That's the ref in the paper. It's a bit confusing because they're looking at chemical processes taking place at 15-20km altitude. Temps there are around -55C maybe, 200K).

They plot changes for activation of the process, but I don't have enough knowledge about it to understand the implications. The bottom axis of their graph runs from 195K - 210K though so clearly it's not a big delta. They seem much more interested in the amount of water vapor at altitude.

The other thing is that it seems like the process has a fairly short cycle time. By which I mean they mention changes on the order of days. When I think about ozone holes I think mainly in the context of decades.

So I'm not sure how much the mention of warming and ozone loss in the OP paper was a 'hey that might be of note,' or was a more substantially linked relationship.

(I kind of wonder if pole reversal/magnetic field weakening or solar events could play into the loss of ozone during the extinction in the original paper?)

The paper makes this statement at the end:

Last, we emphasize that because chlorine ac- tivation depends exponentially on water vapor and temperature, and in turn that the forcing of climate may well control the convective injec- tion of water into the lower stratosphere, the idea that ozone “recovery” is in sight because we have controlled chlorofluorocarbons and halon release is a potential misjudgment.