[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Help site follow-up for Only arm deferred VBBA navigation when a bank account request was started.

That PR makes the new-Chase Plaid path stay on the bank information step and show the manual account/routing form, instead of pushing the user to Personal Information with no bank account. The help site never described that behavior, so a user who logs into Chase while adding a US business bank account has no article explaining why they are suddenly asked to type in their account and routing numbers.

This adds that to Connect a US Business Bank Account:

• A new How to connect a Chase business bank account section covering the login flow, the switch to the Manually add your bank account form, and the Connect manually alternative.
• An FAQ entry explaining why Chase asks for the account number and routing number, and that reconnecting an already-added Chase account does not.
• Chase, account number, routing number, and connect manually added to the article keywords.

UI labels used in the article were checked against the current App: Add bank account, Log into your bank, Connect manually, Manually add your bank account, Account number, Routing number.

No other help site article documents the Plaid bank-connection flow for US business bank accounts, so no other file needed changes.

Fixed Issues

$ #101128

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.

Docs-only change. Review the rendered article and confirm the Chase steps match current App behavior.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — help site content only.

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

---

@mkhutornyi, 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.

[mkhutornyi]

@MelvinBot mark this PR as ready for review

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Done — this PR is now marked Ready for review.

One thing left for you: the Tests and QA Steps sections still have the // TODO: **The human co-author** must fill out... placeholders and unchecked author-checklist boxes. I don't fill those in on your behalf, so please complete them so reviewers have real steps to follow.

---

view run

[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 @Kel-Expensify

[melvin-bot]

@mkhutornyi @Kel-Expensify 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]

[github-actions]

Navigation instruction consistency: The rest of this article gives explicit navigation for Add bank account (e.g., "In the navigation tabs (on the left on web, on the bottom on mobile), click Account > Wallet"), but this section only says "Start from Add bank account in Wallet or in a Workspace." Per HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md (Navigation Instruction Standards), give the exact path or cross-reference the two existing sections above so readers know how to reach Add bank account on web and mobile.

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment
This PR adds Chase-specific guidance to the existing Connect a US Business Bank Account article. It introduces a new task section (How to connect a Chase business bank account), a matching FAQ entry, and four new keywords (Chase, account number, routing number, connect manually). The addition addresses a real, well-scoped user pain point (Chase returning substitute account/routing numbers) and is written clearly and consistent with the existing article structure.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 8/10 - Clear, concise, scannable. Minor casual phrasing (entered by hand) and one step that describes system behavior rather than a user action slightly reduce the score.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - Both new headings are task/question-based with full feature naming, use only second-level headings under the single title (FAQ entry correctly under the FAQ heading), and new keywords reflect realistic search intent. internalScope still covers this workflow.
• Style Compliance: 8/10 - UI labels are consistently bolded (Add bank account, Log into your bank, Connect manually, Account number, Routing number). Verify one label: the new section references Manually add your bank account while the rest of the article uses Connect manually.

Key Findings

• Positive: New section and FAQ headings follow task-based heading rules and are highly searchable.
• Positive: Correct heading hierarchy (only top-level and second-level), correct FAQ placement, no prohibited vague navigation phrases.
• Positive: Scope is tight - a genuine sub-variant of the connect-bank-account workflow, not a multi-feature mix.
• To verify: Manually add your bank account vs Connect manually - ensure the exact UI label is used consistently, or clarify if they are two distinct UI elements.
• Minor: The step 'Expensify returns you to the bank information step and shows the form' describes system state inside a numbered action list; consider rephrasing as an action-oriented cue.
• Minor: 'has to be entered by hand' is slightly casual; consider 'must be entered manually.'

Recommendations

• Priority: Confirm Manually add your bank account matches the product UI exactly and reconcile with Connect manually usage.
• Suggestion: Reword the system-state step so each numbered item is a user action.
• Suggestion: Consider a brief note on where the account/routing numbers can be found to further reduce support questions.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/wallet-and-payments/Connect-a-Business-Bank-Account.md - Approve with minor changes.

