[No QA] [Hold Web-E #51801] Uber for business - Add FAQ section on expense memos support

[trjExpensify]

Putting this on hold for the PR that adds the functionality: https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/51801

Explanation of Change

Added a quick FAQ with regards to support for importing Uber "expense memos" via the Uber for business integration.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/618786

Tests

None

Offline tests

None

QA Steps

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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • 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 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)
• 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
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• 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.
• 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.
• 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

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR adds a single FAQ entry to the Uber for Business article, documenting support for expense memos. The change is minimal (3 lines added), well-scoped, and follows the existing article's FAQ pattern. The content is clear and answers a real user question directly.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The question-and-answer format is clear, concise, and immediately useful. The single-sentence answer is easy to scan and understand.
• AI Readiness: 7/10 - The heading lacks the feature name "Uber for Business," which would improve semantic retrieval. A user searching for "Uber expense memos Expensify" may not match as strongly. Consider rephrasing to: ## Does Expensify support Uber for Business expense memos?
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - The FAQ heading follows the question-based pattern shown in TEMPLATE.md (## Does [Feature Name] work with [Integration]?). Minor note: "description field" refers to a UI element and could benefit from bold formatting per HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, though this is a soft recommendation since it is a field label rather than a button.

Key Findings

• The FAQ entry is well-placed within the existing FAQs section and follows the established pattern of the article.
• The heading omits the feature name "Uber for Business," which is recommended by HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Section 6 ("Include at least one full heading using feature name") to improve searchability and AI retrieval.
• The answer is appropriately concise and factual, which aligns with the governance principle of being "concise and actionable."
• Pre-existing items not in scope for this review: the article's YAML frontmatter is missing internalScope (required by HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Section 3), and the section header uses # FAQs (plural) rather than the template's # FAQ (singular). These are not penalized since they are not part of this diff.

Recommendations

1. Improve heading specificity: Change ## Does Expensify support expense memos? to ## Does Expensify support Uber for Business expense memos? to include the feature name and improve AI retrieval precision.
2. Consider bolding the UI field name: Change "description field" to "Description field" if "Description" matches the exact label shown in the Expensify UI, per HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md formatting requirements.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/connections/Uber-for-Business.md - 3 lines added (1 new FAQ entry). Content is clear and well-structured; minor heading specificity improvement recommended.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://934eec26.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/connections/Uber-for-Business

[stephanieelliott]

Looks like the blocking PR was deployed to prod, feel free to merge this if it's ready @trjExpensify