[No QA] Revert "[No QA] Update Compliance-Documentation.md"

[stephanieelliott]

Reverts #73162 because it broke something: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C02QSAC6BJ8/p1761230795983089?thread_ts=1761073359.814219&cid=C02QSAC6BJ8

[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 @CortneyOfstad

[melvin-bot]

@stitesExpensify @CortneyOfstad One of you needs to 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]

NOTE: It looks like docs/redirects.csv was modified in this PR. Please see this SO for special instructions on how to review changes to that file.

[github-actions]

Date inconsistency: The bridge letter is labeled as "June 2025" but this conflicts with "Today's date: 2025-10-23" in the environment. The date appears to be in the future relative to other documents from 2024. Verify the correct date and ensure consistency with actual document dates.

[github-actions]

Date consistency issue: Both SOC reports are dated "September 30, 2024" while the bridge letter above is dated "June 2025". This creates timeline confusion. Bridge letters typically cover periods after the last audit date, so ensure the chronological order makes sense.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR reverts changes made in #73162 that updated the Bridge Letter link in the Compliance Documentation from a Google Drive link back to an S3 AWS link. The revert appears to be a necessary rollback due to a reported issue in the Slack thread referenced in the PR description.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - The documentation maintains clear, professional language appropriate for compliance documentation
• AI Readiness: 7/10 - Good metadata structure and clear headings, though some context could be enhanced
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - Excellent adherence to Expensify documentation standards

Key Findings

Positive Aspects:

• Clean, well-structured YAML frontmatter with appropriate keywords and description
• Professional tone suitable for compliance documentation audience
• Logical organization with clear sections (reports, legal resources, FAQ)
• Proper use of markdown formatting and consistent heading hierarchy
• Helpful contextual information (bridge letter explanation in FAQ)

Areas Requiring Attention:

• The revert suggests there was an issue with the Google Drive link that necessitated returning to the AWS S3 hosting
• The redirect entry removal indicates the Google Drive link may have caused accessibility or functionality problems
• Link reliability and accessibility should be verified before future updates

Technical Accuracy Assessment

• The reverted change appears technically sound as a rollback measure
• Original S3 AWS links are properly formatted and follow established patterns
• Document titles and dates are consistent and accurate
• All legal resource links point to official Expensify domains

Recommendations

1. Investigate Root Cause: Before attempting similar updates in the future, ensure Google Drive links have proper public access permissions and won't break existing workflows
2. Link Testing: Implement thorough link validation testing, especially for compliance documents that may be accessed by external auditors
3. Staging Validation: Test link changes in staging environment with various user permissions before production deployment
4. Documentation Consistency: Consider standardizing document hosting (all S3 vs mixed platforms) for easier maintenance

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/Unlisted/Compliance-Documentation.md: ✅ Well-structured compliance documentation with appropriate revert
• docs/redirects.csv: ✅ Properly cleaned up redirect entry that was causing issues

Summary: This revert PR is necessary and well-executed. The original documentation quality remains high, and the rollback addresses a functional issue. Future updates should include more thorough access testing for external document links.

Note: This assessment focuses on the documentation quality and structure. The revert appears justified based on the reported Slack thread issue.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://59ee8874.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/Unlisted/Compliance-Documentation

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Looks good!

[joekaufmanexpensify]

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
  • MacOS: Desktop
• 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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • 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)
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• 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)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• 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.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• 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.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/joekaufmanexpensify in version: 9.2.38-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.2.38-5 🚀

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