[No QA] docs: Update Help menu description for in-product Help page

[MelvinBot]

Summary

• Updates the Help menu item description in the Navigating New Expensify article to reflect the change introduced in feat: Created in-product Help landing page and updated Settings navigation #86187
• Help in Settings now navigates to an in-product Help landing page instead of directly opening the external help site
• Changed description from "browse Expensify's help site" to "access help and support resources, including a link to the help site"

Test plan

• Verify the updated description in docs/articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Navigating-New-Expensify.md accurately reflects the new Help page behavior
• Confirm the article renders correctly on the help site

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes a single, focused change to one bullet point in the Navigating New Expensify article. It updates the description of the Help menu item under the Account tab to reflect a product change (#86187): Help in Settings now navigates to an in-product Help landing page rather than directly opening the external help site. The scope of the change is minimal and the intent is sound -- documentation should stay in sync with product behavior.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - The updated text is grammatically correct and reads naturally within the surrounding bullet list. It is slightly wordier than the original, but remains scannable and understandable.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - This change does not affect headings, YAML metadata, or article structure. The updated description includes the phrase help and support resources, which is semantically meaningful for retrieval. No negative impact on AI readiness.
• Style Compliance: 7/10 - Help is correctly bolded, matching the pattern used for all other menu items in the list. However, the phrase help and support resources is somewhat generic and does not reference exact UI labels or specific content available on the in-product Help page. Per HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, documentation should use the exact text shown in the product UI and not generalize UI elements. Per HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, authors should use UI-exact labels and avoid vague wording. If the in-product Help page displays specific sections or labels, the description would be stronger if it referenced those exact elements. Additionally, the word link is an implementation detail -- consider phrasing like including access to the help site or describing what the user can actually do from that page.

Key Findings

• Positive: The change correctly keeps documentation aligned with a shipped product change. The boldface formatting on Help is consistent with surrounding items, and the structure of the bullet point matches the established pattern in this section.
• Minor concern: The phrase help and support resources is vague by the standards of HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md. If the in-product Help page has identifiable sections or labels, referencing them explicitly would improve precision and comply more closely with governance rules.
• Minor concern: The word link in including a link to the help site describes a UI mechanism rather than a user outcome. A phrasing like including access to the help site would be more action-oriented and consistent with the documentation user-focused tone.
• Pre-existing context (not scored): The article uses multiple # headings (e.g., Where to find navigation tabs, What the Home tab is used for), which violates the exactly one # heading rule in HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Section 4. This is not introduced by this PR and is not reflected in the scores above.

Recommendations

1. Consider more specific language: If the in-product Help page has named sections or specific features visible to the user (e.g., a search bar, FAQ categories, contact options), consider referencing those by name rather than using the general phrase help and support resources.
2. Replace a link to with user-outcome phrasing: Instead of including a link to the help site, consider including access to the help site or browse the help site to keep the focus on what the user can accomplish rather than the UI mechanism.
3. Suggested alternative phrasing: - Help to access the Help page, where you can browse the help site and find support resources -- this names the destination explicitly and keeps the description action-oriented. Adjust based on what the actual in-product page shows.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Navigating-New-Expensify.md -- Single line updated (line 101). Change is accurate in intent and correctly formatted. Minor style refinements recommended per governance rules.

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

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://c2ac24af.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/getting-started/Navigating-New-Expensify

[MelvinBot]

The failing review check is unrelated to this PR's changes.

Analysis: The review check runs a Claude Code docs review bot (Run Claude Code (docs)) that tried to post a review comment on this PR but was denied permission (gh pr comment was rejected 4 times by the tool permission system). After exhausting its attempts, the Claude Code process exited with code 1, causing the check to fail.

Evidence:

• The failure logs show permission_denials for the Bash tool with gh pr comment commands — the review bot generated its review but couldn't post it
• The error is SDK execution error: Error: Claude Code process exited with code 1 — a crash in the CI action itself, not a content issue
• All content-related checks pass: build, spellcheck, verify, dryRun, verifySignedCommits, CLA

This is a CI infrastructure issue with the anthropics/claude-code-action docs review workflow's tool permissions configuration — not something fixable from this PR's branch. Re-running the check may produce the same result until the action's permission config is updated.

[Pujan92]

Looks good to me.

[melvin-bot]

@stephanieelliott looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/stephanieelliott in version: 9.3.55-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS