A J ShajibS BirrerT TreuM W AugerA AgnelloT AnguitaE J Buckley-GeerJ H H ChanT E CollettF CourbinC D FassnachtJ FriemanI KayoC LemonH LinP J MarshallR McMahonA MoreN D MorganMotta, VerónicaVerónicaMottaM OguriF OstrovskiC E RusuP L SchechterT ShanksS H SuyuG MeylanT M C AbbottS AllamJ AnnisS AvilaE BertinD BrooksA Carnero RosellM Carrasco KindJ CarreteroC E CunhaL N da CostaJ De VicenteS DesaiP DoelB FlaugherP FosalbaJ García-BellidoD W GerdesD GruenR A GruendlG GutierrezW G HartleyD L HollowoodB HoyleD J JamesK KuehnN KuropatkinO LahavM LimaM A G MaiaM MarchJ L MarshallP MelchiorF MenanteauR MiquelA A PlazasE SanchezV ScarpineI Sevilla-NoarbeM SmithM Soares-SantosF SobreiraE SuchytaM E C SwansonG TarleA R Walker2025-12-072025-12-072020-11-1310.1093/mnras/staa35622-s2.0-85100451513https://cris-uv-2.scimago.es/handle/123456789/7526WOS:000608475600091The paper ‘Is every strong lens model unhappy in its own way? Uniform modelling of a sample of 13 quadruply+ imaged quasars’ was published in MNRAS, 483, 4, 5649–5671 (2019). The coordinate values of the image positions in table 4 were wrongly printed due to a clerical error. At a later stage of writing the manuscript, we have changed the zero-point definition of the lens coordinate systems, but the relative image positions were not accounted for this change of definition while printing out table 4. We provide the updated Table 4 below. This error does not impact any other results of the paper in any way, except for the table itself. We thank Collin Werner and Paul Schechter for helping us identify this error.enacceso abiertoAstronomy And AstrophysicsSpace And Planetary Scienceerratum