Docs updates for E/A#97853 Add Canadian Multiple Tax Export template

[MelvinBot]

Docs updates for E/A#97853

PR #97853 adds a new default export template, Canadian Multiple Tax Export, to New Expensify. It appears in the export template menu (for both expenses and reports) when the workspace's output currency is set to CAD, producing a CSV with a separate column per tax (such as GST and PST). For bulk exports spanning multiple workspaces, it only appears when every selected item belongs to a workspace that outputs in CAD.

What changed in the help site

Updated the two New Expensify export articles that list the available export templates:

• How to Export Reports — added the template to the "What export templates can I choose from?" list and a new FAQ explaining when it appears.
• How to Export Expenses — added the template to the "What export templates can I choose from?" list and a new FAQ explaining when it appears.

Notes

• The template name Canadian Multiple Tax Export is taken verbatim from the app's language strings (export.multipleTaxExport in en.ts and CONST.REPORT.EXPORT_OPTION_LABELS.MULTIPLE_TAX_EXPORT), which is the source of truth for the rendered label.
• No other help articles reference the standard export template list, so no further changes were needed.

---

@dukenv0307, 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.

[MelvinBot]

There's nothing to fix here — no code check is failing.

The only red check is Check independent approval (Verify peer review), which isn't a build/lint/test failure. It's a process gate that stays red until an independent reviewer (someone other than the author/assignee) approves the PR. It resolves on its own once this PR gets a peer review approval — no push required.

Every actual CI check (check, dryRun, spellcheck, validate, verify, verifySignedCommits, CLA) is passing. So no changes are needed from me.

[dukenv0307]

@MelvinBot please open the PR

[MelvinBot]

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

[github-actions]

UI terminology violation: "output currency" is internal wording (the outputCurrency field), not a UI label. The setting is shown to users as Workspace currency (see en.ts). Per HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, use the exact UI text and avoid internal language — reword to "the workspace's currency is set to CAD."

[github-actions]

UI terminology violation: "output currency" (used twice here) is internal wording, not the UI label. Users see this setting as Workspace currency. Per HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md (use exact UI text, avoid internal language), replace "output currency" with "workspace currency."

[github-actions]

UI terminology violation: "output currency" is internal wording (the outputCurrency field), not a UI label. The setting is shown to users as Workspace currency (see en.ts). Per HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, use the exact UI text and avoid internal language — reword to "the workspace's currency is set to CAD."

[github-actions]

UI terminology violation: "output currency" (used twice here) is internal wording, not the UI label. Users see this setting as Workspace currency. Per HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md (use exact UI text, avoid internal language), replace "output currency" with "workspace currency."

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes small, well-scoped additions to two New Expensify export articles (How to Export Expenses and How to Export Reports), documenting the new Canadian Multiple Tax Export template. Each file gets one new list item in the "What export templates can I choose from?" list and one new FAQ entry explaining the CAD output-currency condition (including multi-workspace bulk-export behavior). The changes are consistent across both files and align cleanly with the existing article structure and the governance standards.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 9/10 - Sentences are clear, concise, and scannable. List items follow the existing bolded-name pattern, and the FAQ answers explain single- and multi-workspace conditions in plain language.
• AI Readiness: 9/10 - FAQ headings are question-based and include the full feature name verbatim, which is strong for semantic retrieval. Headings stay at the second level and map to real search intent ("Why dont I see..."). No metadata changes were required for these additions.
• Style Compliance: 9/10 - The template name is used verbatim from the app language strings (export.multipleTaxExport) and is consistently bolded. Terminology (Workspace, Workspace Admin, output currency, CAD) matches conventions, and the FAQ format follows the "Why cant I see [Feature Name]?" template pattern.

Key Findings

• Consistent, parallel wording across both articles reduces drift and maintenance risk.
• FAQ headings are task/question-based and feature-specific, satisfying the heading rules and AI retrieval guidelines.
• Feature name sourced from the source-of-truth language strings, ensuring UI-exact labeling.
• Minor nit: the two files phrase the multi-workspace scenario slightly differently ("When your selection includes expenses from more than one workspace" vs. "When you bulk export reports from more than one workspace"). Both are correct; aligning phrasing would improve consistency.
• Minor nit: capitalization of "Workspace" is inconsistent between the FAQ body and the prose ("workspaces output currency"). Consider standardizing per the naming conventions.

Recommendations

• (Optional) Standardize the multi-workspace sentence phrasing across both articles for parity.
• (Optional) Normalize "Workspace" capitalization in the new sentences to match the naming conventions.
• No blocking issues. The additions are accurate, well-formatted, and ready to merge pending SME confirmation of behavior.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/How-to-Export-Expenses.md - Added template list item + FAQ. Compliant.
• docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/How-to-Export-Reports.md - Added template list item + FAQ. Compliant.

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

[MelvinBot]

The only failing check is Check independent approval, and it's not something I can fix by pushing code.

This check stays red until the PR gets an independent human approval — it's not evaluating the diff. Every other check (build, validate, spellcheck, review, verify, CLA, etc.) is passing.

What to do: this PR just needs a reviewer to approve it. Once you've reviewed the doc changes and confirmed they reflect current behavior, an independent approval will turn this check green — there's no code fix required.