[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#88831 Update fraud report docs for admin-frozen cards

[MelvinBot]

Summary

• Updates Disputing-Expensify-Card-Transactions.md to reflect the new behavior from fix: Frozen card cannot be replaced, but confirmation page show success description  #88831
• When reporting fraud on a card frozen by a workspace admin, the card is permanently deactivated without automatic replacement — the user must contact their admin for a new card
• Adds a Note after the fraud reporting steps clarifying both scenarios (self-frozen vs admin-frozen)
• Adds a new FAQ entry: "What happens when I report fraud on a card frozen by my admin?"

Test plan

• Verify the updated article renders correctly on the help site
• Confirm the Note accurately describes the two fraud report outcomes
• Confirm the new FAQ entry is clear and actionable

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes two targeted improvements to the Expensify Card fraud dispute article: (1) it corrects step 5 to remove the blanket claim that a replacement card is always issued, and (2) it adds an FAQ entry addressing the specific scenario of reporting fraud on an admin-frozen card. Both changes add clarity for users who may encounter different outcomes depending on who froze the card.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - The changes are clear and scannable. The Note under step 5 efficiently distinguishes the two scenarios (self-frozen vs. admin-frozen). The new FAQ answer is concise and direct.
• AI Readiness: 8/10 - The new FAQ heading ("What happens when I report fraud on a card frozen by my admin?") is question-based, searchable, and contains relevant feature context. No YAML metadata updates are needed for this scope of change.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - UI terminology is used consistently. Bold formatting on Note: follows conventions. One minor inconsistency noted below.

Key Findings

• Positive: The separation of behavior based on who froze the card (user vs. admin) directly addresses a real user pain point and prevents confusion. The FAQ entry reinforces this with a dedicated, searchable question.
• Positive: The new FAQ heading complies with governance rules -- it starts with a question word ("What") and is task-based.
• Minor inconsistency: The Note in step 5 says "contact your admin" while the FAQ answer says "contact your workspace admin." The term "workspace admin" is more precise and matches Expensify terminology conventions. The Note should use "workspace admin" for consistency.
• Observation: The existing article has several pre-existing governance issues (e.g., # Types of Disputable Transactions and # Steps to Report Fraudulent Transaction Activity are not task-based headings, and multiple # headings are used beyond the title and FAQ), but these are outside the scope of this PR's changes and are not factored into the scores above.

Recommendations

1. Update the Note text to use "workspace admin" instead of "admin" for consistency with the FAQ answer and Expensify terminology conventions. Suggested revision: "...without a replacement -- contact your workspace admin to issue a new card."
2. Consider whether the em dash ("--") in "permanently deactivated without a replacement -- contact your admin" could be replaced with a period for improved scannability: "...the card is permanently deactivated without a replacement. Contact your workspace admin to issue a new card."

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/expensify-card/Disputing-Expensify-Card-Transactions.md - Two changes reviewed: step 5 clarification with conditional Note, and new FAQ entry. Both are well-constructed with minor terminology consistency improvement recommended.

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

[stephanieelliott]

Oops, I committed on this so I can't merge - adding in another reviewer!

[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]

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes two targeted changes to the Expensify Card dispute article: (1) clarifying step 5 of the fraud reporting flow to remove the "request a replacement" language and add a Note explaining frozen-card behavior, and (2) adding a new FAQ entry about reporting fraud on an admin-frozen card. Both changes are focused, accurate, and well-scoped.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The revised step 5 is cleaner and more accurate. The Note paragraph is clear and distinguishes between two scenarios (self-frozen vs. admin-frozen) with concrete next actions. The new FAQ answer is direct and actionable.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The new FAQ heading uses a proper question-word format ("What happens when..."), includes the feature name ("fraud," "card," "workspace admin"), and is phrased as a realistic search query. Metadata and heading hierarchy are unchanged and remain compliant.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - Terminology is consistent with existing conventions in the article. "Workspace admin" matches Expensify naming. The Note format is clear, though see minor suggestion below.

Key Findings

• The revised step 5 correctly removes a claim ("request a replacement") that is no longer universally true, which improves accuracy.
• The Note after step 5 effectively covers both frozen-card scenarios in a single, scannable paragraph.
• The new FAQ heading ("What happens when I report fraud on a card frozen by my workspace admin?") follows governance rules: starts with a question word, is task/outcome-based, includes feature-specific terms, and is searchable.
• The FAQ answer is concise and ends with a clear call to action (contact your workspace admin).
• Minor observation: The Note content and the new FAQ entry cover overlapping information (admin-frozen card behavior). This is acceptable since the Note appears in procedural context and the FAQ serves standalone search retrieval, but authors should be aware of the duplication to keep both in sync if behavior changes.

Recommendations

• Consider whether "workspace admin" should be bolded on first use in the Note, since it refers to a specific role in the Expensify UI. The governance files require bolding for clickable UI elements and buttons; role names are not strictly required to be bolded, so current usage is acceptable.
• No blocking issues identified. This PR is ready to merge from a documentation quality perspective.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/expensify-card/Disputing-Expensify-Card-Transactions.md — Two additions reviewed: updated step 5 with Note, and new FAQ entry. Both changes are compliant with governance standards.

Review performed against docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, docs/HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, and docs/TEMPLATE.md.

[johncschuster]

LGTM!

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://21365e76.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/expensify-card/Disputing-Expensify-Card-Transactions

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes two targeted changes to the Expensify Card dispute article: (1) refining step 5 of the fraud reporting flow to remove inaccurate replacement language and adding a contextual note about frozen-card behavior, and (2) adding a new FAQ entry explaining what happens when reporting fraud on an admin-frozen card. Both changes are well-scoped, accurate, and improve the article's clarity for users in different card-freeze scenarios.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The modified step is concise and the added Note clearly distinguishes the two frozen-card scenarios (self-frozen vs. admin-frozen) with actionable guidance. The new FAQ answer is direct and easy to scan.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The new FAQ heading ("What happens when I report fraud on a card frozen by my workspace admin?") is question-based, feature-specific, and uses natural search language. It follows the required heading format (## under # FAQ). No issues with heading hierarchy in the changed content.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - UI element Report card fraud remains correctly bolded and matches prior usage. Terminology ("workspace admin," "Expensify Card") is consistent throughout the article. The Note format is clear and appropriate.

Key Findings

• The step 5 revision correctly removes the "and request a replacement" language, which was inaccurate for the admin-frozen scenario. This is a meaningful accuracy improvement.
• The added Note paragraph efficiently conveys two distinct outcomes in a single, scannable block using an em-dash to separate the admin-frozen case.
• The new FAQ entry complements the Note without being redundant -- the FAQ provides slightly more detail (mentioning the confirmation message) while the Note serves as an inline reference during the step flow.
• Minor observation: The Note uses "workspace admin" (lowercase) consistently, which aligns with the rest of the article. If the product UI capitalizes this term differently, it should be verified against the UI.

Recommendations

• Consider whether the phrase "a new virtual card is automatically issued" in the Note should specify where the user can find or activate the new virtual card, to make the guidance fully self-contained.
• No blockers identified. The changes are ready to merge from a documentation quality standpoint.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/expensify-card/Disputing-Expensify-Card-Transactions.md -- Two clean, well-structured additions that improve accuracy and user guidance for frozen-card dispute scenarios.

---

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/johncschuster in version: 9.3.99-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/lakchote in version: 9.3.99-9 🚀

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