer appears based on the file's owner (image file ownership); it still appears for processes that require elevation."

Summary

3 editorial suggestions across 1 file. Vale and Dale issues are auto-fixed separately.

---

What to do next:

Comment @claude on this PR followed by your instructions to get help:

• @claude fix all issues — fix all editorial issues
• @claude help improve the flow of this document — get writing assistance
• @claude explain the voice issues — understand why something was flagged

You can ask Claude anything about the review or about Netwrix writing standards.

Automated fixes are only available for branches in this repository, not forks.

[github-actions]

Auto-Fix Summary

2 issues fixed, 3 skipped across 1 files

Category	Fixes
Contractions	1
Dale: wordiness	1

Skipped (needs manual review)	Reason

| docs/policypak/components/leastprivilegemanager/technotes/tipssecurerun/adminapprovalwork.md:9 — Dale: wordiness | 'the decision on whether to show the Admin Approval dialog will work, as it has done up to version 23.6.3571' is awkward, but any concise rewrite ('the dialog appears as it has') risks changing the meaning of 'the decision to show the dialog'. |
| docs/policypak/components/leastprivilegemanager/technotes/tipssecurerun/adminapprovalwork.md:9 — Dale: passive-voice | 'is enabled' / 'is disabled' (line 15) describe configuration state and read as adjectival; converting to 'if you enable/disable' would assert who performs the action, potentially changing meaning. |
| docs/policypak/components/leastprivilegemanager/technotes/tipssecurerun/adminapprovalwork.md:18 — Dale: misplaced-modifiers | 'The Admin Approval dialog will not appear for processes based on the file's owner' is ambiguous about what 'based on the file's owner' modifies; repositioning risks altering the intended condition. |

Ask @claude on this PR if you'd like an explanation of any fix.