A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://e4bd6207.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Expense-and-Report-Actions

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes a small, targeted correction to the Expense and Report Actions article, splitting the "Change workspace" row in two reference tables to reflect that submitters can only change workspaces on Draft reports, while approvers and admins retain the ability before export. The change is accurate, well-scoped, and improves the precision of the permission documentation.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Splitting the combined row into two distinct rows improves clarity and scannability. The table structure remains consistent and the conditions ("Draft reports" vs "Before export") are easy to parse at a glance.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - No changes to metadata or headings, which is appropriate for a table-only correction. The existing article structure is preserved. No issues introduced.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - Action names are correctly bolded. The new rows correctly capitalize "Approver" in the first table (the old row had lowercase "approver"), which is an improvement. One minor observation: the first table uses "Workspace Admin" while the second table uses "Admin" for the same role. This inconsistency exists in the surrounding (unchanged) content, but the new rows perpetuate it. Consider aligning terminology across both tables in a follow-up if the product UI uses a consistent label.

Key Findings

• The permission split accurately reflects the behavioral change from PR Remove submitter from Change Workspace gate on submitted expense reports #90796 -- submitters lose "Change workspace" after submitting, while approvers and admins retain it until export.
• Both the report-level and expense-level action tables are updated consistently with each other.
• The capitalization of "Approver" was corrected in the first table's new rows, which is a positive normalization.
• The two tables use slightly different phrasing for the same condition ("Before export" vs "Before report is exported"). This is pre-existing and outside the scope of this PR, but worth noting for future cleanup.

Recommendations

• Consider standardizing role names across both tables ("Workspace Admin" vs "Admin") in a follow-up PR to avoid ambiguity for readers scanning both tables.
• No blocking issues -- this PR is ready to merge as-is.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Expense-and-Report-Actions.md - Two table rows split into four to clarify "Change workspace" permissions by role. Changes are correct and well-formatted.

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes a narrowly scoped, accurate update to two permission tables in the Expense and Report Actions article. It splits a single "Change workspace" row into two rows in each table, clarifying that submitters can only change the workspace on draft reports, while approvers and admins retain the ability to do so before export. The change is clean and well-structured.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The split rows are easy to scan and clearly differentiate the two permission cases. The table formatting is consistent with the surrounding rows.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - The article's existing YAML metadata, heading structure, and internalScope remain intact and appropriate. The table content uses clear, unambiguous language that supports retrieval.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - See the terminology note below. The changes largely follow governance conventions, with one minor inconsistency worth flagging.

Key Findings

Positive aspects:

• The permission split is clearly communicated and easy to understand at a glance.
• Table structure and formatting are consistent between both tables and match the existing pattern.
• The "What It Does" column text is preserved exactly, avoiding unnecessary rewording.

Terminology inconsistency (minor):

• In Table 1 (Report Actions), the "Who Can Use It" column uses lowercase for roles: "approver" (line 119, existing row for Hold) and the new row says "Approver, Workspace Admin" with a capital A. The existing Hold row uses lowercase "approver" while this new row capitalizes "Approver". This inconsistency exists in the original file as well, so it is not introduced by this PR, but it is worth noting.
• More relevant to this PR: Table 1 uses "Approver, Workspace Admin" while Table 2 uses "Approver, Admin". This mirrors the existing convention in each table (Table 2 consistently uses "Admin" rather than "Workspace Admin" throughout), so it is internally consistent within each table. No action needed, but the difference between tables is worth being aware of for future cleanup.

No issues found with:

• UI terminology (bold formatting on "Change workspace" is correct)
• Table structure and Markdown formatting
• Heading hierarchy (no headings were changed)
• YAML frontmatter (unchanged and compliant)

Recommendations

• No blocking changes required. The PR is ready to merge from a documentation quality perspective.
• Optional future improvement: Consider standardizing role terminology across both tables (e.g., consistently using either "Workspace Admin" or "Admin" and consistent capitalization of "approver/Approver"). This is a pre-existing issue, not introduced by this PR.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Expense-and-Report-Actions.md - Two table rows split into four to clarify submitter vs. approver/admin permissions for "Change workspace". Changes are accurate, well-formatted, and compliant with governance rules.

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 @CortneyOfstad

@CortneyOfstad 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]