[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#95566 magic code prompt when changing wallet phone

[MelvinBot]

Help site update for #95566

#95566 adds a magic code verification prompt to the wallet KYC (Enable payments) flow. When a user changes their phone number to one that differs from the one already saved on their account, they are now prompted to confirm the change with a magic code before the personal details are submitted. No code is required when adding a phone number for the first time or leaving it unchanged.

This behavior occurs during the Enter Personal Information step documented in Set Up Your Wallet, so this PR adds a short note there describing the new verification prompt.

Change

• docs/articles/new-expensify/wallet-and-payments/Set-up-your-wallet.md — added a note under Enter Personal Information explaining that changing an existing phone number requires magic code verification (prompt titled Let's make sure it's you).

@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.

[dukenv0307]

@MelvinBot open the PR

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Done — I've marked this PR as ready for review. It's no longer a draft.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 6231976b65

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".

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes a single, small addition to Set-up-your-wallet.md: a Note under the Enter Personal Information section explaining that changing a saved phone number triggers a magic code verification prompt ("Let's make sure it's you"). The change is scoped, relevant, and improves clarity around an edge case users may hit during wallet setup. Since only this one line was added, the review below evaluates just that diff.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 7/10 - The note is clear and covers the trigger condition, the prompt, the required action, and the exception (first-time/unchanged number). It is a single sentence-dense paragraph; splitting into shorter sentences or a brief sub-list would improve scannability per the authoring guidelines.
• AI Readiness: 6/10 - The added content uses the exact prompt name and full "magic code"/"security code" phrasing, which aids retrieval. However it inherits the file's pre-existing structural issues (multiple top-level headings, generic/noun-only headings). The addition itself introduces no new headings, so it neither improves nor regresses AI structure. Scored on the diff, it is serviceable but not a task-based section.
• Style Compliance: 7/10 - Good use of bold for the UI prompt title Let's make sure it's you, matching the exact-UI-label rule. Two consistency concerns: (1) the note mixes "magic code" and "security code" for the same thing—pick one term matching the UI and use it consistently; (2) confirm "primary contact method" matches the exact in-product wording. No prohibited vague navigation phrases were introduced.

Key Findings

• Positive: The addition documents a real edge case (phone-change re-verification) that would otherwise confuse users, and correctly bolds the exact prompt title.
• Consistency: "magic code" vs "security code" are used interchangeably in one sentence—standardize to the exact UI term.
• Verify UI wording: Confirm "Let's make sure it's you" and "primary contact method" match the product exactly (exact-label rule).
• Scope note: Pre-existing heading/structure issues in this file are outside this diff and are not scored here.

Recommendations

• Standardize on one term for the code (e.g., "magic code") throughout the note.
• Break the note into two shorter sentences or add a mini-list (trigger / action / exception) for scannability.
• Double-check the exact casing and wording of the prompt title and "primary contact method" against the live UI.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/new-expensify/wallet-and-payments/Set-up-your-wallet.md - One Note paragraph added; clear and useful, minor terminology-consistency and readability polish suggested.

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

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://19d84158.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/wallet-and-payments/Set-up-your-wallet

[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 @kadiealexander

[melvin-bot]

@kadiealexander Please 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]

[dukenv0307]

@kadiealexander all yours!

[stephanieelliott]

Bump @kadiealexander!

[kadiealexander]

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible 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 checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: HybridApp
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: HybridApp
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
  • 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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • 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)
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• 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 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 a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

[kadiealexander]

Approved! Does it need another review?

[dukenv0307]

@kadiealexander can you merge it?

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/stephanieelliott in version: 9.4.57-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 9.4.57-3 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android