Case-specific appropriateness of an erratum/corrigendum? Myself and my PhD supervisors recently published an article (climate science). One of the panels within a multi-panel Figure is a time-series with both a left-hand and right-hand y-axes. The axis labels have been inadvertently reversed and are hence wrong. However:

1) The relative changes of both time-series are so similar that the only way to visually discern them is by looking at axis value ranges (left-hand side extends to 100, right-hand side to 135). Further, the absolute values are not interpreted in any detail, and only the relative changes from one time slice to another matter in this case.

2) All raw data is correct and provided to the reader via DOI links. So if the data was to be plotted by an interested reader, it would be correct.

3) None of the manuscript text is affected whatsoever by the error (i.e. all data interpretation, conclusions, quoted values etc.) are correct.

Does the error above warrant a corrigendum? 

This is a tricky dilemma for me as, on one hand, good scientific practice dictates there is not a choice, and any significant error should be fixed at the earliest opportunity. However, whether the error is significant is subjective... On the other hand, highlighting the error to readers via a corrigendum might be perceived as "sloppy", as this was supposed to be caught way before the proofing stage. I am a (barely) post-PhD researcher and do not want this to negatively affect my career unless it is necessary.
The easy answer is to ask the journal (after all, they're the ones who publish the corrigendum, and if you say "yes" while they say "no", their opinion overrules yours). Write to the editor who accepted your paper, or to the editor-in-chief, and see what they think.