[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Help site follow-up to #99681, which changed the delete-workspace confirmation modal title from the generic "Delete workspace" to Delete [workspace name]?.

docs/articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Delete-a-Workspace.md was the only help site article that documents this flow, and its steps no longer matched the UI:

• Step 1 sent you into the workspace, then step 2 asked for a row menu that isn't there. Step 1 said to go to Workspaces > [workspace name], but the three dots (⋮) menu described in step 2 only exists on the rows of the Workspaces list. Step 1 now stops at Workspaces.
• The confirmation step was vague. "Confirm that you want to delete the Workspace" is now the actual UI: the Delete [workspace name]? window and its Delete button.
• The second entry point was missing. You can also delete from inside a workspace via More > Delete, which opens the same confirmation window. That path is now documented.

Every label was verified against dev NewDot on web rather than assumed. The row menu item reads Delete workspace, the in-workspace menu item reads Delete, and both open the same window:

The leave-workspace half of #99681 needs no help site change — no article under docs/articles documents leaving a workspace or quotes the Leave button copy.

Written against docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md (bold UI labels in Sentence case, the required three dots (⋮) phrasing, unified web/mobile navigation sentence), docs/HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, and docs/TEMPLATE.md. The article's headings, metadata, and structure already complied and were left alone.

Fixed Issues

$ #99561
PROPOSAL:

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review"
// Please describe what tests you performed that validates your changed worked.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — help site content only, no app code changes.

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate your changes and what areas do they need to test for regressions.

• 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

---

@stitesExpensify, please review the files changed and confirm they reflect the current behavior. Then post a new comment saying @MelvinBot mark this PR as ready for review.

[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 @jliexpensify

[melvin-bot]

@linhvovan29546 @jliexpensify 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]

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-04T19:40:03.469809Z	4e805ea	Draft marked ready

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[github-actions]

Vague navigation phrasing: "Open the workspace" is a prohibited vague navigation phrase (HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md — Prohibited Language). Replace with an explicit navigation instruction using the exact UI label, e.g. reference the exact tab/step the member takes to enter the workspace. Also confirm More is the exact UI label; if the control is a three dots menu, use the required format: Select the three dots (⋮).

[jliexpensify]

Should this be "Click on the Workspace" instead?

[stitesExpensify]

Maybe "select"? I don't think we can say "click" because of mobile. I personally think that "open" also makes sense though, your call!

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes a focused, high-quality refinement to the "How to delete a workspace" procedure in Delete-a-Workspace.md. It tightens navigation wording, replaces a vague confirmation step with an explicit UI-exact action, and adds a helpful alternate path for deleting a workspace from within it. Small in scope but a clear improvement to clarity, determinism, and AI retrieval.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Steps are sequential, action-oriented, and scannable. The added alternate-path paragraph is concise and well placed after the numbered steps.
• AI Readiness: 8/10 - Steps use UI-exact labels and describe explicit actions and windows, improving semantic retrieval. No heading or metadata changes were introduced in the diff.
• Style Compliance: 7/10 - Strong alignment with Button Naming and Three Dots Menu rules. Gaps: inconsistent action verbs (click vs select) and lowercase "workspace" where the product term "Workspace" is expected.

Key Findings

• Positive: Step 4 now follows the Deterministic Writing Rule and Prohibited Language guidance. The old vague "Confirm that you want to delete the Workspace" was replaced with the UI-exact "In the Delete [workspace name]? window, click Delete".
• Positive: The three dots reference is correctly formatted with the bolded symbol in parentheses, matching the Three Dots Menu Rule.
• Positive: The new alternate path ("select More, then choose Delete") bolds button names correctly and reinforces the single workflow without scope creep.
• Improvement: Verb usage is inconsistent, mixing Select, Choose, and click. Per the Button Naming examples, standardize on one action verb (Select).
• Improvement: New lines use lowercase "workspace"; align capitalization with the product term "Workspace" for terminology consistency.

Recommendations

• Standardize the action verb across the numbered steps (prefer Select over click or choose).
• Capitalize "Workspace" consistently in the newly added sentences.
• Optional: confirm the in-product label is exactly More so the alternate path matches the live UI.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Delete-a-Workspace.md - Approved with minor terminology and verb-consistency suggestions.

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

[jliexpensify]

LGTM, but left one comment on wording.

[jliexpensify]

Should this be "Click on the Workspace" instead?

[mvtglobally]

@stitesExpensify @stephanieelliott @jliexpensify Anything specific to QA in this PR?

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/stephanieelliott in version: 9.4.81-0 🚀

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

[stephanieelliott]

Oops! No @mvtglobally -- just marked as No QA!

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.4.81-1 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.4.81-1 🚀

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