Review intent to file language and check for consistency across forms and pages

[megzehn]

Issue Description

We want to make sure the language around intent to file is clear and consistent. Specifically, we want to be clear about when and how someone gets retroactive payments. And we should make sure all instances use the same capitalization standards.

---

Tasks

• [x] Review current language on intent to file static page with OCTO
• [ ] Document all other references to intent to file (Jeana Clark created a very helpful doc of instances in forms!)
• [ ] Adjust any references that are inconsistent (KF?)
• [x] Add entry in style guide for intent to file (MZ)

Acceptance Criteria

• [ ] All references to intent to file are consistent

  How to configure this issue

• [ ] Attached to a Milestone (when will this be completed?)
• [ ] Attached to an Epic (what body of work is this a part of?)
• [ ] Labeled with Team (product support, analytics-insights, operations, service-design, Console-Services, tools-fe)
• [ ] Labeled with Practice Area (backend, frontend, devops, design, research, product, ia, qa, analytics, contact center, research, accessibility, content)
• [ ] Labeled with Type (bug, request, discovery, documentation, etc.)

[megzehn]

We reviewed the current language for intent to file with @DanielleThierryUSDSVA and she suggested this edit to the current intent to file page:

An intent to file sets a potential start date (or effective date) for your benefits. If we approve your claim, you may get any retroactive payments you’re eligible for. Retroactive payments are payments for the time between when you submitted your intent to file and when we approved your claim.

We may also want to adjust the current alert on that page so it doesn't seem like we're suggesting that a disability claim and a Supplemental Claim are the same thing.

[megzehn]

Related update: Jeana had to make edits on the ITF form, because we're not requiring people to sign in before filling it out. I'll review these changes at the same time of implementing our new consistent language.

[megzehn]

Update: I reviewed the ITF form that @jeana-adhoc is working on and incorporated the modified language that I discussed with both Beth and Danielle.

We also added an entry for intent to file in the style guide.

The next step is making minor tweaks on our Intent to file R&S page so the language is consistent. And documenting any other references to ITF to make sure it's consistent.

[megzehn]

I updated our Intent to file R&S page and added links to the online form now that the form is live.

@saratorres2, these nodes are ready for a final copy edit:

• Single Q&A: How do I notify VA of my intent to file?
• Single Q&A: What's an intent to file?
• Full FAQ page: Your intent to file a VA claim

[megzehn]

Ack, sorry for the ticket confusion, but I opened a separate ticket to better capture the different streams of content work for this form.

Re: the last comment, we can track that work here: #82301

[saratorres2]

Reviewed and published with @megzehn.