[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#89163 Add Go back just once option to Classic switch

[MelvinBot]

Summary

• Updates the help site article "Switch between New Expensify and Expensify Classic" to document the new Go back just once option introduced in [Payment due @ahmedGaber93] Add Go back just once option to Switch to Expensify Classic flow #89163
• Adds step 4 explaining the two options users may see when switching: Go back just once (temporary) and Switch to Classic (permanent)
• Adds a new FAQ entry explaining the difference between the two options
• Adds relevant keywords for search discoverability

Test plan

• Verify the updated article renders correctly on the help site
• Confirm button names match the UI exactly
• Confirm the article follows HelpDot authoring guidelines

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR adds documentation for two new switching options ("Go back just once" and "Switch to Classic") that appear when a user tries to switch from New Expensify to Expensify Classic. The changes are small and well-scoped: two new keywords in the YAML metadata, an additional step in the procedural instructions, and a new FAQ entry. The additions are clear, accurate in tone, and align well with the existing article structure.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The new step 4 is clearly written with a conditional lead-in ("You may be asked to provide a reason") and uses an em dash-separated sub-bullet format that is easy to scan. The FAQ answer is concise and explains both options in a single paragraph.
• AI Readiness: 8/10 - The new keywords ("go back just once", "switch to classic temporarily") directly match user search intent, which strengthens retrieval. The new FAQ heading includes the exact feature labels. Minor note: the FAQ heading uses quoted strings rather than the exact bold UI labels, but this is consistent with FAQ convention and does not materially harm retrieval.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - UI option names ("Go back just once", "Switch to Classic") are correctly bolded in the step instructions and FAQ body. One minor observation: the existing article already has pre-existing structural issues outside the scope of this PR (e.g., multiple # headings, ### sub-headings), which are not introduced by this diff and therefore not scored here.

Key Findings

• The new step 4 correctly uses a conditional framing ("You may be asked to provide a reason"), which is appropriate since this prompt may not appear for all users.
• Both option labels are bolded consistently across the step and the FAQ, matching the button naming standards in the governance rules.
• The new FAQ heading wraps option names in quotation marks: ## What is the difference between "Go back just once" and "Switch to Classic"? Per HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, button/UI element names should not be wrapped in quotation marks. Consider using bold instead: ## What is the difference between **Go back just once** and **Switch to Classic**? -- though this is a minor point since FAQ headings don't render bold in Markdown heading syntax universally, making quotes a pragmatic choice.
• The two new keywords are well-chosen and reflect realistic search queries.

Recommendations

1. Consider whether the quotation marks around UI labels in the FAQ heading can be replaced with a phrasing that avoids them entirely, e.g., ## How the Go back just once and Switch to Classic options work. This would also make the heading more task-based per the authoring guidelines.
2. No other changes needed -- the additions are clean and well-integrated.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/settings/Switch-between-New-Expensify-and-Expensify-Classic.md -- Two new keywords added, one new procedural step, one new FAQ entry. All additions are clear and well-formatted.

This review covers only the proposed changes in this PR, not pre-existing content.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes targeted, well-scoped additions to the switching guide: new YAML metadata fields (keywords, internalScope), a new step 4 explaining the two switching options users may encounter, and a corresponding FAQ entry. The changes are clean, focused, and align well with governance standards.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The new step 4 is clearly written and the sub-bullet structure (dash list under a numbered step) effectively presents the two options without breaking the sequential flow. The FAQ answer is concise and distinguishes the two behaviors well. Minor note: step 4 uses conditional phrasing ("You may be asked..."), which is appropriate here since not all users will see the prompt, but could slightly slow comprehension on first read.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The addition of internalScope satisfies a previously missing required metadata field. The new keywords ("go back just once", "switch to classic temporarily") are realistic search phrases that match how users would describe these actions. The FAQ heading uses a question-word format ("What is the difference between..."), which is compliant and retrieval-friendly. The article already contains a "How to..." style heading elsewhere, so that requirement remains satisfied.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - Button names Go back just once and Switch to Classic are bolded correctly and appear to use exact UI text. No quotation marks are used around UI elements. The phrasing is consistent with naming conventions. One minor observation: confirm that Switch to Classic matches the exact UI label (as opposed to Switch to Expensify Classic, which is used elsewhere in the article for the initial button). If the in-app modal truly says "Switch to Classic" (without "Expensify"), then this is correct.

Key Findings

• The internalScope field is well-written and follows the prescribed format ("Audience is [who]. Covers [X], does not cover [Y]").
• The new keywords are practical and user-centric, covering the exact option names users will see.
• Step 4 is properly nested under the existing numbered list and uses sub-bullets to describe the two options, which maintains the sequential flow without introducing a forbidden generic heading.
• The new FAQ entry correctly uses a question-word heading and provides a clear, direct answer.
• No governance violations were found in the proposed changes.

Recommendations

• Verify that Switch to Classic is the exact label shown in the product UI modal. If the UI says "Switch to Expensify Classic" instead, update accordingly to maintain UI-exact terminology per HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md.
• Consider whether "go back just once" as a keyword should also appear capitalized ("Go back just once") to match the UI label exactly, though lowercase in keywords is standard practice and acceptable.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/settings/Switch-between-New-Expensify-and-Expensify-Classic.md - Changes are well-structured and governance-compliant. Metadata additions are complete and correctly formatted. New content integrates cleanly with the existing article.

This review covers only the proposed changes in the PR diff, not pre-existing content.

[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 targeted, well-scoped additions to the "Switch between New Expensify and Expensify Classic" article. It documents two new switching options ("Go back just once" and "Switch to Classic"), adds a corresponding FAQ entry, and brings the YAML frontmatter into compliance by adding the previously missing internalScope field and expanding keywords. The changes are clean and focused.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The new step 4 with its sub-bullets is clear and well-structured. The FAQ answer is concise and directly addresses the question. The em-dash formatting in the sub-bullets provides a clean visual separation between label and explanation.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The addition of internalScope is a meaningful improvement, correctly specifying audience and scope boundaries. Keywords are expanded with realistic search phrases ("go back just once", "switch to classic temporarily"). The new FAQ heading starts with a question word ("What"), satisfying the task-based heading requirement.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - UI element names ("Go back just once", "Switch to Classic", "profile picture", "Troubleshoot", "Switch to Expensify Classic") are correctly bolded throughout. Sentence case is maintained. One minor observation: the FAQ heading contains bold-formatted UI labels (**Go back just once**), which is technically correct per button naming standards but uncommon in headings and may affect search indexing.

Key Findings

• The internalScope addition follows the exact format prescribed by the governance template: "Audience is [who]. Covers [workflow], does not cover [exclusions]."
• Step 4 is action-oriented and follows the sequential step formatting standard. The conditional phrasing ("You may be asked to provide a reason") correctly handles a non-deterministic UI flow.
• The new FAQ entry complements the procedural step by providing a standalone explanation of the two options, which supports AI retrieval for users searching with question-based queries.
• All added content stays within the single-workflow scope of the article (switching between versions), maintaining compliance with the one-workflow-per-article rule.

Recommendations

• Consider whether the bold formatting inside the FAQ heading (## What is the difference between **Go back just once** and **Switch to Classic**?) is intentional. While it correctly identifies UI labels, removing the bold from the heading itself (keeping it in the body) may improve searchability and rendering consistency. This is a minor stylistic choice, not a governance violation.
• No blocking issues identified.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/settings/Switch-between-New-Expensify-and-Expensify-Classic.md - Well-executed additions to frontmatter, procedural steps, and FAQ section. All changes comply with governance standards.

Review based on docs/HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, and docs/TEMPLATE.md governance files.

[lydiabarclay]

I think this is a duplicate of the line below, yes?

[stephanieelliott]

Oops! Yes. Fixed!

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://a665e523.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/settings/Switch-between-New-Expensify-and-Expensify-Classic