In this Letter, there are errors in several of the figures. We regret that a number of unfortunate formatting issues arose in the final submission when exporting our figures to high-resolution versions and that we did not notice these at the proof stage. These issues led to irregular spacing of tick marks, distorted symbols and lines, modified colours, and data continuing outside the axes, or becoming detached from the axes, in some line and scatter plots. Figures 1, 4 and 5 and Extended Data Figs. 1–5 and 8–11 were affected by these issues. In addition, there were some errors that propagated through from our initial submission. The colours for the data shown at the 20-, 25- and 30-minute snapshots for the x = 0.4, y = 0.4 composition in Fig. 2d do not correspond correctly to the colours in the common legend in Fig. 2c. Furthermore, the x-axis tick marks for Fig. 4a–c are shifted such that t = 0 does not correspond to the initial pulsed excitation arrival time (the peak photoluminescence intensity). Extended Data Fig. 4d contains null data values beyond 2,700 ns for the 0.15 μJ cm−2 measurement, which had been incorrectly included and scaled using the normalization procedure for the data. Finally, the plot in Extended Data Fig. 10d is missing the first three data points for the forward scan and instead contains an erroneous first data point (a legacy from a dataset analysed earlier) owing to an error in inserting the data into the plotting software. We note that all of the other data points are correct and that this error does not change the extracted device parameters. Because it is not possible to correct the original Letter online, the Supplementary Information to this Amendment contains the corrected figures.