Signal: Right — the short captured a -1.70% move, though the trade was underwater as much as -2.91% while open, so the path was volatile and the news premise (which can't be verified from this data) wasn't a clean catalyst. Timing: Fine — only -0.19% had occurred by entry, so the move was not already priced in. Exit: Excellent — the +1.69% best unrealized was essentially fully captured (+15.68 on 4 shares ≈ +1.70%), meaning the close-to-close exit landed at nearly the peak of what was available.

Dominant factor: correct signal with a near-perfect exit; the main blemish is the large adverse excursion (-2.91%) mid-trade, which the fixed hold happened to survive rather than manage.

Signal: Right — the short gained ~1.76% as META fell overnight, and the move had not already occurred at entry (price was only -0.18% from prior close, so timing was fine). Exit: Nearly optimal — the +10.47 P&L (~1.76%) captured almost all of the +1.79% best unrealized, with only modest adverse excursion (-1.05%) along the way. Dominant factor: a correct directional call executed cleanly end-to-end; whether the regulatory news actually drove the decline can't be determined from this data, but the mechanical outcome was about as good as this trade allowed.

Signal: partially right — price did drift up as much as +1.39% while open, so upside existed after entry. Timing: the stock was already +0.67% off the prior close at decision time, so part of the news-driven move was consumed before entry, but the +1.39% peak shows meaningful drift remained. Exit: this is the dominant factor — the mechanical next-close exit surrendered essentially the entire available gain, closing at -0.41%, nearly the worst unrealized point (-0.44%) after the position had been up +1.39%. The direction call wasn't wrong; the fixed exit captured close to the worst outcome the position saw.

Signal: right. The short call on post-earnings drift worked — TSLA fell ~2.75% from entry to exit. Timing: mostly fine. Only ~0.6–1% of the drop had occurred by entry (price had slipped from 309.22 to 306.27), so the bulk of the move came while the position was open. Exit: near-optimal. The +2.75% captured is essentially the best unrealized of +2.77%, with minimal adverse excursion (-0.88%).

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal with an exit that captured virtually everything available — this trade worked as intended on all three dimensions.

Signal: wrong. The predicted overnight drift never materialized — NVDA fell ~3.65% from entry, and the best unrealized gain was a negligible +0.26%, so there was essentially no upside to capture. Timing was not the issue: only +0.69% had moved before entry, so the trade wasn't chasing an exhausted move. Exit: the mechanical next-close exit landed near the worst unrealized (-3.65% vs. -3.73% trough), but given the +0.26% peak, no realistic exit would have salvaged much. Dominant factor: the directional signal was simply wrong — the open-source news did not produce the expected drift.

Signal: wrong. The predicted overnight drift up on the partnership news didn't materialize — the stock fell ~3.1% from entry, and the best unrealized gain was only +0.56%, so there was never a meaningful move in the predicted direction.

Timing: not the issue. Entry was only +0.09% above the prior close, so the trade wasn't chasing a move that had already happened.

Exit: reasonable given the mechanical rule. The -3.06% realized loss sits well inside the -5.43% worst unrealized, so the fixed next-close exit actually avoided the trough; with only +0.56% ever available upside, no exit could have made this a winner. The dominant factor is plainly a failed signal — the market did not treat the partnership news as a positive catalyst.

Signal: Mixed — the stock did rise as much as +1.54% while open, so the bullish read had some validity, but it ultimately reversed below entry; the data here doesn't tell us whether the Kuiper news itself drove either move.

Timing: Not the problem — price was flat at decision time (-0.08% from prev close, 0.00% last 30m), so the trade wasn't chasing a move that had already occurred.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The trade exited at -1.03%, essentially the worst point of the entire holding period (worst unrealized -0.97%), after having +1.54% available — the exit gave back the full favorable move and captured the bottom instead.

