Signal: Direction was right — TSLA fell ~1.9% after entry — though note the rationale (Burry shorting Micron/Nvidia on semiconductor concerns) is only loosely connected to TSLA; the price data can't tell us whether the thesis or coincidence drove the move.

Timing: Fine — despite the -1.31% dip in the prior 30 minutes, entry at 313.95 was actually above the prior close, so the move had not already happened.

Exit: The dominant factor. The trade captured +1.92% of a +2.97% best unrealized (max drawdown only -0.82%), and the close was mechanical — netted out by an outranking long TSLA signal — not a judgment on the short itself, leaving roughly a third of the available move on the table. A correct signal with clean timing was truncated by an internal signal conflict, not by the market.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — the short only ever went +0.45% in the money while moving as much as −1.10% against, and it exited underwater. Whether the bearish repricing thesis would have played out on a longer horizon can't be settled here, since the exit wasn't signal-driven.

Timing: Not a case of chasing a move that already happened — the stock had risen +1.01% into entry, so the short was entered before any bearish move, at an arguably favorable price for the thesis; the move simply never came.

Exit: The close was mechanical (netted out by a conflicting long-AAPL decision), not a judgment on the trade. The −0.12% realized loss sits between the +0.45% best and −1.10% worst, so the forced exit neither captured the small gain available nor took the full drawdown. Dominant factor: a signal that didn't materialize, compounded by an exit dictated by an internal conflict rather than the trade's own logic — meaning this trade never got a clean test of its thesis.

Signal was the problem: the bullish call never materialized — the position peaked at just +0.21% and spent its life underwater, ending -0.73%. Timing is a minor secondary factor: entry at 233.51 was ~0.6% above the prior close after a +0.54% drift, so a small part of any move was already paid for, though the data can't confirm whether the earnings catalyst itself had passed. The exit was reasonable given what was available — closing at -0.73% versus a worst of -1.04% and a best of +0.21% means there was essentially nothing to capture; note the close was forced by netting against an opposing short signal, not by this trade's own logic.

Signal: During the holding period the direction was wrong — the stock fell steadily after entry (best unrealized only +0.05%) — though whether the earnings thesis itself would have paid off can't be judged from this data, since the trade was force-closed by an outranking opposing signal, presumably before earnings.

Timing: Entry chased a move already underway (+1.81% from prior close, +0.86% in the last 30 minutes), buying at 606.34 vs. a 595.19 prior close, which left essentially no favorable room.

Exit: The -0.85% realized loss sits at the bottom of the -0.88% worst unrealized, so the exit gave back everything available — but with a +0.05% peak, there was nothing to capture. The dominant factor is timing: entering after a ~2% run-up meant the trade was underwater almost immediately, and the netting-driven early close merely crystallized that.

Signal: wrong. The rationale predicted upward drift on the partnership news, but AMD fell ~5% from entry to exit — the direction call failed outright. Timing: the fill at 520.74 was already ~5.7% below the prior close of 552.33, well beyond the -1.19% seen at decision time, so the position entered into an accelerating decline; whether the news pop had already occurred and reversed before entry can't be settled from this data alone. Exit: the mechanical next-close exit at -5.02% gave back the entire +3.60% best unrealized and landed near the -8.34% worst — but with a fixed-time exit, that's a consequence of the losing signal, not a separate exit failure.

Dominant factor: the signal itself — the news-based long thesis was simply wrong for this window.

Signal: Partially right — MU rose as much as +4.58% while the trade was open, so the predicted upward drift did materialize intraday, but it fully reversed by the mechanical next-close exit.

Timing: The stock was already +1.74% off the prior close at decision time, so some of the move preceded entry; however, the entry fill (915.05) sits well below the quoted prior close (959.48), a discrepancy this data doesn't explain, so entry timing can't be fully assessed.

Exit (dominant factor): The fixed next-close exit is the blunt failure here — the trade held through a +4.58% peak and closed at -2.56%, much nearer the -6.43% worst than the best available, converting a winning signal into a loss.

Signal: right. The regulatory catalyst predicted upside and PLTR rallied ~7% — the direction call worked.

Timing: not stale. Despite +0.26%/+0.72% pre-entry drift, the fill at 122.78 was actually below the prior close, so essentially none of the move had been consumed by entry; the worst unrealized drawdown was only -0.22%.

