[No QA] Update help articles to use the new retract button name

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Explanation of Change

Updating Undo submit and Undo close to Retract in the following help articles because we updated the button names in OldDot and NewDot here:

• Create and Submit Reports
• Edit Expense Reports
• Delete Expenses
• Edit and Submit Expense Reports

Fixed Issues

$ #68039

QA Steps

1. Go to each of:
   • Create and Submit Reports
   • Edit Expense Reports
   • Delete Expenses
   • Edit and Submit Expense Reports
2. Verify all instances of Undo submit or Undo close now say Retract.
3. If the article is focused on New Expensify, verify all instances of open now say draft, processing now say outstanding, and closed now say done.

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 / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • MacOS / Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS / Desktop
• 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)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
  • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • 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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • 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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • 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
  • If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • 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 any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• 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(themeColors.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 a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://7eaa03cc.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/expensify-classic/reports/Edit-and-Submit-Expense-Reports
• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Create-and-Submit-Reports
• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Delete-Expenses
• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Edit-Expense-Reports

[joekaufmanexpensify]

All set for review!

[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 @VictoriaExpensify

[melvin-bot]

@rushatgabhane @VictoriaExpensify One of you needs to 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]

Metadata violation: The title should match the actual article title, not the filename. Change title: Create-and-Submit-Reports.md to title: Create and Submit Reports to follow proper YAML metadata formatting.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

IDT this is right. This is the convention other articles seem to use.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR performs a focused terminology update across four help articles to align with recent UI changes in both OldDot and NewDot applications. The changes consistently replace "Undo submit" and "Undo close" with "Retract" and update state terminology (open→draft, processing→outstanding, closed→done) where applicable.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Clear, concise language with excellent flow and logical organization
• AI Readability: 8/10 - Good descriptive content with proper YAML metadata, though some sections could benefit from more context
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - Strong adherence to Expensify voice and consistent terminology usage

Key Findings

Strengths:

• Consistent terminology alignment: All button references properly updated from "Undo submit"/"Undo close" to "Retract"
• Comprehensive state updates: Appropriate updates to report states (draft, outstanding, done) in New Expensify articles
• Maintained content quality: Changes preserve existing clear explanations and helpful context
• Proper YAML metadata: Keywords appropriately updated to reflect new terminology
• User-focused language: Instructions remain clear and actionable

Areas for attention:

• One minor grammatical issue in Delete-Expenses.md: "Can I reopen a retract after it's been approved" should be "Can I retract a report after it's been approved"
• Some sections could benefit from additional context for AI parsing, though current structure is generally good

Recommendations

1. Fix grammatical error: Correct the FAQ heading in Delete-Expenses.md from "Can I reopen a retract" to "Can I retract a report"
2. Verify consistency: Ensure all instances of old terminology have been updated (the changes appear comprehensive)
3. Consider context enhancement: While not critical, adding more descriptive context around retraction workflows could improve AI readability

Files Reviewed

• Edit-and-Submit-Expense-Reports.md: ✅ Clean single-line terminology update
• Create-and-Submit-Reports.md: ✅ Comprehensive updates with good flow preservation
• Delete-Expenses.md: ⚠️ Minor grammatical issue in FAQ section
• Edit-Expense-Reports.md: ✅ Extensive updates maintain clarity and organization

Note: This is a terminology alignment update that successfully maintains content quality while implementing necessary UI consistency changes.

[github-actions]

AI Readiness violation: The title should not end with ".md" extension. This should be just "Create and Submit Reports" to be more readable and AI-friendly.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Same as above

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

PR #72357 implements a systematic terminology update across 4 help articles, standardizing button names from 'Undo submit'/'Undo close' to 'Retract' and updating report status language (open→draft, processing→outstanding, closed→done) in New Expensify documentation. The changes are functionally accurate and maintain consistency across the documentation set.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - Clear, concise language with good flow. Minor areas for improvement in some explanations.
• AI Readability: 9/10 - Excellent descriptive headings, proper YAML metadata, and clear context throughout.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - Strong adherence to Expensify style guidelines with consistent terminology usage.

Key Findings

Strengths:

• Consistent terminology updates across all files maintain user experience coherence
• YAML metadata properly updated to reflect new terminology (keywords cleaned up appropriately)
• Clear, action-oriented language throughout ('retract', 'outstanding', 'done')
• Proper cross-referencing between articles maintains navigation flow
• Permission and access restrictions clearly explained with Copilot references

Areas for Improvement:

• Some redundant explanations in Edit-Expense-Reports.md could be streamlined
• Minor inconsistencies in capitalization patterns ('Done' vs 'done')
• FAQ section in Delete-Expenses.md has some repetitive content

Recommendations

High Priority:

• Consider consolidating redundant explanations in the Edit-Expense-Reports.md file
• Standardize capitalization for report statuses (recommend lowercase: 'done', 'outstanding', 'draft')

Medium Priority:

• Review FAQ sections for potential consolidation to reduce repetition
• Ensure all cross-references use the updated terminology consistently

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/expensify-classic/reports/Edit-and-Submit-Expense-Reports.md - ✅ Clean terminology update
• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Create-and-Submit-Reports.md - ✅ Comprehensive updates with good flow
• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Delete-Expenses.md - ✅ Clear updates, minor redundancy noted
• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Edit-Expense-Reports.md - ✅ Thorough updates, some areas for streamlining

Overall Impact Assessment

This PR successfully modernizes the documentation to reflect UI changes while maintaining clarity and user accessibility. The updates will reduce user confusion by aligning help content with actual application interfaces. The systematic approach ensures consistency across the help ecosystem.

Recommendation: Approve - These changes improve documentation accuracy and user experience with minimal risk.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@VictoriaExpensify as an fyi the AI review bot ran wild here and reviewed the changes many times over. I made a few of the changes flagged where there were typos, but most of the stuff is stylistic and has existed in the articles for a while or not actually correct suggestions by the AI. LMK if any questions!

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@VictoriaExpensify could you add the PR reviewer checklist here? That way the test passes before I merge.

[melvin-bot]

@VictoriaExpensify looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/VictoriaExpensify in version: 9.2.44-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.2.44-5 🚀

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