[no QA] Docs updates for E/A#96654 header-first company card CSV column mapping

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Help site follow-up for [Payment due abdulrahuman5196] Improve column auto-mapping when the file structure is different.

That PR changed how the company card spreadsheet import pre-selects field mappings. It now computes the whole mapping in one coordinated pass — matching the uploaded file's column headers to fields first, then falling back to the column positions saved from the previous upload only for fields the headers didn't resolve. A field can no longer be pre-selected on more than one column, and re-importing a differently structured file no longer produces nonsensical mappings such as a date landing on the amount column.

Import Company Card Transactions From a Spreadsheet described the old behavior only as "previously mapped fields auto-fill," which no longer explains what admins see. This PR updates that article:

• New ## How Expensify fills in company card field mappings section documenting the header-first order, the saved-position fallback, columns left as Ignore, and the limits (needs a header row, Unique ID is never auto-filled, matching is a best guess worth reviewing).
• Step 7 of the import flow now tells admins to review the mappings Expensify filled in from their headers rather than to set them from scratch.
• The re-upload note now states both sources of the auto-fill, keeping the existing Unique ID exception intact.
• Three new FAQs covering whether mappings survive a differently structured file, why a column still shows Ignore, and the reworded duplicate-mapping question — the old one asked about mapping the same column twice, but the error the app raises is about mapping a single field to multiple columns.
• Metadata gains column/field-mapping keywords, and internalScope now names the auto-fill behavior.

Accuracy notes — every behavioral claim was checked against the merged code in src/libs/importSpreadsheetUtils.ts:243-290:

• Unique ID is still never auto-filled. findColumnName has no case that returns EXTERNAL_ID, and the saved-mapping fallback skips it explicitly, so the article's existing Unique ID guidance stays correct.
• The header row is read regardless of the File contains column headers toggle. Detection always reads row 0 and the mapping pass does not depend on containsHeader, so the article says matching "only helps when your file has a header row" instead of tying it to that toggle.
• Field-name examples are real mappings: Transaction Date → Date (remapped to POSTED_DATE, the company card role labeled "Date"), Vendor → Merchant, Posted Amount → Amount.

Label verification: Company cards and Add cards were confirmed against dev NewDot web. The remaining labels — Import transactions from file, Import spreadsheet, Card number, Card name, Date, Merchant, Amount, Currency, Unique ID, Ignore, and Import — were confirmed against src/languages/en.ts, because the live Add cards flow is gated behind an account-validation magic code that the test session could not clear.

No other help site article needs updating: shouldAutoDetectColumns={false} is set only on CompanyCardsImportedPage, so the member, category, tag, per diem, merchant rules, and personal card import flows are unchanged.

Fixed Issues

$
PROPOSAL:

There is no public App issue for this docs follow-up. The change it documents landed in [Payment due abdulrahuman5196] Improve column auto-mapping when the file structure is different, whose own linked issue is internal, so it isn't referenced here. Please add a linked issue if one is needed.

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 validates your changed worked.

This PR only changes a markdown file under docs/articles, so there is no app behavior to test. Reviewing the rendered article and confirming it matches current behavior is the relevant check.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

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 do they need to test for regressions.

Docs-only change — no QA needed on the app itself.

• 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

---

@Gonals, 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.