The inset of Figure 1 of this Communication shows a wrong EPR spectrum of Co(IV)-oxo. Thus, a corrected figure is provided as below. It should be also noted that EPR spectrum of decayed product of 2-Sc shown in Figure S17 was silent. Figure (Figure presented.) UV/Vis spectra of 2-Sc (gray line) observed in the reaction of 1 (black line, 0.25 mm) and PhIO (3.0 equiv) in the presence of Sc(CF3SO3)3 (20 equiv) in acetone at 5 °C. Inset shows the X-band EPR spectrum of 2-Sc (0.50 mm) recorded at 5 K. The sentences in the original paper (page 10404, right column, lines 29–37)—“In contrast to 1, which is EPR silent, the X-band EPR spectrum of 2-Sc at 5.0 K shows a highly rhombic signal at gx = 2.57, gy = 2.16, and gz = 2.03 (Figure 1, inset). Additionally, a 59Co hyperfine pattern is observed at gy according to an Ay component of the hyperfine coupling tensor of 52×10−4 cm−1. The observed large g-anisotropy (Δg = gy−gx) of 0.54 is consistent with a cobalt-centered radical (S = 1/2) resulting from a low-spin CoIV configuration in the ground state of 2-Sc;”—should be corrected to “In contrast to 1, which is EPR silent, the X-band EPR spectrum of 2-Sc at 5.0 K shows an isotropic signal at g ≈ 2.0 (Figure 1, inset), resulting from a low spin (S = 1/2) CoIV configuration in the ground state of 2-Sc;”. The authors sincerely apologize for this mistake, which has no bearing on the results or conclusions of the study.