🚨 Alert #96 Fri Jul-17 15:20:21

Comparison: The entry rationale was momentum-chasing on already-realized news — NVDA had already declined sharply when the trade fired, so the "repricing" was mostly priced in. The outcome confirms this: +0.59% captured on a trade that never moved more than +1.46% in your favor, meaning the thesis had almost no edge left at entry. A +$4.84 scalp on a "sharp sector-wide repricing" verdict is a rationale/outcome mismatch — either the verdict was overstated or the entry was too late.

Improvement: Add a staleness/extension filter to the REPRICING verdict: skip entry if the instrument has already moved more than ~1.5–2% in the signal direction over the prior session, or require the entry within N hours of the catalyst. Alternatively, demote late-arriving REPRICING signals to a lower-conviction tier with reduced size, since you're selling into a move that's largely done.

The entry chased an already-realized selloff — "declined sharply" means the repricing had largely happened by entry, so shorting AMD at 490 was momentum-following into a bounce, and the trade never got more than +1.47% before reversing to -3.17% and stopping out at a loss. The rationale also leaned on sector-wide sentiment (NVDA, MU, TSMC) rather than anything AMD-specific, making the direction call weak. Concrete fix: require the REPRICING verdict to trigger only if the catalyst is fresh (e.g., within the last session) AND the stock hasn't already moved more than ~2% in the verdict's direction — otherwise downgrade to no-trade or demand a pullback entry.