Exit: captured nearly everything. The trade banked +7.0% against a best unrealized of +7.81% and negligible downside — the mechanical next-close exit left little on the table. Dominant factor: a correct signal, cleanly executed; nothing in this trade's data flags a problem.

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The short thesis (capex fears driving overnight weakness) didn't play out: GOOGL rose ~2.1% from entry to exit. Timing was a minor negative but not decisive — the stock was only +0.71% on the day at entry, so the adverse move happened after the position was on, not before. On exit: the trade never had much to capture (best unrealized just +0.39%) and the mechanical next-close exit actually recovered about a point from the worst drawdown of -3.13%, so exit execution was reasonable given a bad signal.

Signal: Right — the long drifted up and closed +1.10%, so the predicted direction held.

Timing: This is the murky one. The decision-time context shows AAPL barely moved (+0.17% vs prev close 321.66), yet the fill was 333.33 — roughly +3.6% above that reference. Either a large gap occurred between decision and fill (meaning much of the move was consumed before entry) or the context data is stale/mismatched; the data here doesn't settle which.

Exit: Reasonable — the +1.10% realized captured about 60% of the +1.82% best unrealized, with minimal drawdown (-0.46%), so little was left on the table.

Dominant factor: The unexplained ~3.6% gap between the decision-time price and the entry fill — the trade still won, but the entry price disconnect is the biggest anomaly and warrants checking whether fills routinely lag the signal.

Signal: Right — TSLA kept falling after entry, and the short finished profitable.

Timing: Substantially late — the decision context showed price ~320 (+0.10% vs prev close 319.69), but the fill came at 312.25, meaning roughly 2.3% of the predicted post-earnings decline occurred between decision and entry and was never captured.

Exit: Partial — the exit locked in +1.31% against a best unrealized of +2.44%, so roughly half of the available move was captured (and it avoided the -1.92% adverse excursion). The dominant factor is timing: the biggest slice of the correctly-predicted move happened before the fill, leaving only a modest remainder — of which the exit took about half.

Signal: wrong. The rationale predicted upward drift on the Vera CPU news, but NVDA fell ~4.4% from entry (206.10 → 196.98), so the directional call failed outright. Timing: the pre-entry context shows only a small prior move (+0.67% on day), so the loss wasn't a case of chasing an exhausted move — the decline happened after entry. Note the entry fill (206.10) sits below the stated prev close (208.76) despite positive intraday context, which the data here doesn't explain. Exit: the mechanical next-close exit realized -4.43%, close to the worst unrealized (-5.15%) and far below the best (+1.68%), but with a hold-to-close rule there was no discretion to capture that brief upside — the dominant factor is simply a wrong directional signal.

Signal: Right — the overnight-drift long paid off with a +1.76% move (entry 382.47 → exit 389.20), and downside exposure was minimal (worst -0.45%).

Timing: Mostly fine — the stock was already up +0.61% since prior close at decision time, so a small part of the move was consumed pre-entry, but the bulk came after the fill.

Exit: The fixed next-close exit captured about 58% of the peak (+3.03% best unrealized vs. +1.76% realized), leaving ~1.3% on the table — an acceptable giveback for a mechanical rule, and the dominant factor here is simply a correct directional signal.

Signal: Directionally right — META did trade lower, and the trade closed profitable. Timing: Partially eroded — the decision was made with price roughly flat to prior close (-0.07%), but the fill at 595.86 was already ~1.7% below the 606.10 prior close, so a chunk of the anticipated drift happened before entry (the data doesn't show when that gap occurred). Exit: This is the dominant factor — the exit captured only +0.32% of a +1.90% best unrealized move (roughly a sixth of what was available), and the position also sat through a -5.92% adverse excursion, meaning the mechanical next-close exit both left most of the gain on the table and tolerated large risk to get a marginal profit.

Signal: correct — price fell after entry and the short profited (+0.37%). Timing: partly late — AMZN was already down 0.67% from the prior close before entry, so some of the anticipated drift occurred pre-fill, though the data doesn't show how much more of the news-driven move had already been priced in. Exit: good capture — the +0.37% realized was most of the +0.52% best unrealized, but the dominant fact is the risk profile: the position sat through a -1.60% adverse excursion to collect a small gain, so the win was thin relative to the drawdown endured.

