Docs updates for E/A#89454 Update SmartScan failure messages to show missing fields

[MelvinBot]

Summary

• Updates the New Expensify SmartScan troubleshooting help article to reflect field-specific failure messages introduced in [Payment due @dukenv0307] Show field-specific SmartScan failure messages #89454
• The old generic message "Receipt scanning failed. Enter details manually." is replaced with examples of the new format: "Receipt scanning failed — missing date. Enter details manually."
• Added relevant keywords (missing fields, missing date, missing merchant, missing amount) to improve search discoverability

Test plan

• Verify the updated article renders correctly on the help site
• Confirm the example messages match the actual UI strings from the PR

[dukenv0307]

I'll review this PR cc @justinpersaud

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes a small, targeted update to the SmartScan troubleshooting article. It updates two passages to reflect a new error message format where SmartScan now specifies which fields are missing (e.g., "Receipt scanning failed -- missing date"), replacing the previous generic failure message. It also adds four new keywords related to missing fields. The changes are well-scoped and improve accuracy.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The updated sentences are clear and descriptive. The parenthetical examples ("for example, ...") help the user understand what to expect. Both changed passages read naturally and are easy to scan.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The new keywords ("missing fields", "missing date", "missing merchant", "missing amount") directly match realistic user search queries, improving retrieval precision. Existing metadata (title, description, internalScope) remains well-formed and unchanged.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - The changes mostly follow naming conventions. One minor issue: the error message text in step 2 ("Receipt scanning failed -- missing merchant and date") is not bolded or formatted distinctly from the surrounding instructional text. Per the naming conventions, UI-displayed messages that users will see on screen benefit from clear visual distinction (e.g., quotation marks or emphasis) to differentiate them from instructional prose. The first changed passage uses quotes and an em dash appropriately, but step 2 describes the message inline without quotes, creating a slight inconsistency between the two references to the same type of UI message.

Key Findings

• Positive: The keyword additions are well-chosen and reflect realistic search terms users would type when encountering missing-field errors.
• Positive: The updated error message descriptions are more specific and actionable than the previous generic message, helping users understand what went wrong.
• Minor inconsistency: The first changed passage (line 28) wraps the example error message in quotes with clear formatting, while the second changed passage (step 2, line 39) describes the message pattern inline without quotes. Both reference the same type of UI-displayed message, so consistent formatting would improve clarity.
• Pre-existing issue (not scored): Line 77 has a duplicate heading "## How to take better receipt photos for SmartScan" that appears to be a pre-existing bug in the file, not introduced by this PR.

Recommendations

1. Consider wrapping the error message example in step 2 in quotes for consistency with the first reference (e.g., ...with a message such as "Receipt scanning failed -- missing merchant and date").
2. No other changes are needed -- the keyword additions and message updates are well done.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Troubleshoot-SmartScan-Issues.md - Minor updates to error message descriptions and keyword additions. Changes are accurate and well-scoped.

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

[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 @lydiabarclay

[melvin-bot]

@lydiabarclay 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 makes a small, focused update to the SmartScan troubleshooting article. It updates error message descriptions to reflect a new behavior where SmartScan specifies which fields are missing (e.g., "Receipt scanning failed — missing date") instead of showing a generic failure message. It also adds four new keywords related to missing fields. The changes are well-scoped and accurate.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The updated error message descriptions are clear and use concrete examples (em-dash-separated format) that help users recognize what they will see in the UI. The phrasing is natural and easy to scan.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The four new keywords ("missing fields", "missing date", "missing merchant", "missing amount") directly match realistic search queries. YAML metadata, internalScope, and heading structure are all properly maintained. No regressions introduced.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - The changes follow naming conventions correctly. Error message examples are presented in quoted format consistent with the existing article style. UI references remain accurate.

Key Findings

• The new error message examples ("Receipt scanning failed — missing date. Enter details manually." and "Receipt scanning failed — missing merchant and date") provide concrete, recognizable text that will help users match what they see in the product to the documentation.
• The keyword additions are well-chosen and cover the most likely search terms users would enter when encountering field-specific scan failures.
• No governance violations were introduced by these changes.
• Pre-existing issue (not introduced by this PR): Line 77 has a duplicate heading ## How to take better receipt photos for SmartScan that appears to be a copy error from before this PR. This is outside the scope of the current diff but worth noting for a future cleanup.

Recommendations

• No blocking issues. The changes are ready to merge.
• Consider a follow-up PR to fix the duplicate heading on line 77, which predates this change.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Troubleshoot-SmartScan-Issues.md — Updated error message descriptions and added missing-field keywords. Changes are clean and compliant.