[No QA] Update approval types and backup approver details

[Christinadobrzyn]

Explanation of Change

• Clarified the role of designated approvers and default approvers in the approval process.
• Related Slack convo - https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C08FETQ0UKE/p1782161828609669?thread_ts=1780939034.263089&cid=C08FETQ0UKE
• Solutions changes the Default Approver and the Designated Approver roles - so updating this article to reflect these changes.

Fixed Issues

$
PROPOSAL:

Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover 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 tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (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 followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• 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 new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• 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.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[Christinadobrzyn]

@strepanier03 - Let's hold on to this for a moment. I've asked Tides.org to test these changes on their side (I've already tested and they work). I just want to make sure they see the same before we deploy these changes.

I'll follow up when we can continue this update.

[github-actions]

UI referencing violation: Do not wrap UI labels in quotation marks (HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md — Core UI Referencing Rules / Button Naming). Bold the exact UI label instead of quoting it. Also, the bold label should be the exact UI element name only — it currently merges the Designated Approver option with a separate setting into one bold phrase. Reference the toggle/checkbox label on its own, e.g. enable Add employee's manager to cc.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://6d2d2324.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/travel/travel-policy/Setting-Approval-Types-and-Adding-Members

[github-actions]

Readability: The sentence after the colon begins lowercase ("an approval email..."). Start with a capital letter for consistency and scannability (HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md — Step Formatting / clear, action-oriented).

[github-actions]

Terminology violation: Use "member" instead of "employee"/"workspace employee" to match Expensify standards (HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md — exact UI terminology). For example: "If a workspace member doesn't have an approver...".

[github-actions]

Formatting: Remove the trailing whitespace at the end of this line (pre-publish cleanliness).

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment
This PR makes a small, targeted edit to docs/articles/travel/travel-policy/Setting-Approval-Types-and-Adding-Members.md, clarifying the Approver Type and Default Approvers behavior in the General tab settings of an Expensify Travel policy. Two lines are added/modified: a new sub-bullet describing the Add employee's manager to cc option, and an expanded explanation of how Default Approvers are used. The additions improve substantive accuracy, but introduce a UI-referencing style violation and minor formatting issues.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 7/10 - The new explanations are clear and add helpful detail, but the new sub-bullet is a long run-on combining a UI selection label with a behavior description, reducing scannability. There is also trailing whitespace at the end of the Default Approvers line.
• AI Readiness: 8/10 - Content sits under existing task-based ## headings with good feature naming, and the added detail strengthens retrieval for queries about default approvers and cc-ing managers. The article already has compliant YAML metadata including internalScope. No new headings were introduced, so hierarchy is unaffected.
• Style Compliance: 5/10 - The added sub-bullet wraps the UI label in quotation marks (Add employee's manager to cc), violating the Core UI Referencing Rules and Toggle/Button Naming Standards in HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, which require UI labels to be bolded and never wrapped in quotation marks.

Key Findings

• The new sub-bullet mixes two ideas (an approver type variant plus a toggle/checkbox label) into a single bolded lead-in and quotes the UI label. Per the naming conventions, the UI element should be bolded (e.g., Add employee's manager to cc) and not quoted.
• The revised Default Approvers line is a genuine accuracy improvement, clarifying that a Default Approver is required when Manager Approval is selected and explaining who receives the email when an employee has no workspace approver.
• Minor formatting: trailing whitespace at the end of the Default Approvers line should be removed.
• Positive: changes stay within a single workflow, reuse existing task-based headings, and add real-world clarification that matches likely search intent.

Recommendations

• Remove the quotation marks around the UI label and bold it instead, per HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md UI referencing rules.
• Restructure the new sub-bullet so the UI selection and resulting behavior read more cleanly (lead with the bolded UI label, then describe what happens).
• Strip the trailing whitespace on the Default Approvers line.
• Verify the exact UI capitalization of the label against the product UI so it matches verbatim.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/travel/travel-policy/Setting-Approval-Types-and-Adding-Members.md - Accurate, helpful content additions; needs UI-label quoting fixed and trailing-space cleanup.

Note: Detailed line-by-line feedback has been provided as inline comments.

[Christinadobrzyn]

Hi @strepanier03! Tides confirmed the approval emails worked. We can move forward with these updates to the help article. Please let me know if you have any questions about my suggestions! Thanks for reviewing!