

Court filings and internal emails reveal Amazon allegedly pressured suppliers to raise prices on rival retail sites, leading to legal scrutiny and claims of anti-competitive behavior.
| strategy | ticker | action | side | rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | AMZN | ● enter | ▼ short | verdict FRESH, direction bearish -> sell AMZN (regulatory: Court filings and internal emails reveal Amazon allegedly pressured suppliers to raise prices on rival retail sites, leading to legal scrutiny and claims of anti-competitive behavior.) |
| S2 | - | ○ skip | — | no counterparty in universe |
| S3 | - | ○ skip | — | no peer in universe |
| S4 | AMZN | ○ skip | — | overnight drift: sell AMZN at close, exit next close (regulatory: Court filings and internal emails reveal Amazon allegedly pressured suppliers to raise prices on rival retail sites, leading to legal scrutiny and claims of anti-competitive behavior.) [skipped at close: signal conflict — wanted sell but open S4 buy AMZN exiting 2026-07-22] |
| strategy | ticker | side | qty | entry | exit | P&L $ | status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | AMZN | ▼ short | 4 | 247.76 | 247.50 | +1.04 | closed |
| ticker | mfe | mae | reflection |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMZN S1 | +0.19% | -0.42% | Comparison: The entry treated a regulatory headline as a FRESH bearish catalyst, but the outcome was noise — a +1.04 USD scratch on a stock that moved less than half a percent either way, with the adverse excursion (-0.42%) actually exceeding the favorable one (+0.19%). Regulatory/antitrust stories on mega-caps like AMZN are slow-burn narratives that rarely produce tradeable intraday moves, so the "FRESH" verdict overstated the signal's immediacy. Improvement: Add a materiality gate for regulatory catalysts — only trade them if paired with price/volume confirmation (e.g., the stock is already down >1% on elevated volume), or downgrade regulatory-category news to a lower verdict tier that requires a second confirming signal before entry. |