[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Help site follow-up to Align workspace selector logic (Expensify/App#101430), which changed which workspace a new report is created on:

• A domain security group with Preferred Workspace turned on now takes precedence over the member's own default workspace, and the workspace list is skipped entirely.
• The Create report flow now considers every eligible workspace, so a default workspace beyond the first two no longer sends the member to the workspace list.

The help site only said "Reports are opened on your default workspace", which did not explain the Preferred Workspace override or when members are asked to Choose a workspace for this report.

Changes:

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Create-and-Submit-Reports.md — spelled out the workspace a new report opens on, added the Preferred Workspace override, added the case where the member is asked to choose, and added two FAQ entries (which workspace a report opens on, and how to set a default workspace so the list stops appearing). Added matching keywords.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/domains/Create-and-Manage-Domain-Groups.md — noted in What Preferred Workspace does that the preferred workspace beats the member's own default workspace and that members are not asked to choose, plus an FAQ entry covering the same for Create report.

UI labels were verified against src/languages/en.ts (Create report, "Choose a workspace for this report.", Set as default workspace, Preferred Workspace) rather than in a browser — browser verification was unavailable in this run.

Not covered here: the edge case where the preferred workspace owner is past due beyond the grace period and the restricted-action page opens instead. Say the word if you want that documented too.

Fixed Issues

$
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 — documentation only.

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."
// 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

---

@jmusial, 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.

[roryabraham]

@trjExpensify can you help review this docs change, and either make the changes that are needed or instruct Melvin on the changes you recommend?

[jmusial]

Note: #101988 got reverted and I have some questions about the expected behaviour (here), nothing changed for now, and this should hold until full solution lands.

[stephanieelliott]

Seeing the parent PR was reverted, we can close this -- a new docs update will be created once the replacement PR hits staging.