4. What did the Appellate Body mean by the term ‘the accordion of likeness’?

Was likeness found to be a broad or narrow concept in Article III:2, 1st sentence, and why? How does this compare to the concept of ‘directly competitive or substitutable products’ in Article III:2, 2nd sentence? Which of the products at issue in this case were found by the Appellate Body to be ‘like’

and which to be ‘directly competitive or substitutable’?