[No QA] Docs: Close help-site content gaps for New Expensify-only features

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Closes three help-site content gaps for New Expensify-only features/abilities that were called out in the linked issue:

1. Exporting expenses to any export template at the expense level — docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/How-to-Export-Expenses.md now makes explicit that in New Expensify any available export template (including Expensify-built / "IS" templates) is available at the expense level, and contrasts this with Classic where some template types are report-only. The duplicated "Custom templates" bullet was also cleaned up.
2. "Exported to" filter on the Spend page — docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Getting-Started-with-the-Spend-Page.md adds Exported to to the list of available filters for both expenses and reports. docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze.md documents the corresponding exported-to: search operator.
3. Amending the transaction start date after a card is assigned — docs/articles/new-expensify/connect-credit-cards/Assign-Company-Cards.md documents that the transaction start date on an assigned company card can be updated at any time from the card details page, with a note about how this differs from Classic.

Docs-only change — no code, components, or APIs were modified.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/642911
PROPOSAL: N/A (docs-only update requested by the issue author)

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review"
// Please describe what tests you performed that validates your changed worked.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — docs-only change.

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate your changes and what areas do they need to test for regressions.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover 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 tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)

Screenshots/Videos

N/A — docs-only change.

[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]

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR closes three content gaps for New Expensify-only features across four documentation files. The changes are well-scoped, clearly written, and largely compliant with governance standards. The new content integrates smoothly into existing articles and follows established patterns. A few minor governance issues are noted below.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The new content is clear, scannable, and action-oriented. Steps are properly numbered and sequential. Explanatory paragraphs after steps are concise and informative. The filter descriptions in the Spend Page article are slightly long for inline bullet points but still readable.
• AI Readiness: 8/10 - New headings are task-based and include feature names (e.g., "How to change the transaction start date on an assigned card"). The new FAQ entries use question-word format. One file (Getting-Started-with-the-Spend-Page.md) is missing the internalScope field in its YAML frontmatter, which is required per HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Section 3. This pre-dates the PR but the PR does not address it despite modifying the file.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - UI elements are correctly bolded (e.g., Company cards, Transaction start date, Spend, Reports, Expenses). Navigation instructions follow the unified format correctly. The "Note:" paragraphs use appropriate formatting.

Key Findings

• Positive: The new section in Assign-Company-Cards.md is a model addition -- task-based heading, clear numbered steps, unified navigation phrasing, explicit contrast with Classic behavior, and a supporting FAQ entry.
• Positive: The exported-to: search operator documentation in Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze.md follows the established pattern of the surrounding content and includes practical examples.
• Positive: The cleanup of the duplicated "custom templates" / "Custom templates" bullet in How-to-Export-Expenses.md resolves a pre-existing formatting inconsistency.
• Minor: Getting-Started-with-the-Spend-Page.md is missing the required internalScope YAML field (per Section 3 of HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md). While this is a pre-existing gap, consider adding it since the file is being modified.
• Minor: The filter descriptions added to the Spend Page bullet points are parenthetical and somewhat long. Consider whether the "Exported to" explanation (especially the Reports filter description ending with "useful for confirming what's already been exported and what still needs to be") could be shortened for scannability.

Recommendations

1. Add internalScope to Getting-Started-with-the-Spend-Page.md -- Since this file is already being modified, adding the missing metadata field would bring it into full compliance with the authoring spec.
2. Consider tightening the Spend Page filter descriptions -- The parenthetical explanations for the Exported to filter are helpful but could be more concise, especially the Reports filter line.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/connect-credit-cards/Assign-Company-Cards.md -- New section and FAQ entry for changing transaction start date. Well-structured and compliant.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Getting-Started-with-the-Spend-Page.md -- Added "Exported to" filter to expense and report filter lists. Content is accurate; missing internalScope metadata (pre-existing).
• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/How-to-Export-Expenses.md -- Clarified template availability in New Expensify vs. Classic. Fixed duplicate bullet. Clean and compliant.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze.md -- Added exported-to: operator with examples. Follows existing content pattern well.

Review based on governance files: HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, and TEMPLATE.md.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 7fa26847f6

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".