Signal was right: the bearish call played out, with the short reaching +2.52% unrealized against only -0.62% adverse. Timing was fine — NVDA was roughly flat vs. prior close at decision time (+0.03%, entry ~0.4% below prev close), so the move had not already happened. The dominant factor is the exit: the trade was closed early by being netted against an opposing long decision, not by any price signal, capturing +1.31% (+$12.80) of a +2.52% peak — roughly half of what was available was left on the table by the mechanical netting, though whether the peak came before or after the forced close isn't determinable from this data.

Signal: partially validated — the trade reached +1.26% unrealized, so the bullish direction was briefly right, though the rationale itself (weak SoC shipments, memory price surge favoring Micron) has no clear bullish link to AAPL that this data can confirm. Timing: the stock was only +0.61% at decision time but filled at 340.22 (+0.98% over prior close), so roughly a third of a point was given up between signal and fill — a real but secondary drag. Exit is the dominant factor: the position saw +1.26% available and was closed at -0.57%, near the worst unrealized of -0.56%, meaning essentially the entire available gain was surrendered and the trade exited at its low.

Signal: Correct — the bearish call on collapsing operating income played out; the short gained 2.5%. Timing: Mostly fine — only -0.68% had moved since prior close at decision time (and flat over the prior 30m), though the fill at 305.51 was ~1.2% below prior close, so a modest slice of the move preceded entry. Exit: Near-perfect — the +2.53% best unrealized versus a realized +2.54% (7.75 points on entry 305.51) means the exit captured essentially everything available, with minimal adverse excursion (-0.66%).

Dominant factor: a correct signal with a well-timed exit — this trade worked as intended on all three dimensions.

Signal: Correct — the bearish call played out, with META falling from 590.41 to 582.70 while the trade was open.

Timing: Questionable on its face — entering short after nine consecutive down days risks chasing an exhausted move, and the trade did go -1.57% underwater at its worst — but the data here shows the decline continued anyway, so the entry wasn't too late in this instance.

Exit: Near-perfect — the +7.71 realized (~+1.31%) actually exceeds the +1.29% best unrealized mark, meaning the exit captured essentially everything available. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal harvested with an optimal exit; the main blemish is the meaningful adverse excursion before the move resumed.

Timing is the dominant factor. The bearish move had already largely played out by entry — MSFT was down ~1% in the prior 30 minutes when the short filled at 390.25 — and the trade never got more than +0.07% of favorable movement before reversing, so the signal produced no post-entry edge (the data can't distinguish "correct but fully priced-in" from "wrong direction"; either way there was nothing left to capture). The exit at 394.66 (-1.13%) was near the worst unrealized (-1.39%), but it was a mechanical netting against an opposing S1 long rather than a judgment call, so exit quality here reflects the netting rule, not exit logic.

Signal: Right — the bearish call played out; PLTR fell from 124.48 to 123.29 (+0.96% on the short). Timing: The move had not already happened — price was up +0.95% at entry, so the short caught the reversal, though the -2.25% worst unrealized shows the position first went materially against before working. Exit: Solid — the +0.96% realized captured roughly two-thirds of the +1.49% best available, so little was left on the table.

Dominant factor: correct signal with a competent exit; the only blemish is the adverse excursion (-2.25%) exceeding the eventual gain, indicating entry was somewhat early within a noisy path. The data doesn't reveal whether the exit was rule-based or discretionary, so exit intent can't be judged beyond the capture ratio.

Exit is the dominant factor. The bearish signal briefly validated — the trade saw +0.21% unrealized (nearly all the range available) against a worst of only -0.02% — but the position was closed early because it was netted out against an opposing S2 long GOOGL decision, and the exit landed at essentially the worst point of the trade, converting an available gain into a small loss. Timing looks fine: entry came after only a modest +0.21%/+0.33% drift, so the move hadn't already run. Whether the bearish thesis was right over its intended horizon can't be judged from this data, since the early forced close truncated the trade before the signal could play out.

Signal: Partially vindicated — the trade reached +1.65% unrealized, so the bullish direction had merit at least temporarily; whether the earnings thesis itself played out isn't determinable from this data.

