[No QA] Updates to ECUK setup docs for formatting and instructions

[stephanieelliott]

Explanation of Change

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 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 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

[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 @bfitzexpensify

[melvin-bot]

@mjasikowski @bfitzexpensify 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.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 0f60a8c82e

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Point PIN instructions at an existing article

When UK/EU cardholders follow this new PIN-management link, it will 404 because the commit removes the inline PIN FAQ but does not add docs/articles/new-expensify/expensify-card/Manage-Your-Expensify-Card-PIN.md or a redirect for that slug; a repo-wide file search only finds this reference and an unrelated chat pin article. Either add the target article/redirect or keep the PIN steps in this page.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[stephanieelliott]

PIN article is being published at the same time: #89154 (

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment
This PR reformats the ECUK/EU Expensify Card setup article, renames the US article (Set-Up-and-Manage-the-Expensify-Card.md to -US.md) with an accompanying redirect, and tightens setup instructions. The changes are a net structural and readability improvement: bold pseudo-headings are replaced with proper task-based section headings, PIN content is extracted to a dedicated cross-linked article, and steps are clearer and better sequenced. A few consistency issues remain in navigation phrasing, audience scope, and terminology casing.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Steps are sequential, action-oriented, and easier to scan. Consolidating PIN instructions and clarifying the FX explanation improves flow. Minor: a curly apostrophe appears in the FX answer.
• AI Readiness: 8/10 - Strong gains: bold pseudo-headings were converted to real task-based section headings using the full feature name, and the structure now respects the single top-level heading rule. internalScope is present but its audience still says Workspace Admins only, while the new How to activate a physical Expensify Card section is a Member flow, so the metadata should reflect both roles.
• Style Compliance: 7/10 - Headings, button bolding, and UI labels are largely exact. Remaining issues: inconsistent navigation phrasing (canonical form is on the left on web, on the bottom on mobile, but several changed steps use on the left on web, and at the bottom on mobile), and inconsistent placeholder casing (workspace name vs Workspace Name).

Key Findings

• Positive: Removed non-compliant bold pseudo-headings and introduced task-based section headings (How to issue an Expensify Card to a member, How to activate a physical Expensify Card) that start with an action or question word and include the feature name.
• Positive: PIN management was moved to a dedicated article and cross-linked with descriptive anchor text, aligning with the one-workflow-per-article and cross-linking standards.
• Positive: Blockquote note and important callouts converted to standard inline bold notes; enable and issue steps now match the actual UI flow (Issue new card, select settlement account, Concierge).
• Attention: The article now mixes an Admin setup flow with a Member card-activation flow. This is arguably inseparable here, but internalScope and keywords should be updated to reflect the Member audience for the activation section.
• Attention: Navigation phrasing is not uniform across the changed steps; standardize on on the left on web, on the bottom on mobile.
• Attention: Placeholder and terminology casing drift, workspace name (new) vs Workspace Name (retained in the issue-card step), and keyword Smart Limit vs UI Smart limit.

Recommendations

• Update internalScope (and consider keywords) to include the Member audience for physical card activation, or explicitly note that activation is a Member action.
• Normalize all navigation instructions to the canonical unified form: In the navigation tabs (on the left on web, on the bottom on mobile).
• Standardize the workspace placeholder casing to workspace name throughout, and align keyword casing with UI labels.
• Replace the curly apostrophe in the FX answer with a straight apostrophe.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/expensify-card/Set-Up-and-Manage-the-Expensify-Card-UK-EU.md - Substantive structural and instructional improvements; minor scope, phrasing, casing fixes needed.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/expensify-card/Set-Up-and-Manage-the-Expensify-Card-US.md - Rename plus clearer, US-scoped title and description; compliant.
• docs/redirects.csv - Correct redirect added for the renamed US article; compliant.

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

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://ce5510e8.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/expensify-card/Set-Up-and-Manage-the-Expensify-Card-UK-EU
• articles/new-expensify/expensify-card/Set-Up-and-Manage-the-Expensify-Card-US

[rafecolton]

Approving in case we need to merge and do a follow-up, but I do spot some minor issues

[rafecolton]

Minor NAB

Suggested change

	Concierge reviews your request and contacts you if any additional information is needed. Approval typically takes one to two business days. Once your workspace is approved, you can begin issuing Expensify Cards.
	Concierge will review your request and contact you if any additional information is needed. Approval typically takes one to two business days. Once your workspace is approved, you can begin issuing Expensify Cards.

We should probably set some expectations about Trulioo and KYB, right? That can be quick if all the info is there, but I'm not sure it will always be 1-2 business days.

[rafecolton]

NAB virtual cards are not received per se

Suggested change

	3. Select the member who will receive the card.
	3. Select the member who will be assigned the card.

[rafecolton]

It would be good for that article to talk about pin unblock, but as of this moment, it does not mention it anywhere user-facing

Suggested change

	For details on how to set, view, change, or unblock an Expensify Card's PIN, see [Manage Your Expensify Card PIN (GBP/EUR Cards Only)](/articles/new-expensify/expensify-card/Manage-Your-Expensify-Card-PIN).
	For details on how to set, view, or change an Expensify Card's PIN, see [Manage Your Expensify Card PIN (GBP/EUR Cards Only)](/articles/new-expensify/expensify-card/Manage-Your-Expensify-Card-PIN).