Fix unsafe assertions across receipt and settings flows

[KJ21-ENG]

Explanation of Change

Removes 15 unsafe type assertions across receipt scanning, USD bank-account setup, saved-search filter labels, report-detail columns, and Certinia prerequisites. The cleanup replaces assertions with runtime-backed narrowing, target-local prop adapters, canonical value membership checks, and exact translation maps while preserving the existing flows and fallbacks.

Fixed Issues

$ #94739
PROPOSAL: #94739 (comment)

Count change

Current baseline source:

• config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv at base 1e666ea85c70e36de61a044adfa0227ec83ef18e.

Before:

• src/hooks/useReceiptScanDrop.tsx: 3 violations
• src/pages/ReimbursementAccount/USD/USDVerifiedBankAccountFlowPage.tsx: 3 violations
• src/pages/Search/SearchSavePage.tsx: 3 violations
• src/pages/settings/Report/ReportDetailsColumnsPage.tsx: 3 violations
• src/pages/workspace/accounting/certinia/prerequisites/CertiniaPrerequisitesStep.tsx: 3 violations

After:

• src/hooks/useReceiptScanDrop.tsx: 0 violations
• src/pages/ReimbursementAccount/USD/USDVerifiedBankAccountFlowPage.tsx: 0 violations
• src/pages/Search/SearchSavePage.tsx: 0 violations
• src/pages/settings/Report/ReportDetailsColumnsPage.tsx: 0 violations
• src/pages/workspace/accounting/certinia/prerequisites/CertiniaPrerequisitesStep.tsx: 0 violations

Net reduction:

• 15 fewer unsafe type assertion violations.

TSV evidence:

• The verifier restored config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv byte-for-byte after confirming zero cleanup findings in every target.

Tests

1. Focused formatter and ESLint passed for all five changed files.
2. The verifier-owned focused typecheck produced no authorized-path diagnostic; its only remaining diagnostic was in unrelated src/components/AddressSearch/index.tsx.
3. The production-source targets are not matched by App Jest discovery, so focused Jest was not applicable.
4. git diff --check, changed-path proof, and generated-TSV restoration passed.
5. Independent scope, type-safety, and regression reviews were clean on the final diff.
6. Exact-head Fork CI run 32110394646 passed typecheck, lint, format, React Compiler, and Jest at signed commit 9bf6e5da634cf3a4ec59bf2ec792903421c1c4f9.

No manual application testing was performed; the evidence above is automated verification and independent review.

Offline tests

N/A: this assertion cleanup does not change networking or offline behavior, and no manual offline testing was performed.

QA Steps

1. Drag and drop multiple receipt files into the existing receipt-scan entry point and verify all receipts appear in their original order and continue to the expected participant or confirmation screen.
2. Open USD bank-account setup and verify the Country and Bank info pages render and navigate forward/back as before for a valid policy.
3. Save searches containing feed, card, and tax-rate filters and verify the saved-search summary shows the existing human-readable labels, including multiple card IDs.
4. Open report-detail column settings, verify saved valid columns remain selected, and verify the data-driven defaults still appear when no custom selection exists.
5. Step through Certinia prerequisites in sandbox and production modes and verify the install links, setup-contact content, OAuth copy, button action, and offline OAuth disabling remain unchanged.

PR Author Checklist

N/A rationale: no product behavior, copy, CSS, assets, networking, messaging flow, generic component, new feature, or bug flow is intended to change. No manual platform, high-traffic-account, offline, console, screenshot/video, staging, or production testing was performed. The affected production contracts and callers were inspected during planning and independent review, and exact-head CI covered the full repository checks. Every item below was considered against that scope.

• 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

N/A: no UI or visual behavior changed, and no screenshots or videos were produced.

Changed files (5)

• src/hooks/useReceiptScanDrop.tsx
• src/pages/ReimbursementAccount/USD/USDVerifiedBankAccountFlowPage.tsx
• src/pages/Search/SearchSavePage.tsx
• src/pages/settings/Report/ReportDetailsColumnsPage.tsx
• src/pages/workspace/accounting/certinia/prerequisites/CertiniaPrerequisitesStep.tsx

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...pages/settings/Report/ReportDetailsColumnsPage.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/pages/Search/SearchSavePage.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/hooks/useReceiptScanDrop.tsx	38.29% <0.00%> (-6.71%)	⬇️
...mentAccount/USD/USDVerifiedBankAccountFlowPage.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...rtinia/prerequisites/CertiniaPrerequisitesStep.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 21 files with indirect coverage changes