Signal: Right — the bullish read on the settlement paid off; the stock rose after entry. Timing: Partially late — about +0.70% of the move had already occurred by decision time (entry 574.8 vs. prior close 571.10), though a comparable further leg (+0.57%) remained. Exit: Efficient — the +3.28 P&L (+0.57%) captured essentially all of the +0.60% best unrealized gain, with minimal drawdown (-0.14%).

Dominant factor: a correct signal with a near-optimal exit; the only mild drag was entering after part of the news-driven pop, which capped the size of the available move.

Signal: Mildly right — the stock traded up to +0.45% while open, consistent with the bullish call, though the move was small. Timing: Not stale — only +0.13% since prior close at decision time, so entry wasn't chasing an already-completed move. Exit: The dominant failure — the trade closed at essentially breakeven (-$0.05) despite +0.45% of favorable unrealized movement being available, capturing none of it. Bluntly: this was an exit problem; the signal did its (modest) job and the timing was fine, but the exit surrendered all available gains.

Signal: Directionally right — the short moved as much as +1.42% in your favor with only −0.11% adverse, so the bearish call worked over the holding period. Timing: The rationale cites a 31% drop that had already occurred, so the trade entered after the bulk of the repricing; still, the entry itself wasn't late for the intraday move actually captured (only −0.19% since prior close at decision time). Exit: This is the dominant failure — the exit locked in roughly 0.07% (+$0.72) of a +1.42% favorable excursion, giving up about 95% of what was available; whether that was a rule-based exit or noise isn't determinable from this data.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call was simply wrong — TSLA fell ~1.2% from entry, and the position never gained more than +0.27% while open. Timing: The move had not already happened; price was slightly down on the day at entry (-0.47%), so this wasn't chasing a stale rally. Exit: The -8.20 exit (~-1.16%) landed between the best (+0.27%) and worst (-2.32%) unrealized, so the exit salvaged roughly half the drawdown, but with a max upside of only +0.27% there was essentially nothing to capture. The trade failed because the directional signal didn't play out, not because of timing or exit execution.

Signal: right. The bullish call worked — price rose from 343.66 to 346.61 with virtually no adverse excursion (worst -0.05%), so the direction was clean.

Timing: mostly fine, mildly late. Entry came after a +0.93% overnight gap, so a small part of the move was already spent, but the 30-minute trend was flat and the position still gained ~0.86% after entry, so the trade wasn't chasing an exhausted move.

Exit: the weak link. The exit captured +0.86% of a +1.57% best unrealized — roughly half the available gain was left on the table. Dominant factor: exit efficiency, not signal or timing; the data doesn't show why the exit fired where it did (no stop/target info here), only that it undercaptured.

Signal was the problem. The bullish call never materialized: AVGO drifted down after entry, with a max favorable move of only +0.40% against a -1.79% worst drawdown. Timing wasn't the issue — the stock was roughly flat vs. prior close (+0.15%) at decision time, so the trade didn't chase an already-completed move; whether the $100B-by-2027 guidance was genuinely fresh news or already priced in earlier can't be settled from this data alone. The exit at -0.74% was reasonable given what was available, landing between the best (+0.40%) and worst (-1.79%) unrealized — there was never meaningful upside to capture.

Signal: Partially validated — the short saw +1.58% unrealized at its best, so the bearish direction did play out while the trade was open. Timing: Only a modest -0.39% had occurred by entry (with a +0.51% bounce in the last 30m), so the trade wasn't obviously chasing an exhausted move; the data doesn't show whether the earnings drop referenced in the rationale had largely priced in before that. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the trade held through +1.58% of favorable movement and exited at -0.25%, surrendering essentially all of the available gain and turning a correct-direction trade into a loss.

Signal: right. The bearish call played out — TSM dropped ~1.9% after entry. Timing: fine. Price was essentially flat at decision time (+0.04% vs. prior close), so the move had not already occurred; the trade caught the decline rather than chasing it. Exit: near-optimal. The +16.32 P&L (~+1.91%) captured almost all of the +2.04% best unrealized, with only -0.66% adverse excursion.

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal, executed and exited cleanly — this trade worked as intended on all three dimensions. Note that the data here can't confirm the tariff news was the actual cause of the decline, only that direction and magnitude aligned with the thesis.

Signal: weak at best — the short spent time down as much as -2.10% (price rallied ~2% against the bearish call) versus a peak favorable move of only +0.45%, so the predicted direction was mostly wrong while the position was open. Timing: the data doesn't show a stale entry — price was only +0.31% since prior close at decision time — though the fill at 576.17 (about +0.9% over prior close) is notably above the quoted context, which the data here doesn't explain. Exit: the +1.22 (+0.21%) result captured roughly half the modest +0.45% available and was driven by a mechanical netting against another position, not the thesis; the dominant factor is a bad signal that got bailed out by a lucky forced exit.

Signal: correct — the bullish call played out, with the position moving as much as +1.89% in its favor and only -0.21% against. Timing: reasonably fresh — only +0.54% had accrued since the prior close at decision time, so most of the move came after entry (though entry filled ~0.54% above prev close, a modest slippage from the decision price). Exit: captured about +1.06% of the +1.89% peak — roughly half the available move left on the table, but a solidly positive capture. Dominant factor: a correct signal executed adequately; the only real cost was an exit that gave back some of the peak, not a flaw in direction or timing.