Erratum: Extreme Ultraviolet and Soft X-Ray Diffraction Efficiency of a Blazed Reflection Grating Fabricated by Thermally Activated Selective Topography Equilibration (ApJ (2020) 891 (114) DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76d3)

The published article is known to contain a few minor errors that are addressed in this erratum. First, Equation (1) is missing a space between "for"and "n"such that it should read {equation presented}. and second, Equation (14) has a typographical error that does not affect the reported results. That is, while the original published equation holds approximately for small values of the roll angle, f, the measured value listed in Table 1 was derived using {equation presented}. which is to replace Equation (14) in the original publication. It is also noted that in the online version of the article, the mathematical symbols for Φ and the yaw angle φ are swapped throughout the main text and in Table 1; the PDF version of the article, however, prints these characters correctly. The final error reported here pertains to the penultimate sentence of paragraph two in Section 2.3 ("Moreover, the bottom plateau of the coated grooves appears slightly widened relative to the bottom plateau of the bare, TASTE-processed resist, where the surface of the silicon substrate is exposed, suggesting that the EBPVD process produces a thicker metal coating on a silicon surface with native oxide than it does on a PMMA resist."), which requires an edit for accuracy and clarification. The last part of this sentence may be interpreted as suggesting that surface composition difference (i.e., silicon with native oxide versus PMMA) is responsible for the inferred metal thickness difference between the bottom plateau (cleared resist) and the facet surface (TASTE-processed resist). However, this sentence should be edited as follows: "Moreover, the bottom plateau of the coated grooves appears slightly widened relative to the bottom plateau of the bare, TASTE-processed resist, where the surface of the silicon substrate is exposed, suggesting that the EBPVD process produces a nonconformal coating on the grating grooves to a level dependent on the EBPVD chamber geometry."to state more accurately that the observed effect is thought to be a result of EBPVD producing a coating with thickness variations that depend on the geometry inside the deposition chamber. This assessment does not affect any conclusions of the published article but it is noted that future studies should benefit from examining the effect of coating conformity more closely.