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the failing Spell check: typo Cick → Click on line 32 of docs/articles/new-expensify/connect-credit-cards/Assign-Company-Cards.md.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://26fabee9.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/connect-credit-cards/Assign-Company-Cards
• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Getting-Started-with-the-Spend-Page
• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/How-to-Export-Expenses
• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze

[github-actions]

Step formatting violation: Step numbering skips from 5 to 7. This should be step 6, not 7. The next step should be 7, not 8. Sequential numbering is required per the step formatting standards.

Suggested change

	7. If needed, update the **Transaction start date** to choose the date from which Expensify starts importing transactions for the card.
	6. If needed, update the **Transaction start date** to choose the date from which Expensify starts importing transactions for the card.

[github-actions]

Step formatting violation: This should be step 7 (following the corrected numbering above).

Suggested change

	8. Click **Assign card** to finalize the assignment.
	7. Click **Assign card** to finalize the assignment.

[github-actions]

Naming convention violation: "Transaction start date" is a UI element label and should be bolded, consistent with how it is referenced in step 6 above. Per the naming conventions, all UI element labels must use bold formatting.

Suggested change

	- Expensify imports transactions from the Transaction start date onward.
	- Expensify imports transactions from the **Transaction start date** onward.

[github-actions]

Naming convention violation: "Transaction start date" appears twice in this answer without bold formatting. Since it is a UI element label, it should be bolded per naming conventions.

Suggested change

	Yes. You can update the Transaction start date at any time from the assigned card's details. The Transaction start date determines the date from which Expensify imports transactions for the card.
	Yes. You can update the **Transaction start date** at any time from the assigned card's details. The **Transaction start date** determines the date from which Expensify imports transactions for the card.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR closes three content gaps for New Expensify-only features across four documentation files. The changes are focused, well-scoped, and generally follow the governance standards. The additions are concise and actionable. A few minor issues should be addressed before merging.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - The new content is clear and scannable. One step numbering error (steps jump from 5 to 7, skipping 6) in Assign-Company-Cards.md hurts sequential clarity. Otherwise, the prose is concise and action-oriented.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - All changes fit within existing well-structured articles that already have proper YAML metadata (including internalScope), task-based headings, and feature-specific language. The new FAQ entry and bullet points use full feature names.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - UI elements are properly bolded, exact terminology is used, and FAQ entries follow the question-based heading pattern. The "Transaction start date" reference is consistent throughout.

Key Findings

Issues to address:

• Step numbering error in Assign-Company-Cards.md: The numbered steps jump from 5 to 7 (step 6 is missing). The original step 6 was removed and replaced with steps 7 and 8, but the numbering was not corrected. This should be 6 and 7.
• Removed content in How-to-Export-Expenses.md: The paragraph about report-level templates ("Report-level templates such as All Data - Report Level Export only appear when exporting from Spend > Reports page...") was removed entirely. If this information is no longer accurate for New Expensify, the removal is correct. If it is still relevant, it should be retained or replaced with updated guidance.

Positive aspects:

• The duplicate "custom templates" / "Custom templates" bullet in How-to-Export-Expenses.md is cleaned up properly -- good housekeeping.
• The new FAQ entry ("Can I change the transaction start date on an assigned card?") follows the governance FAQ pattern correctly with a clear, direct answer.
• Adding "Exported to" to the filter lists in Getting-Started-with-the-Spend-Page.md and the exported-to: operator in Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze.md are well-placed and consistent with the existing formatting patterns.
• The "Note" formatting was improved with a colon after "Note" (changing **Note** to **Note:**).
• Cross-links and anchor text follow the governance standards.

Recommendations

1. Fix step numbering in Assign-Company-Cards.md -- renumber the new steps as 6 and 7 (instead of 7 and 8).
2. Confirm the removal of the report-level template explanation in How-to-Export-Expenses.md is intentional and that the information is no longer applicable.
3. Consider whether "Transaction start date" in the bullet point under "What happens after you assign company cards" should be bolded for consistency, since it is bolded as a UI element in the step instructions above (Transaction start date).

Files Reviewed

• Assign-Company-Cards.md - New steps for transaction start date, new FAQ entry; step numbering error needs fixing.
• Getting-Started-with-the-Spend-Page.md - Added "Exported to" filter; clean and correct.
• How-to-Export-Expenses.md - Cleaned up duplicate bullet, removed report-level template note; removal should be confirmed as intentional.
• Use-Search-Operators-to-Filter-and-Analyze.md - Added exported-to: operator and updated example query; well-integrated.

Review based on governance rules defined in docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, docs/HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, and docs/TEMPLATE.md.