The authors have operated a few minor modifications in response to helpful feedback received post-publication from the readership. These updates are solely intended to clarify certain aspects of the article and enhance its overall readability. The first update concerns the caption of Fig. 7, which has been revised to improve clarity for readers through the addition of explanatory notes. The second update pertains to the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of a technology developer in Table 3, which has been updated based on the latest provided information. As a derivative of this change, Fig. 8(a), that is a visual representation of Table 3, has also been updated to reflect the revised TRLs. Additionally, the note in the caption of Table 3 has been slightly modified for improved clarity. These modifications do not affect the outcomes, analysis, or conclusions of the article and are solely intended to improve clarity for readers and consistency with respect to most recent information.[Figure presented] Fig. 7: Proposed classification framework. FPV designs compiled and classified based on research publications and designs used by technology providers. Note: (i) each reported archetype can be technically made modular with companies deploying different (proprietary) solutions for upscaling the surface coverage of the farm; (ii) the adjective “large” in the acronym ”LRP” is related to the area of the floater as a surface that is at least bigger than one PV module. Table 3: TRLs of different FPV archetypes hosted by different organisations. Note: This table shows the TRLs based on publicly available information and represents a snapshot in time. The TRLs are subject to change over time and may not reflect the most up-to-date values.[Figure presented][Figure presented] Fig. 8: Current technology readiness landscape. (a) The trend of TRLs for inland and offshore solar deployments, (b) number of organisations working on inland and offshore solar deployment. Data derived from Table 3.