Docs updates for E/A#100319 Request admin access from Access restricted screen

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Help site follow-up to #100319, which reworked the domain Access restricted screen.

Before that PR, the screen showed a static feature list and a single Verify button. It now shows a Verification required heading with two actions: a secondary Request admin access button that calls requestDomainAdminship (spinner while sending, disabled Request sent once a request is pending, disabled while offline, inline error on failure) and a primary Verify yourself button.

docs/articles/new-expensify/domains/Claim-and-Verify-a-Domain.md only documented requesting admin access from the Domain exists page in the add-domain flow. It said nothing about the Access restricted screen, which is the path a member hits when they open a domain on the Domains tab that they aren't a Domain Admin for. This PR adds that second path so the article matches the shipped UI.

Changes:

• Added ## How to request admin access from the Access restricted screen with the numbered flow, the loading/Request sent/offline/error states, and the Verify yourself alternative.
• Renamed ## How to request admin access to a domain someone else set up to ## How to request admin access when you add a domain someone else set up so the two entry points are distinguishable, and updated the screenshot placeholder that referenced the old heading.
• Updated ## What happens after you ask for admin access so the Request sent behavior covers both the Domain exists page and the Access restricted screen.
• Added two FAQ entries: ## Why do I see Access restricted when I open a domain? and ## Why can't I click Request admin access?.
• Updated internalScope and keywords for the new entry point and its labels.

Authoring compliance: single workflow, one # title plus # FAQ, only ## sections, every heading task-based or a question, sentence-case bolded UI labels, non-rendered <!-- SCREENSHOT: --> placeholder. Followed docs/HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, docs/HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, and docs/TEMPLATE.md.

UI label verification: Workspaces, the Domains tab, and New domain were confirmed against the live web app. The Access restricted screen itself could not be reached with the test account — reaching it needs a domain claimed by another account, and the add-domain flow gates on account validation. The labels Access restricted, Verification required, Request admin access, Verify yourself, and Request sent were taken verbatim from the merged src/languages/en.ts strings in #100319.

Fixed Issues

$ #99382
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 validates your changed worked.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

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

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.

• 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.

AI Tests

Ran locally on the changed file:

• npm run spell-changed — passed (1 file checked, 0 issues).

Not applicable: no app code, routing config, scripts, patches, or translations changed, so lint, typecheck, Jest, Storybook, React Compiler, and createDocsRoutes.sh were not in scope. npx prettier --check could not run in this environment — the shared .prettierrc.js fails to resolve @trivago/prettier-plugin-sort-imports.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

---

@jakubstec, 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.