Signal: Wrong over the intended horizon — the overnight-drift thesis predicts a positive close-to-close return, and the realized move was -0.82% (402.09 → 398.81). The rationale's supply-chain narrative is a multi-year structural point with no clear link to a one-day drift bet either way.

Timing: The stock was already down ~1.9% from prior close at decision time, but the data here doesn't tell us whether that dip helps or hurts a drift signal, so timing can't be settled from what's given.

Exit: The position saw +2.50% unrealized at its best, so roughly +$20 was available versus the -$6.56 realized — the fixed next-close exit gave all of it back. Bluntly, the dominant factor is the signal failing over its stated holding period; the exit "left money on the table" only relative to an intraday peak the strategy never intended to capture.

Signal: right — the long call paid off, with the stock rising +2.27% from entry to exit. Timing: fine — price had actually declined into entry (-1.48% since prior close, still falling in the last 30 minutes), so the anticipated move had not already occurred; the strategy bought into weakness rather than chasing. Exit: the mechanical next-close exit captured +2.27% of a +3.51% peak unrealized gain, giving back roughly a third of the available move but comfortably clearing the tiny -0.38% worst drawdown — the dominant factor here is simply a correct signal with reasonable timing, and the exit leaving some upside on the table is the only meaningful shortfall.

Signal: Ambiguous — the trade ended green (+0.46%), but the path (worst -2.35% vs. best +0.82%) shows price spent meaningful time well against the position, so the bullish repricing thesis was at best weakly confirmed while the trade was open. Timing: Entry came after a modest dip (-1.12% from prior close), so the move hadn't already happened; the data here doesn't show whether the anticipated price-hike repricing ever played out after exit. Exit: The close wasn't a strategy exit at all — it was forced by netting against an opposing short signal — and it captured roughly half the best unrealized gain; the dominant factor is the conflicting-signal early close, which makes the positive P&L closer to luck than thesis validation.

Signal (dominant factor): wrong. The bullish partnership call never materialized — the stock topped out at just +0.33% unrealized before sliding to -4.92%, so the direction was simply incorrect over the holding period. Timing: the move hadn't already happened — price was flat-to-down at decision time (-0.18% since prev close), and notably the fill at 205.6 was already ~1.5% below the prior close of 208.76, suggesting weakness before entry rather than a missed run-up. Exit: the -4.19% realized loss sits near the worst unrealized (-4.92%), so the exit gave back nearly the maximum drawdown available and captured none of the (minimal) upside — but with a wrong-direction signal, exit quality is secondary to the failed thesis.

Signal: Right — the bearish call played out, with the stock falling ~3.9% after entry. Timing: Good — entry came after a +1.36% rise (not chasing a drop), and the worst unrealized was only -0.07%, meaning the short essentially never went against you. Exit: The weak link — max favorable excursion was +7.73% but the trade closed at roughly +3.9%, capturing only about half of the available move. The dominant factor is exit execution: a correct, well-timed signal left nearly half the potential P&L on the table.

Signal: Wrong — the bullish repricing thesis never materialized; best unrealized was 0.00%, meaning the trade never showed a profit after entry. Whether the preliminary margin news was already fully priced in can't be settled from this data, though the modest +0.80% since prior close suggests the move hadn't obviously "already happened" at entry.

Timing/Exit: Entry came into a fading tape (-1.72% in the prior 30m) and above the prior close, worsening the fill. The exit at -2.65% (-$25.92) was actually decent damage control given the worst unrealized of -6.37% — there was simply nothing available to capture.

Dominant factor: Signal failure. The direction was wrong from the first tick; timing and exit were secondary.

Signal: Directionally right, but barely — the stock recovered only +0.43% and first sank to -1.94% unrealized, suggesting the bullish repricing thesis had little force behind it. Notably, price was already down -1.42% from prior close at decision time despite the strong news, hinting the market had digested (or discounted) the guidance, though the data doesn't show when the news actually broke relative to entry, so timing can't be fully settled. Exit: Reasonably good — +0.43% captured against a +0.73% best available, so roughly 60% of the peak. The dominant factor was a weak signal: the trade spent most of its life underwater against a thesis that predicted a strong bullish repricing, and the eventual gain was small relative to the drawdown risked.

