[No QA] Fix AZ gaps on login troubleshooting and switch to classic docs

[stephanieelliott]

AgentZero gaps from 5/20 report
$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/639664

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR adds a single FAQ entry to the Login Troubleshooting article, addressing the "Incorrect or invalid code" error during login. The addition is focused, relevant, and follows the existing article's pattern. The content is clear and actionable.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - The explanation is concise and the resolution steps are easy to follow. Minor improvement: the resolution steps describe a sequential process (wait, then enter, then retry) and would benefit from numbered steps rather than bullets, per the Step Formatting Standard (Section 5 of the authoring guidelines), which calls for sequential, action-oriented steps.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The FAQ heading is question-based, starts with "Why" (compliant), includes the error text for searchability, and references the login context. The heading will match realistic user search queries well.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - The FAQ question format follows governance rules. One minor issue: the error message text "Incorrect or invalid code" in the heading could benefit from distinct formatting (e.g., bold or italics) to visually separate it from the surrounding sentence, improving scannability. Additionally, there is a trailing blank line at the end of the file that should be removed.

Key Findings

• The new FAQ entry fits naturally within the existing article structure and addresses a real user pain point.
• The content correctly avoids prohibited vague language and stays action-oriented.
• The explanation of why the error occurs (multiple codes requested, older code used) is helpful context that supports self-service resolution.
• The resolution steps are functionally a sequential procedure but are formatted as unordered bullets rather than numbered steps.

Recommendations

1. Consider converting the resolution bullets to numbered steps, since they represent a sequential troubleshooting flow (wait -> enter newest code -> request new code if needed).
2. Consider formatting the error message text distinctly in the heading (e.g., Incorrect or invalid code) to improve visual scannability.
3. Remove the trailing blank line at the end of the file.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/settings/Login-Troubleshooting.md - New FAQ entry added; minor formatting improvements recommended.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://e7d1ecb2.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/expensify-classic/settings/Magic-Code-Access-Troubleshooting
• articles/new-expensify/settings/Login-Troubleshooting
• articles/new-expensify/settings/Switch-between-New-Expensify-and-Expensify-Classic

[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 @brianlee-expensify

[melvin-bot]

@brianlee-expensify 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]

[melvin-bot]

@brianlee-expensify 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.

[brianlee-expensify]

just Help Site change, no QA needed

[github-actions]

Naming/style violation: "Choose" is not a standard action verb for UI interactions. Per naming conventions, use "Click" (web) or "Tap" (mobile) to match the deterministic writing rule. Since step 1 uses a unified web/mobile instruction, consider "Select Switch to Expensify Classic" or split into platform-specific verbs (Click/Tap).

[github-actions]

Navigation violation: "Use the navigation tabs on the left" is vague and does not reference a specific UI element or action. Per step formatting standards, each step should be action-oriented with exact UI labels. Consider: "In the navigation tabs on the left, click Try New Expensify." — this could also be merged into a single step.

[github-actions]

Formatting issue: This line ends with a comma instead of a period. Also, per the Hamburger Menu Rule in the naming conventions, the prescribed format is a single sentence: "On mobile, tap the hamburger menu in the top-left corner, then select Try New Expensify." Splitting this across two numbered steps deviates from the required pattern.

[github-actions]

Structure violation: This introduces a second # FAQ heading in the same article (the first # FAQ is on line 108). Per the authoring guidelines, an article may have only one # FAQ section. These new FAQ questions should be added under the existing # FAQ heading rather than creating a duplicate.

[github-actions]

Naming convention: The error message "Incorrect or invalid code" should be formatted distinctly (e.g., in quotes or as inline code) to differentiate it from surrounding text. As written, the heading reads ambiguously. Consider: Why do I see the error "Incorrect or invalid code" when logging in?

[github-actions]

Naming convention: Same as the Expensify Classic counterpart -- the error message "Incorrect or invalid code" should be formatted distinctly (e.g., in quotes or inline code) to differentiate it from surrounding text. Consider: Why do I see the error "Incorrect or invalid code" when logging in?