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

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 010ae4c696

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]

Include the required Wallet setup screens

When a reader starts this procedure from Wallet, Add bank account does not lead directly to Log into your bank: the app first requires selecting Make payments and then choosing the bank's country, as the Wallet procedure above also documents. The new standalone Chase procedure therefore leaves Wallet users unable to follow step 1; include those two screens or explicitly direct Wallet users to complete the preceding Wallet steps first.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[Kel-Expensify]

@stephanieelliott where is the preview of the changes?

[stephanieelliott]

@MelvinBot run Deploy ExpensifyHelp / build

[MelvinBot]

🤖 I can't trigger that workflow — my GitHub token has no Actions: write permission, so both POST /actions/runs/.../rerun and workflow_dispatch come back 403 Resource not accessible by personal access token.

Why the check is missing: the Deploy ExpensifyHelp run for this PR (run 35039585366) was cancelled while still queued — no job ever started. The workflow uses a single global concurrency: group: 'pages', so with several docs PRs queued at once this one got dropped. Five other docs branches got cancelled in the same window.

To run it, open run 35039585366 and click Re-run all jobs, or push any commit to claude-docsChaseBankAccountManualEntry to fire a fresh synchronize event.

Two side effects of that job never running, for what it's worth:

• The PR title is missing the [No QA] prefix that the job adds for articles-only changes.
• No ExpensifyHelp preview comment was posted.

I did not push an empty commit to re-trigger it, since I only make code changes on this PR when directed by its author or assignee (mkhutornyi here). If you'd like me to push a no-op commit instead, just say so and I'll do it.

---

view run

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://1fffac51.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/wallet-and-payments/Connect-a-Business-Bank-Account

[stephanieelliott]

@MelvinBot please complete the task again, but referencing the files under App/docs/articles. on the branch claude-fixCardConnectionIssuesDocs`. Specifically:

1. Confirm if the changes made in the original PR impact the docs under https://github.com/Expensify/App/tree/claude-fixCardConnectionIssuesDocs/docs/articles
2. If yes, push the changes directly to claude-fixCardConnectionIssuesDocs

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No — nothing on claude-fixCardConnectionIssuesDocs needs to change, so I pushed nothing.

Read the picked file name from the URI when the native picker returns no metadata is a pure iOS bug fix. It touches three files only — src/components/FilePicker/index.native.tsx, src/libs/fileDownload/FileUtils.ts:162-176, and a unit test. It changes no supported file type, no flow step, and no user-facing copy.

The relevant article, Import-Personal-Card-Transactions-From-a-Spreadsheet.md on that branch, already documents the correct behavior: .OFX and .QFX are listed as accepted formats, the steps say the flow works on web and mobile, and the FAQ already explains there's no column-mapping step for statement files. That's exactly what PR 101356 makes iOS actually do — before the fix, picking an .ofx/.qfx file on a physical iOS device hit the "Invalid file type" modal. The docs described the intent; the fix brought the app in line with them.

What I checked

• Full diff of PR 101356 — no change to src/CONST, no change to the allowed-extensions list used by ImportSpreadsheet.validateFile, no string/copy changes.
• Grepped all of docs/articles on claude-fixCardConnectionIssuesDocs (head 1268db2) for ofx, qfx, qbo, invalid file, file type, file format, spreadsheet, csv, xls. No article states a platform limitation, a mobile-only caveat, or a workaround that the fix would make stale.
• The two spreadsheet-import articles on the branch and the three fix-card-connection-issues/ articles — none describe file-picker or file-naming behavior.

A bug fix that restores already-documented behavior doesn't need a docs update. Adding one would mean documenting a bug that no longer exists.

Push access wasn't the blocker — I'm author and assignee on [No QA] [Docs] Fix card connection issues: reauthenticate vs. broken connection troubleshooting and you're an assignee, so I would have committed had there been a change to make. There just isn't one.

---

view run