1. The "off by a factor of 10 due to a math error" is only applicable for one study. What do the other studies say about daily intake?
2. while there's plenty of evidence that vitamin D levels is associated with positive health outcomes, AFAIK evidence that vitamin D supplementation being associated with positive outcomes isn't very good.
edit:
3. I dug further and found there was a response to the study that you linked[1]. The response points out that the standard used by the original study (ie. supplementation levels that's needed for 97.5% of the population to achieve adequate serum levels of vitamin D) would cause people on the lower end to consume too much. Therefore the recommendation of 8000 IU (or any single number, really) is bad, and we should instead have different recommendations according to body weight:
>With this approach we estimated, for example, that doses of 1885, 2802 and 6235 IU per day are required for normal weight, overweight and obese individuals respectively to achieve natural 25(OH)D concentrations (defined as 58 to 171 nmol/L).
As such, even though there might be an error caused by "off by a factor of 10", everyone really shouldn't be upping their supplementation by a factor of 10.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26690210/