Why do people say RAA(Reductio Ad Absurdum) is the same as $(\bot E)$? $(\bot E)$ is

$\bot\vdash\psi$.

RAA(Reductio Ad Absurdum) says

If $\{\Gamma,\neg\psi\}\vdash\bot$, then $\{\Gamma\}\vdash\psi$.

Yet, one of the solutions to my textbook exercises uses $(\bot E)$ and labels it (RAA) in its natural deduction proof as in the picture below. Is it a mistake?

Update 1 : Is the picture below a correct usage of RAA in a natural deduction proof?


About the update, in order to prove the sequent
$\{(\phi \lor \psi),(\neg \phi)\} \vdash \psi$
the following derivation is better:
$
(1)\dfrac{{(\phi \lor \psi)} \quad \quad {\dfrac{ 
\dfrac{{\not\phi^{(1)}} \quad \quad \quad \quad {\neg \phi}}{\quad \bot}(\neg E) 
}{\psi}(RAA)} \quad  \quad {\not\psi}^{(1)}}{\psi}(\lor E)
$