Signal: right. The bullish REPRICING call played out — price rose ~1.4% from entry to exit. Timing: good, arguably favorable. The stock was down 1.14% from prior close at decision time, so entry came on a dip rather than chasing a move that had already happened. Exit: solid capture. The +1.42% realized gain took most of the +1.84% best unrealized, leaving only ~0.4% on the table, with drawdown risk (-0.96%) well contained.

Dominant factor: correct directional signal, cleanly executed — this trade worked as designed on all three dimensions.

Signal: correct. The bearish call played out — META fell from 601.20 to 593.93, and the entry price above the prior close (+1.01% on the day) suggests the move had not already happened; the short caught the decline rather than chasing it.

Exit: near-optimal. Best unrealized was +1.29% (~$7.76 on the entry price) and the trade banked +$7.27 (~1.21%), capturing nearly all of the available move with essentially no adverse excursion (-0.08%).

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal, cleanly timed and cleanly exited — this trade worked as designed on all three dimensions. One caveat: the data doesn't show whether the stock kept falling after exit, so whether the exit left further downside uncaptured can't be settled here.

Signal: The bearish call was directionally right but only trivially — the max favorable move was +0.20% against a worse adverse excursion of -0.48%, so the "escalating conflict" catalyst produced no meaningful downside; the stock essentially didn't react. Timing: Entry wasn't late — price was only -0.12% off the prior close at decision time, so no material move had preceded entry; there simply was no move to be early or late to. Exit: The exit captured +0.13% of a +0.20% max available, which is decent execution relative to what existed — but what existed was noise-level.

Dominant factor: signal quality. The catalyst didn't translate into price movement, and the +$1.24 P&L is indistinguishable from noise rather than a validated thesis.

Signal: Weak at best — the bullish call technically closed positive (+0.10%), but the max favorable move was only +0.41% versus -0.72% adverse, so the stock spent more room below entry than above it; the EV-registration news produced no meaningful repricing. Timing: The data doesn't settle whether the move was already priced in — the stock was down 1.72% on the day at decision, so if anything entry came after weakness, not after the anticipated rally. Exit: Fine relative to what was available — capturing +0.10% out of a +0.41% peak leaves little on the table when the whole range was noise.

Dominant factor: signal quality — the catalyst simply didn't move the stock, and the small gain looks like luck within a flat, slightly negative-skewed range.

Signal: Wrong over the holding window — the stock never moved meaningfully in the predicted direction (best unrealized was just +0.16%), so the bullish thesis didn't play out while the position was open. Timing: Suggestive of chasing — entry came after a +0.94% gap from prior close, consistent with the "market cap surge" news already being priced in, though the data here can't fully confirm the move was exhausted. Exit: The early close (forced by netting against an opposing signal, not by the thesis) took -0.28% against a best of +0.16% and worst of -0.39% — near the bottom of a very tight range, but there was little available to capture either way. Dominant factor: a stale-feeling bullish signal on already-reported news that produced no follow-through.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was simply wrong — AAPL never moved meaningfully below entry (best unrealized was only -0.04%) and kept climbing, so the predicted direction failed outright.

Timing: The stock was already up +0.65% on the day at decision time, but since the anticipated downmove never materialized at all, there's no evidence the move "already happened" — the data doesn't support a timing diagnosis, just a bad signal.

Exit: The exit at -0.57% was essentially at the worst unrealized point (-0.58%), so the exit surrendered nearly the maximum drawdown available — though with best-case only -0.04%, there was almost nothing better to capture anyway.

Signal: Right, marginally — QCOM drifted down 0.12% from entry, and the trade never went more than 0.01% against the short, consistent with the bearish repricing call. Timing: Fine — the stock was up ~2% on the day at entry, so the anticipated downside move hadn't already occurred; the short wasn't chasing. Exit: This is the dominant weakness — best unrealized was +0.60% (~$5 on this position) but the exit at +0.12% captured only about a fifth of the available move, banking $1 of ~$5. The data doesn't show whether the exit was rule-driven or discretionary, but the bluntest read is: correct direction, clean entry, exit left most of the move on the table.