Changing some verbiage and adding logic to add additional messaging b…

[kylesoskin]

…ased on which identifiers a user may be missing

Are you removing, renaming or moving a folder in this PR?

• [x] No, I'm not changing any folders (skip to TeamSites and delete the rest of this section)
• [ ] Yes, I'm removing, renaming or moving a folder

Did you change site-wide styles, platform utilities or other infrastructure?

• [x] No
• [ ] Yes, and I used the proxy-rewrite steps to test the injected header scenario

Summary

This change adds support to show an "it's ok" message to the error message shown to a user on the 526 flow if they are missing required identifiers. Previously there was concern that user did not know that they were not required to know the values of the things we were telling them were missing. Adding this message should alleviate stress or extra effort on the users part prior to calling to resolve issues.

This change also changes to state they are available 24/7.

I am on the Benefits and Claims team, 526 team 2 (carbs), and we own this flow/code and its maintenance.

No flipper used.

Related issue(s)

• Link to ticket created in va.gov-team repo department-of-veterans-affairs/va.gov-team#89576

Testing done

• Describe what the old behavior was prior to the change
• Describe the steps required to verify your changes are working as expected
• Describe the tests completed and the results
• _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?

(Describe what parts of the site are impacted if code touched other areas)

Acceptance criteria

Quality Assurance & Testing

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

Error Handling

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

Authentication

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

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?