[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#90713 Add manual tab info for editing distance expenses

[MelvinBot]

Summary

• Updates the Distance Expenses help article to document the new Manual tab that appears when editing a map-based distance expense
• Adds keywords for distance editing discoverability

This change reflects #90713, which removed the production gate on manual distance editing when editing waypoints. Users can now switch between Map and Manual tabs to update their distance.

Test plan

• Verify the updated FAQ answer in Distance-Expenses.md is accurate
• Verify the keywords are appropriate

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://cea6791f.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Distance-Expenses

[stephanieelliott]

Incorporate: #90804

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes a small, focused update to the Distance Expenses article. It adds three new keywords related to editing distance expenses and expands an FAQ answer to describe the Map and Manual tabs users see when editing a map-based Distance expense. The changes are well-scoped and improve discoverability and completeness of the existing documentation.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The expanded FAQ answer is clear, concise, and scannable. The sentence structure flows well, moving from the general ("you can edit the expense before it is approved") to the specific (tab descriptions) and closing with a cross-link. No issues with clarity.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The three new keywords ("edit distance", "edit waypoints", "manual edit distance") reflect realistic search queries and align with the guidance in HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Section 6 to include realistic search phrases. The existing YAML metadata (title, description, keywords, internalScope) remains intact and well-formed.
• Style Compliance: 10/10 - Tab names Map and Manual are correctly bolded per HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md Tab Naming Standards. The text uses exact UI terminology without quotation marks or paraphrasing. The cross-link to Managing Expenses in a Report uses a relative path and descriptive anchor text, and is placed after explanatory text rather than inside numbered steps, complying with the Cross-Linking Standards.

Key Findings

• The new keywords are practical and map to real user search intent (editing waypoints, manually editing distance).
• Tab references follow the bold formatting and exact-label conventions correctly.
• The expanded FAQ answer adds genuinely useful information about the two editing modes without bloating the response.
• The cross-link placement at the end of the FAQ answer (not inside a numbered step) is correct per governance rules.

Recommendations

• No blocking issues identified. This PR is ready to merge from a documentation standards perspective.
• Minor consideration: the internalScope field could optionally be updated to mention that the article now also covers editing distance expenses (e.g., "...and editing map-based Distance expenses"), though this is not strictly required since editing was already implicitly covered by the existing FAQ.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Distance-Expenses.md - Keywords expanded and FAQ answer improved. Compliant with all governance rules.

This review assessed only the proposed changes in the PR diff, not unchanged portions of the file.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes a focused update to the Distance Expenses article, adding three new keywords for edit-related discoverability and rewriting the FAQ answer about editing distance expenses to accurately describe the Map/Manual tab experience. The changes are minimal, well-scoped, and align with the governance standards.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The rewritten FAQ answer is clear, concise, and action-oriented. The sentence structure flows naturally and describes the two editing paths (Map vs. Manual) in a scannable way.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The new keywords ("edit distance", "edit waypoints", "manual edit distance") directly match realistic search queries. The existing YAML metadata (title, description, internalScope) remains intact and well-formed. No new headings were added, so heading compliance is not affected.
• Style Compliance: 10/10 - Tab names Map and Manual are correctly bolded per the Tab Naming Standards. The cross-link to Managing Expenses in a Report uses descriptive anchor text ("see [Managing Expenses in a Report]") and a relative link, complying with cross-linking standards. The link is placed after an explanatory sentence rather than inside a numbered step.

Key Findings

• The rewritten FAQ answer is an improvement over the original. It removes the somewhat ambiguous instruction to "select the Distance field on the expense to update the route" and replaces it with a clearer description of the two-tab editing experience.
• The new keywords are well-chosen and reflect realistic user search intent for editing distance expenses.
• No governance violations detected in the proposed changes.

Recommendations

• No blocking issues. This PR is ready to merge from a documentation quality perspective.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Distance-Expenses.md - Keywords expanded and FAQ answer rewritten. Both changes comply with governance standards.

Review based on proposed diff only. Unchanged portions of the file were not evaluated.

[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]

[twisterdotcom]

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible 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 checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: HybridApp
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: HybridApp
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (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 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
  • 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 either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
  • 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 verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• 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.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• 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
  • 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(theme.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 the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• 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.
• For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
• 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 reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[twisterdotcom]

Needs conflicts resolving @stephanieelliott