Create a layered summary of the following — provide three versions: (1) a tweet-length summary (under 280 characters), (2) a one-paragraph summary for a general audience, (3) a detailed summary preserving all key numbers and caveats. "The global AI chip market reached $53.4 billion in 2024, growing 42% YoY from $37.6 billion in 2023. NVIDIA dominates with approximately 80% market share in data center GPUs, though AMD has grown from 5% to 12% share with its MI300X accelerator. Custom silicon is the emerging disruptor: Google's TPU v5p, Amazon's Trainium2, and Microsoft's Maia 100 collectively represent $4.2 billion in avoided NVIDIA purchases. The supply chain remains concentrated — TSMC fabricates over 90% of advanced AI chips (sub-7nm), and ASML is the sole supplier of EUV lithography machines. Geopolitical risks are significant: US export controls have cut China's access to cutting-edge chips, pushing Chinese firms toward mature nodes (14nm+) and domestic alternatives like Huawei's Ascend 910B, which benchmarks at roughly 70% of an A100. Analysts project the market will reach $140 billion by 2027, though this assumes continued data center buildout and no major regulatory disruption. Key uncertainties: inference vs training chip mix shift, potential overcapacity in 2026, and whether sovereign AI initiatives (EU Chips Act, India's semiconductor mission) will meaningfully diversify manufacturing."

Judge: All three versions present and genuinely layered; the tweet is 260 characters (under 280) and the detailed version preserves all key numbers and caveats accurately (53.4B/42%/80%/5-12%/4.2B/90% sub-7nm/140B by 2027, etc.). Both hard constraints met. Excellent progression from punchy to comprehensive.

Judge: All three versions are present and the tweet is 262 characters (verified by script), under the 280 limit. Layering is genuine: a punchy tweet, an accessible paragraph, and a detailed version that preserves every key figure ($53.4B, 42%, 80%, 5%->12%, $4.2B, 90% TSMC, 70% of A100, $140B by 2027) plus all stated caveats and uncertainties, each verified against the source. Minor stylistic quibble that the tweet uses markdown bold, but all constraints are met.

Judge: All three layers present with genuine progression: punchy 267-character tweet, accessible paragraph that translates concepts for lay readers, and a detailed version that preserves every number and all three stated uncertainties including the projection's assumptions. No factual distortions detected. Verified tweet length under 280.

Judge: All three versions present: tweet (272 chars, under 280), one-paragraph general audience summary, and detailed technical summary. Good layering — each version adds appropriate depth. Tweet captures the key data points efficiently. The detailed version preserves technical specifics. Accurate content throughout.

Judge: Complete response with all three versions; the tweet is 271 rendered characters (under the limit) and the detailed version preserves all key numbers, the projection assumptions, and the uncertainties. The main weakness is layering: the 'general audience' paragraph is saturated with bolded figures and product names, making it nearly as dense as the detailed version, and bold markdown inside a tweet is unidiomatic. Accuracy is flawless.

Judge: Content quality is high: three genuinely layered versions with accurate numbers and a detailed version preserving all caveats. However, the tweet version is 288 characters, violating the hard constraint that the tweet be under 280 characters, which fails the response and lowers instruction-following.

Judge: All three versions present with clear layering. Tweet is 273 characters (under 280). Each layer adds genuine detail. Numbers preserved accurately throughout. The detailed version (truncated) covers market figures, NVIDIA/AMD shares, custom silicon disruption, and supply chain concentration. Good progression from punchy to comprehensive. The tweet packs impressive information density.

Judge: All three versions present with clear layering progression. Tweet is 220 characters (under 280). Paragraph version is accessible and jargon-free. Detailed version preserves all key numbers. Numbers are accurate throughout. Truncated slightly at the end of the detailed version but all critical data points are captured before truncation.

Judge: All three versions present with clear layering. Tweet is 250 characters (under 280), punchy and captures the key numbers. Paragraph adds context about custom silicon and geopolitical risks. Detailed version preserves specific figures ($53.4B, 42%, 80%, MI300X, $4.2B, 90%, TSMC, 70% benchmark) accurately. Good progression from brief to comprehensive. Response truncated slightly at the end of the detailed version.

Judge: Good layered progression with accurate numbers in the detailed version. However, the tweet version exceeds 280 characters, violating a hard constraint. The detailed version is comprehensive and preserves key statistics well.

Judge: Good layering across three versions with clear progression of detail. The detailed version preserves all key numbers accurately. However, the tweet-length version is 299 characters -- over the 280-character hard constraint. The one-paragraph summary is well-written for a general audience. The detailed version is thorough with proper sections. The accuracy is strong throughout. The tweet constraint violation is the main issue.

Judge: All three versions present (tweet, paragraph, detailed) with good layering and accurate numbers in the detailed version. However, the tweet version is 455 characters, well over the 280-character limit -- a clear hard constraint violation. The paragraph and detailed versions are well-done with appropriate progressive detail. Numbers are accurate throughout.

Judge: Includes all three versions (tweet, paragraph, detailed) but the tweet is 300 characters, exceeding the 280-character limit (hard constraint violated). The layering is decent — clear progression from brief to detailed. Numbers are accurately preserved in the detailed version. The paragraph version is accessible. The detailed version is truncated but was on track to capture all key points.

Judge: All three versions present but tweet is 237 characters (just under 280 limit -- actually valid). However, the layering is weak: the tweet and paragraph versions cover very similar ground without proper compression for the tweet or expansion for the detailed version. The detailed version is truncated at the end. Key numbers are mostly preserved. AMD's growth from 5% to 12% is missing from all versions.