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes three changes: (1) a significant rewrite of the "Switch between New Expensify and Expensify Classic" article to comply with governance standards, (2) FAQ additions to the Expensify Classic Magic Code troubleshooting article, and (3) a new FAQ entry in the New Expensify Login Troubleshooting article. The Switch article rewrite is a clear improvement in structure and compliance. The FAQ additions are well-written and helpful.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - Changes are clear, scannable, and actionable. Steps are concise. Minor inconsistencies in verb choice across steps (see findings).
• AI Readiness: 8/10 - The Switch article now includes proper internalScope and bracketed keywords, with task-based headings. The two FAQ-only changes do not add internalScope to their respective files, but since frontmatter changes are outside the scope of this diff, no penalty applies.
• Style Compliance: 7/10 - Generally strong UI referencing and navigation phrasing. A few issues with action verb consistency and one heading that does not start with an action verb or question word.

Key Findings

Positive aspects:

• The Switch article rewrite is a major governance improvement: proper YAML metadata with internalScope and bracketed keywords, removal of the <div> wrapper, correct heading hierarchy (single # title plus ## sections plus # FAQ).
• Navigation instructions now correctly use the unified format: "In the navigation tabs (on the left on web, on the bottom on mobile)."
• Hamburger menu reference correctly follows the prescribed phrasing from HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md.
• FAQ content across all three files is clear, direct, and well-structured.

Issues to address:

1. Inconsistent action verbs in steps (Switch article, "How to switch from New Expensify to Expensify Classic"): Step 1 uses "select," step 2 uses "Click," and step 3 uses "Choose." Per the style guide, action verbs should be consistent. Recommend using "Click" (or "Select") uniformly for web, or "Tap" for mobile. Since this section uses the unified navigation format, "Click" or "Select" would be appropriate throughout.

2. Heading does not start with action verb or question word (Switch article): The heading ## Who can switch between New Expensify and Expensify Classic is valid -- it starts with "Who," which is an allowed question word. However, ## Why you might not see the option to switch does not start with a question word (it would need to be ## Why you might not see the option to switch phrased as a question, e.g., "Why might you not see the option to switch"). That said, this heading existed in the old version as a # heading and was merely demoted to ##, which is an improvement. Recommend rephrasing to start with a proper question word format for full compliance.

3. Comma instead of period in step (Switch article, "On mobile" section): Step 1 reads: "Tap the hamburger menu in the top-left corner," -- the trailing comma should be a period since step 2 is a separate numbered item.

4. Missing trailing blank line cleanup (Login-Troubleshooting.md): The diff adds an extra blank line at the end of the new FAQ entry. Minor formatting issue.

5. Magic-Code-Access-Troubleshooting.md -- new # FAQ heading placement: The existing article uses ## headings that are not task-based (e.g., ## Why do Magic Codes work sometimes but not others? is fine, but earlier sections use headings like # Quick Fixes for Users which is generic). The new # FAQ section itself is properly structured and exempt from task-based rules. The FAQ questions all start with question words, which is correct.

Recommendations

1. Standardize action verbs in the Switch article steps -- pick one verb per platform context and use it consistently.
2. Fix the comma at the end of step 1 in the "On mobile" section (change to a period).
3. Consider rephrasing ## Why you might not see the option to switch to include the feature name for better AI retrieval, e.g., ## Why the option to switch to Expensify Classic might not appear.
4. Remove the extra trailing blank line at the end of Login-Troubleshooting.md.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/settings/Switch-between-New-Expensify-and-Expensify-Classic.md - Major rewrite. Significant governance improvements. A few minor style consistency issues.
• docs/articles/expensify-classic/settings/Magic-Code-Access-Troubleshooting.md - FAQ section added. Well-structured, compliant FAQ entries.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/settings/Login-Troubleshooting.md - Single FAQ entry added. Clear and useful. Minor trailing whitespace.

[github-actions]

Heading rule: FAQ question headings should start with a question word (How, What, Where, Who, Why, When) per authoring guidelines. "What's" qualifies, but note the product is officially "Expensify Classic" -- this heading says "Classic Expensify" which reverses the product name. It should be "What's the difference between New Expensify and Expensify Classic?" to match exact product naming.

[github-actions]

Naming/style inconsistency: This step uses "Click" which is a web-specific verb, but step 1 uses the unified web/mobile navigation format ("on the left on web, on the bottom on mobile"). If this procedure applies to both platforms, subsequent steps should also accommodate both -- e.g., "Click or tap Troubleshoot" or "Select Troubleshoot".