[No QA] Docs updates for E/A#100354 scope who can pay reports besides payer

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Help site follow-up to #100354, which reverted #95925 ("Allow any workspace admin to pay reports") while #100353 is investigated.

The revert restores the pre-existing rule that who can pay a report depends on the workspace's reimbursement setup. But Workspace-Workflows.md ended with a flat, unscoped sentence — "Other admins can still open a report and pay it." — under the What happens after you set an authorized payer heading. That heading is not scoped to the no-bank-account case, so an admin on a workspace with a connected bank account could read it and expect a Pay button they will never see. #100353 is exactly that confusion turning into an error.

This PR replaces that sentence with the two actual cases:

• No bank account connected (manual reimbursement) — other Workspace Admins can open an approved report, click Pay, and select Mark as paid.
• Bank account connected (ACH reimbursement) — only the authorized payer, plus Workspace Admins the business bank account has been shared with, can pay.

Both behaviors are read off the post-revert code: src/libs/ReportPrimaryActionUtils.ts:235-240 gates the non-payer admin path on reimbursementChoice === REIMBURSEMENT_MANUAL, and src/libs/ReportUtils.ts:3008-3017 returns isReimburser || (isAdmin && hasAccessToBankAccount) for auto reimbursement and reimburser-only for manual.

A cross-link to Share a business bank account was added so admins who need access know where to go, and who can pay a report was added to the article keywords.

UI labels used in the copy were verified against the live app rather than taken from memory: the Workflows page shows a Payments section and a Payer row (whose picker screen is headed Authorized payer), and the Pay button on an approved report offers Pay with business account and Mark as paid.

Note for the reviewer: two draft docs PRs already open — #100364 and #100349 — document the pre-revert behavior ("any Workspace Admin can pay"). Now that #95925 is reverted, neither should merge as written. They should be closed or held until the feature relands.

Fixed Issues

$ #100354
PROPOSAL:

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must confirm the documented behavior before marking this PR as "ready for review". Suggested check:

1. On a workspace with Payments enabled and no bank account connected, set the Payer to admin A, then sign in as admin B and confirm B can open an approved report, click Pay, and select Mark as paid.
2. On a workspace with a business bank account connected that has NOT been shared with admin B, confirm B does not see Pay on an approved report.
3. Share that bank account with admin B and confirm Pay now appears for B.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — documentation only, no app code changed.

QA Steps

No QA — this PR only changes help site markdown under docs/articles. There is no app behavior to test on staging.

• 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

---

@chuckdries, 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.

[OSBotify]

A preview of your ExpensifyHelp changes have been deployed to https://17adb4e5.helpdot.pages.dev ⚡️

Updated articles:

• articles/new-expensify/workspaces/Workspace-Workflows