Also, while I doubt it will matter at all, does the market require that the embryos were selected using screening more advanced than euploid/aneuploid?

PGT-A (preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy) is relatively common within the niche of IVF already, but most aneuploid embryos simply aren't viable or will at best have obvious genetic conditions (e.g. Down syndrome). Selecting for euploid embryos will technically thus produce babies that are "healthier, smarter, and more attractive" in some cases, but only barely detectably against the base rate of live births from natural conception. Screening for monogenic conditions such as cystic fibrosis (PGT-M) is rare and usually only done for known carriers, and probably not even 10% of them unless they were doing IVF for other reasons. Polygenic screening (PGT-P) holds a lot of promise but currently is very expensive, little-known, and has very few providers; it is almost never used even within IVF today, but is the most only screening that obviously matches the intent of the question title.

Embryo selection is currently very expensive and inconvenient, mostly for reasons relating to IVF in general rather than the genetic screening. Polygenic screening is also extremely rare at present. While I expect the costs to come down dramatically, and would be unsurprised if over 10% of IVF births are polygenically selected embryos in the year 2030 (cumulative over the next 6 years would be much more surprising), it would be completely shocking if over 10% of all American births were IVF at all, much less selected embryos (polygenetically screened or otherwise), even in the year 2030 much less cumulative from now until then.

market is not about cumulative

So, 10% or more in a specific calendar year, or any contiguous 12mo period, then?

10% over any significant period if time would count. A week, for example.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-quiet-return-of-eugenics/