GP you said-"TFLN typically has much lower optical loss compared to most electro-optic polymers, with reported losses in the range of 0.2 dB/cm, while many polymers experience losses several times higher."
LWLG Perkinamine polymers are functioning much better than other polymers you are grouping it with. Reference the ECOC presentation slide 20 showing LWLG polymers are significantly better than other polymers by far in all important categories. No argument that TFLN can do better than other polymers but not Perkinamine as far as optical loss.
The manufacture of TFLN is difficult leading to problems with the physical structure from one batch to another. NanoLN has had less problems with manufacture so they have cornered the supply to date. Problems manufacturing the crystals is an uncertainty if the industry expects enough supply from other sources.
From Google AI:
LWLG Perkinamine polymers have the potential for lower optical loss than TFLN modulators. However, this depends on various factors including the specific design and fabrication processes.
Here's a breakdown of the key points:
LWLG Perkinamine Polymers:
Advantages:
Can potentially achieve lower optical loss due to their material properties.
Offer higher bandwidth and lower power consumption compared to TFLN modulators.
Can be integrated with silicon photonics for compact and efficient devices.
Challenges:
Fabrication process can be complex and requires precise control.
Long-term stability and reliability are still under investigation.
TFLN Modulators:
Advantages:
Mature technology with well-established fabrication processes.
Good thermal stability and reliability.
Challenges:
Higher optical loss compared to some emerging materials like LWLG Perkinamine polymers.
Limited bandwidth and higher power consumption.
Sorry GP, your attempt to present LWLG polymers as several times worse as far as optical loss than TFLN has Failed.
Market Data 
Markets 
