Signal: wrong — this is the dominant factor. The short predicted continued downside from the negative news, but GOOGL rallied ~7% from entry to exit; the trade never went more than +0.03% in favor. Timing: the stock had already dipped modestly (-0.88% from prior close) before entry, so some bearish reaction was arguably priced in, though the data can't confirm the news itself was already absorbed. Exit: the fixed next-close exit captured nearly the full adverse move (-7.0% realized vs. -7.5% worst unrealized), but with a max favorable excursion of just +0.03%, there was essentially nothing available to capture — the loss stems from the wrong direction, not exit mechanics.

Signal: correct. The bullish call played out — NVDA rose ~1.9% from entry to exit. Timing: partially late. The stock was already up 1.81% on the day at decision time, so some of the news-driven repricing was consumed before entry (entry at 197.73 vs. prev close 195.04), but meaningful upside remained, so the chase wasn't fatal. Exit: near-optimal. The +1.94% realized gain captured almost all of the +2.06% best unrealized, against a modest -1.29% worst drawdown. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal with a well-timed exit; the only cost was the ~1.4% of the move given up by entering after the initial pop.

Signal: Right — the bearish call was correct; price fell further after entry, with favorable excursion reaching +1.27%. Timing: Partially late — the stock had already dropped 2.95% in the 30 minutes before entry, so a meaningful chunk of the repricing was consumed pre-fill (whether the full 9% cited in the rationale had occurred can't be confirmed from this data). Exit: The dominant failure — the trade banked only +0.10% (+$0.90) against a best unrealized gain of +1.27%, capturing under a tenth of what the correct thesis made available.

Signal: Correct — the bearish call played out, with ASML falling from 1648.87 to 1641.49 (-0.45%). Timing: The move had not already happened at entry; price was only -0.17% off the prior close and had actually ticked up +0.41% in the prior 30 minutes, so the short was placed before the decline. Exit: Very good — the +7.38 P&L (+0.45%) captured nearly all of the +0.53% best unrealized, though note the position endured a -0.90% adverse excursion along the way, meaning the drawdown risk taken exceeded the gain realized.

Dominant factor: a correct signal with a near-optimal exit; the only blemish is that the adverse excursion was almost twice the captured profit. Whether the news itself caused the move can't be determined from this data.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — the bullish repricing thesis never materialized; AMD only reached +0.80% unrealized before falling, closing the trade down ~2.2%.

Timing: The fill at 491.0 was ~1.2% above the prior close (485.39) while the decision-time context showed only +0.52% and fading momentum (-0.95% last 30m), so part of the sympathy move on the Samsung/memory news was likely already priced in at entry — though the data here can't fully confirm how much.

Exit: The exit at 480.01 (-2.24% per share) is essentially the worst unrealized point (-2.19%), so nothing available was captured — but with a max of only +0.80% ever available, the dominant factor is bluntly the signal: the predicted direction was wrong, and no exit rule would have salvaged more than a small gain.

Signal: Wrong. The stock rallied against the short almost the entire hold — the best unrealized gain was a mere +0.15%, so the bearish repricing thesis never materialized in the position's lifetime.

Timing: Possibly a contributor: the stock was already down -0.94% from the prior close at decision time and was bouncing (+0.90% in the last 30m), consistent with entering after the news-driven drop had occurred — though the data here can't confirm how much of the move preceded the article.

Exit: The exit at -2.27% is near the worst unrealized (-2.31%), but with only +0.15% ever available, the exit gave up almost nothing that existed to capture. Dominant factor: signal failure — the predicted downside simply never came.

Signal: Wrong over the holding window — the bullish repricing never materialized; the stock managed only +0.45% at best and spent more time underwater (worst -0.86%). Whether the thesis was right on a longer horizon isn't settled by this data.

Timing: Entry chased a move already underway (+1.11% from prior close, +1.16% in the last 30m), buying at 407.11 after the pop from 403.31 — so what little upside existed was partly consumed before the fill.

Exit: The -0.45% realized loss sits between the best (+0.45%) and worst (-0.86%) unrealized, so the exit gave back the small available gain but also avoided the full drawdown — roughly a mid-range outcome. Dominant factor: the signal simply didn't fire in the window, compounded by entering after the initial move.

Signal: Right — the bullish call played out; price rose steadily after entry with essentially no adverse excursion (worst −0.07%).

Timing: Entry came after a chase — MSFT was already ~+1.9% above prior close at fill (459.70 vs 451.10) following the earnings pop — but enough continuation remained that this cost opportunity, not correctness.

Exit: Near-perfect capture — the +1.42% realized gain matches the +1.47% best unrealized almost exactly.

Dominant factor: Correct signal with clean execution; the only real leakage was entering after ~2% of the post-earnings move had already occurred, and the data here can't tell us how much pre-entry upside was foregone.