[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Reorganize the Search Filters page into clearer sections and add a filter search moved Paid by on the Expense Report type so it now sits directly below Paid and above Paid status. This made one sentence in Using Reports in New Expensify wrong.

Incorrect sentence:

On the Expense Report type, this sits directly below Paid status. On the Expense type, it sits directly below Paid.

Updated sentence:

On both the Expense and Expense Report types, this sits directly below Paid.

I checked the new order in the live web UI:

@Krishna2323, 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.

Fixed Issues

$ #104330
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

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 verified any copy / text that was added to the app 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 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 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 the PR adds or modifies the UI:
  • I asked an AI agent to review the changes for accessibility issues and addressed its findings.
  • I tested with a screen reader (VoiceOver on macOS) and verified all new/changed elements are reachable with a logical focus order.
  • I verified all new/changed elements have meaningful accessible names and roles.
  • I verified state changes are announced (e.g. checked/unchecked, expanded/collapsed, selected).
• 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]

Product 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?

cc @garrettmknight

[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	⚠️ Failed 2026-10-30T22:03:55.017534Z We couldn’t complete this review. Comment @codex review to try again.	2a3edb2	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]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes a single-line factual correction to Using-Reports-in-New-Expensify.md. It updates where the Paid by filter appears, reflecting an upstream UI change (PR 104668) that moved Paid by directly below Paid on the Expense Report type. The old sentence described two different positions per type; the new sentence consolidates both types since they now behave the same. The change is accurate, minimal, and well-scoped.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - The revised sentence is clearer and more concise than the original two-clause version. Consolidating both types into one statement improves scannability.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - Uses full, UI-exact feature labels (Paid, Expense, Expense Report) with correct bolding, aiding retrieval precision. No metadata or heading changes were introduced, so nothing was regressed.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - Bolded UI labels match the product exactly and capitalization is correct per the naming conventions. "report" in "The member who paid the report" is correctly lowercase as a generic term.

Key Findings

• The correction accurately reflects the new filter ordering and is verified against the live web UI (screenshots included in the PR description).
• UI terminology within the changed line follows HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md: exact labels, bold formatting, no synonyms.
• Out of scope for this PR but worth flagging for a future cleanup: the surrounding (unchanged) steps use Click Filters, Click View Results, and Go to the Spend tab, which conflict with the select verb and navigation-tab conventions. These are pre-existing and not part of this diff, so they are not scored here.

Recommendations

• No changes required for this diff; it is a correct, surgical fix.
• Optional follow-up (separate PR): update the Click instructions in the surrounding steps to select to align with the naming conventions.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Using-Reports-in-New-Expensify.md - Single-line factual correction. Accurate and compliant. Approved from a documentation-quality standpoint.

Note: This change is a one-line edit, so no additional inline comments were necessary.