Factoring Disjunction out of Deontic Modal Puzzles: Errata Page numbers refer to the version in the conference proceedings of DEON 2014. 1. Definition 1 (pg. 97) should be amended to make explicit, following Standard Deontic Logic (SDL), that OP T (w) is nonempty for any M and any w ∈ WM . 2. Definition 6 on pg. 102 (“P -States in EU Theory and Deontic Logic”) fails to distinguish properly between atomic and non-atomic cases. The amended definition is: Definition (P -States in EU Theory and Deontic Logic). EU Theory. (Base Case). If q is an atomic act such that EUw (q) is maximal in M, then q is an atomic Pw -state. Otherwise it is an (atomic) P w -state. (Recursive Clause). Any union of Pw -states and P̄w -states is a P w -state. Classic Deontic Logic. (Base Case). If w0 is a possible world such that w0 ∈ OP T (w), then {w0 } is an atomic Pw -state. Otherwise it is an (atomic) P w -state. (Recursive Clause). Any union of Pw -states and P w -states is a Pw -state. 3. The following sentence on pgs. 101-102: My interest, in the rest of this paper, is in isolating an argument for blocking embedded disjunction introduction that doesn’t rely on ‘Ought’ and ‘May’ being downward entailing—in fact, is compatible with their being upward entailing. Should read: My interest, in the rest of this paper, is in isolating an argument for blocking embedded disjunction introduction that doesn’t rely on ‘May’ being downward entailing—in fact, is compatible with the relevant notion of permissibility being upward -entailing at the level of propositions, as it is on the classical modal view.