confirmation page updates

[evansmith]

Note: Delete the description statements, complete each step. None are optional, but can be justified as to why they cannot be completed as written. Provide known gaps to testing that may raise the risk of merging to production.

Summary

• Modified the static content on the 686c/674 confirmation page to match the new designs: https://www.figma.com/file/7W55oNwdVXvXOTI9SaFzQ7/686c-Add-or-Remove-Dependents?type=design&node-id=1051-20622&mode=design&t=3NYdZ7NgRGJngXCU-0_
• VA Benefits and Claims

Related issue(s)

- Link to ticket created in va.gov-team repo department-of-veterans-affairs/va.gov-team#0000

Testing done

• To replicate, fill out a 686c/674 form and view the confirmation screen.
• Tested in browser and made comparisons between previous version and new version. Confirmed in mobile view.
• _Exclusively stating 'Specs and automated tests passing' is NOT acceptable as appropriate testing
• Optionally, provide a link to your test plan and test execution records

Screenshots

Note: This field is mandatory for UI changes (non-component work should NOT have screenshots).

	Before	After
Mobile
Desktop

What areas of the site does it impact?

Confirmation page of the Dependents Application

Acceptance criteria

Quality Assurance & Testing

• [ ] I fixed|updated|added unit tests and integration tests for each feature (if applicable).
• [ ] No sensitive information (i.e. PII/credentials/internal URLs/etc.) is captured in logging, hardcoded, or specs
• [ ] Linting warnings have been addressed
• [ ] Documentation has been updated (link to documentation *if necessary)
• [ ] Screenshot of the developed feature is added
• [ ] Accessibility testing has been performed

Error Handling

• [ ] Browser console contains no warnings or errors.
• [ ] Events are being sent to the appropriate logging solution
• [ ] Feature/bug has a monitor built into Datadog or Grafana (if applicable)

Authentication

• [ ] Did you login to a local build and verify all authenticated routes work as expected with a test user

:warning: Team Sites (only applies to modifications made to the VA.gov header) :warning:

• [ ] The vets-website header does not contain any web-components
• [ ] I used the proxy-rewrite steps to test the injected header scenario
• [ ] I reached out in the #sitewide-public-websites Slack channel for questions

Requested Feedback

(OPTIONAL) What should the reviewers know in addition to the above. Is there anything specific you wish the reviewer to assist with. Do you have any concerns with this PR, why?