Docs updates for E/A#100621 remove DualEntry from upcoming integrations reference

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Help site follow-up to [NoQA] Remove the DualEntry beta (Expensify/App#100621), which deleted the DUALENTRY beta and its gate in PolicyAccountingPage, so DualEntry now appears in the Connections list on the workspace Accounting page for every workspace instead of only beta-enrolled ones.

The internal AgentZero reference page for upcoming integrations still listed DualEntry as planned/in-development in its description and keywords, even though DualEntry was already dropped from that page's bullet list. Left as-is, AgentZero would answer "DualEntry is coming soon" for an integration that is now live and connectable, so this removes the two stale DualEntry references.

No other help site article needed a change:

• docs/articles/new-expensify/connections/dualentry/Connect-to-DualEntry.md and Configure-DualEntry.md already document the live flow and never mentioned a beta, so they are accurate as written.
• The eligibility line "Be a Workspace Admin with a workspace on the Control plan" is still correct — connecting is gated on isControlPolicy in PolicyAccountingPage, which this PR did not touch.
• The Connections list on the Accounting page is generated from the connections directory, so DualEntry needed no manual listing.

UI labels used in the affected articles were verified against dev NewDot on web: the navigation tab is Workspaces, the workspace settings row is Accounting, the section heading is Connections, the integration name is DualEntry, and its action button is Connect.

Fixed Issues

$
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 validate your changes worked.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Not applicable — this PR only changes help site markdown frontmatter.

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 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 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

---

@lakchote, 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.

[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 @johncschuster

[melvin-bot]

@johncschuster 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]

[github-actions]

HelpDot Documentation Review

Overall Assessment

This PR makes a minimal, targeted metadata edit to docs/articles/Unlisted/Upcoming-Integrations-And-Accounting.md, removing "DualEntry" from the description and keywords YAML frontmatter fields. This correctly reflects that DualEntry has reached general availability and no longer belongs in an internal "upcoming integrations" reference. The change is accurate, in scope, and keeps the metadata truthful.

Scores Summary

• Readability: 10/10 - The two edited lines remain clear and easy to parse. The description reads naturally after removal, and the keywords list stays cleanly comma-delimited with no orphaned commas.
• AI Readiness: 10/10 - This is an internal AgentZero reference page and the metadata drives retrieval. Removing a now-GA feature from description and keywords prevents stale "coming soon" answers about DualEntry. Frontmatter integrity (internalScope, noindex, sitemap, full feature names) is preserved.
• Style Compliance: 10/10 - The edit respects exact naming, touches only the two fields it needed to, and follows the metadata guidance in HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md Section 3 and TEMPLATE.md. No terminology, UI-labeling, or structural rules are affected.

Key Findings

• The removal is consistent across both fields (description and keywords), avoiding the common mistake of updating one and leaving the feature dangling in the other.
• No collateral damage: surrounding keywords, punctuation, and the rest of the frontmatter are untouched.
• Out of scope for this diff, but noted: the article body has a trailing empty bullet on the last line. It is pre-existing and not part of this PR, so it does not affect scoring.

Recommendations

• No changes required. The edit is correct and complete as proposed.
• Optional follow-up (separate PR): if DualEntry now has GA documentation, confirm body content of related reference pages is aligned, and clean up the trailing empty bullet at the end of the file.

Files Reviewed

• docs/articles/Unlisted/Upcoming-Integrations-And-Accounting.md - Approved. Accurate, in-scope metadata cleanup removing a now-GA feature from the upcoming-integrations reference.

Note: This change is a two-line metadata edit; no inline comments were necessary.