[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#82075 spreadsheet member import approval fields

[MelvinBot]

Summary

Documents the spreadsheet-import behavior surfaced by #82075, which fixes member import via Import via Spreadsheet in a Control workspace so that approval workflows are correctly created.

The existing Invite Multiple Members via Spreadsheet section only described the upload steps. This PR updates Managing-Workspace-Members.md to:

• List the member fields you can map when importing (Email, Role, Submit to, Forward to, Over limit forward to, Approval limit, Custom field 1, Custom field 2).
• Explain that mapping the approval fields (Submit to, Forward to, Over limit forward to, Approval limit) sets up each member's approval workflow, viewable under Workflows.
• Note that the approval fields, the custom fields, and specialized roles (Auditor, Card Admin) require the Control plan, and that importing them into a non-Control workspace prompts an upgrade.
• Add an FAQ entry explaining why an upgrade prompt appears during spreadsheet import.

Related PR

• fix: New workflow is not added via Import Spreadsheet in a control WS #82075

All feature names, field labels, and role names were verified against the current src/languages/en.ts UI strings for exact capitalization.

@nkdengineer, please review the files changed and confirm they reflect the current behavior. Then mark this PR Ready for review.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://5960aae6.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Managing-Workspace-Members

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR adds content to Managing-Workspace-Members.md documenting the spreadsheet member-import column mapping, the approval workflow fields, the Control plan requirement, and a new FAQ entry. The additions are well-targeted, use exact UI field labels, and stay within the existing single-workflow scope. Feedback below applies only to the added/modified lines in the diff.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - Clear prose with a scannable bulleted field list and a logical flow from steps to mapping to plan requirements. The "Control plan required" note is one long, bold-heavy sentence that could be split for easier scanning.
• AI Readiness: 7/10 - The new FAQ heading is question-based and retrieval-friendly, and full field/feature names are used exactly. The diff does not touch YAML metadata or internalScope, so the new fields/roles are not reflected in keywords; the content sits under a pre-existing non-task-based H1 that was not corrected.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - Field labels and role names are consistently bolded and match UI casing. The added content correctly avoids quotation marks and synonyms. Note that the surrounding (unchanged) section uses **three-dot menu** rather than the required three dots (vertical ellipsis) format, but that is pre-existing and not part of this diff.

Key Findings

• Positive: New FAQ entry is properly question-based and directly answers a realistic search query (the upgrade prompt), aligning well with AI retrieval guidance.
• Positive: All member fields and specialized roles (Submit to, Forward to, Over limit forward to, Approval limit, Custom field 1/2, Auditor, Card Admin) are bolded and exact, per PR verification against en.ts.
• Improvement: The "Control plan required" paragraph packs many bolded labels into a single sentence; consider splitting into two sentences for readability.
• Improvement: Consider linking the approval workflow / Workflows mention to the dedicated Workflows article using descriptive anchor text, since it is a prerequisite/deep-dive dependency.
• Note: Metadata (keywords/internalScope) was not updated to reflect the newly documented Control-plan fields and roles.

Recommendations

• Split the "Control plan required" note into shorter sentences to improve scannability.
• Add a relative cross-link to the Workflows article where approval workflows are mentioned, using descriptive anchor text.
• If frontmatter is in scope, add the new field/role terms to keywords and reflect the Control-plan boundary in internalScope.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Managing-Workspace-Members.md - Additions are compliant and high quality; minor readability and cross-linking/metadata enhancements suggested.

Note: This review focuses on the big-picture quality of the proposed changes only.

[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 @johncschuster

[melvin-bot]

@johncschuster 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]

[johncschuster]

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 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)
• 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)
• 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.
• 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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/johncschuster in version: 9.4.28-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.28-2 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android