Timing: Entry wasn't chasing — price was only +0.31% off the prior close with a flat last 30 minutes, so the move had not already happened by entry.

Exit: This is the dominant failure. The trade closed at -0.87%, essentially the worst unrealized level of the entire hold (-0.84%), after having been up +1.65% — the exit surrendered the full available gain and locked in near the maximum drawdown. The signal and timing were adequate; the exit captured the worst of what the trade offered.

Signal: Right — the bullish call was correct; GOOGL rose after entry. (Worth noting the rationale is largely about Microsoft's upcoming report, with Alphabet's already-reported beat as the GOOGL-specific driver, so the thesis leans on stale news; whether that catalyst was already priced in can't be fully settled from the data here.)

Timing: Acceptable — price was roughly flat vs. prior close at decision time (+0.05%), so the move had not already happened by entry.

Exit: The dominant weakness. The trade banked +0.55% (+$3.70) while the position saw +2.37% unrealized at its best — the exit captured less than a quarter of the available move. Direction and entry were fine; the exit left most of the gain on the table.

Signal: right. The bearish call played out — ASML fell ~1.5% from entry to exit, and the price context (+0.04% vs prior close) shows the move had not already occurred by entry; if anything, the +1.61% pop in the prior 30m gave a slightly better short entry.

Exit: near-optimal. Realized P&L of +24.29 (~+1.54%) matches or slightly exceeds the best unrealized of +1.51%, meaning the exit captured essentially all of the available favorable move.

Dominant factor: correct signal with full capture — though note the trade sat through a -2.26% adverse excursion before working, which was larger than the eventual gain; the data here doesn't say how long that drawdown lasted or whether it was early or late in the hold.

Signal: Ambiguous — the stock did rally as much as +2.26% while open, so the bullish read wasn't flatly wrong, but it ultimately closed well below entry, so the direction didn't hold. Timing: Not the problem — QCOM was down ~1% from prior close at entry, so the anticipated move hadn't already run; if anything, entry got a small discount. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the exit at -2.32% was essentially the worst point of the trade (worst unrealized -2.48%), surrendering the entire +2.26% that was available at the peak; the trade captured close to the maximum drawdown rather than any of the upside. The data doesn't show why the exit fired there (stop, time limit, etc.), so the mechanism can't be diagnosed from this record alone.

Signal (dominant factor): wrong. The bullish repricing thesis failed — despite the partnership news, AMD continued falling from 446.5 to 431.68 (-3.3%), with sector selloff pressure (already flagged in the rationale) overwhelming the catalyst. Timing: the stock was down 1.84% at decision time, but the data doesn't show whether a bullish repricing had already occurred beforehand — if anything, the anticipated up-move never materialized, so this isn't a case of chasing a completed move. Exit: the trade closed essentially at the worst unrealized level (-3.30% worst vs. -3.32% realized), meaning the position rode the entire drawdown and gave back the small +1.37% that was briefly available — but with a wrong-direction signal, the exit only compounded the loss rather than caused it.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish repricing call was wrong — NVDA never meaningfully rose after entry (best unrealized just +0.23%) and drifted down instead, so the predicted direction simply didn't materialize while the trade was open.

Timing: Price was already down -1.43% from prior close at decision time, but since the thesis was bullish, this data doesn't show the anticipated move had already happened — it shows the stock was fading against the thesis before and after entry.

Exit: The -13.95 P&L equals roughly -1.44%, i.e., the exit hit the worst unrealized point of the trade — but with only +0.23% ever available, even a perfect exit would have been near-flat; the loss is attributable to the bad signal, not exit execution.

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The bullish repricing call never materialized: AVGO peaked at just +0.39% and fell steadily to -1.84%. Timing wasn't the issue — price was flat versus prior close (+0.01%) at decision time, so the move hadn't already happened; the predicted move simply never came. The exit at -1.83% captured essentially the worst unrealized level, but with only +0.39% ever available, no exit could have salvaged much — the loss stems from the direction call, not exit execution.