Signal: Right — the short saw up to +3.16% unrealized gain while open, so the predicted downward drift did occur. Timing: Partially eroded — entry filled at 1639.08 versus the 1651.44 prior close (~0.75% lower), so some of the move was already gone by fill, though most was still ahead. Exit: The dominant failure — the mechanical next-close exit gave back the entire +3.16% (~$52 available) and closed at -$4.68, meaning the trade rode the favorable move fully round-trip before exiting into a rebound. Bluntly: the exit rule, not the signal, cost this trade.

Signal: wrong. The short predicted post-earnings downside, but TSLA rose ~2.8% from entry (312.53 → 321.37), so the direction call failed outright. Timing: price was already up ~1.2% above the prior close (308.85) at fill, but there's no evidence the anticipated decline had happened and been missed — the bearish move simply never materialized. Exit: the best unrealized was only +1.05% versus a worst of -3.79%, and the close-to-close exit realized roughly -2.8% — near the worst available, but even a perfect exit would have captured only a small gain. The dominant factor is signal failure: the market absorbed the bad earnings news and moved the opposite way.

Signal: partially validated — the short saw as much as +2.04% unrealized gain while open, so the downside move the rationale predicted did occur intraday. Timing: entry wasn't chasing a completed move; price had risen +1.11% into the entry, which if anything gave the short a better price, and the data doesn't suggest the drop pre-dated entry. Exit: this is the dominant factor — the mechanical next-close exit gave back the entire +2.04% available and closed 0.31% underwater (-$2.50), capturing none of what was on the table.

Signal: directionally right but barely — the long finished +0.67%, and the -5.03% worst unrealized shows the position spent time deeply against the thesis, so the "strong data center growth" catalyst didn't produce clean upward drift. Timing: the data doesn't settle this — the stock was only +0.49% off the news at decision time (and fading), and the fill at 480.24 was actually below the prior close, so there's no evidence the move was already spent. Exit: the mechanical next-close exit captured +0.67% of a +2.19% best available (roughly a third), which is mediocre capture, though it did avoid realizing the -5% drawdown. Dominant factor: a weak, volatile signal — the +$6.42 outcome looks like noise within a ±2-5% intraday range rather than a captured drift edge.

Signal (dominant factor): wrong. The bullish call on the leasing-program news never materialized — the position was underwater the entire hold (best unrealized was -0.89%, meaning price never even reached the entry level), so this wasn't a good idea executed poorly; the direction itself failed.

Timing: The pre-entry move was small (+0.27% since prior close), so the data doesn't show a chase into an already-completed move — though the fill at 311.07 was notably above the 308.91 prior close, suggesting some slippage or gap between decision and fill.

Exit: The -2.54% realized loss sits near the worst unrealized (-2.69%) rather than the best (-0.89%), so the exit gave back most of what recovery was available — but with a bad signal, the exit is secondary; the trade lost because the thesis was wrong.

Signal: Right — the bullish call played out, with the trade going up +4.53% at peak and essentially never underwater (worst -0.05%). Whether the open-source-advocacy news was the actual driver can't be verified from this data.

Timing: Good — entry at 199.62 was below the prior close (200.75), so the move had not already happened; the near-zero worst unrealized confirms entry was close to the local bottom.

Exit: Captured most of what was available — realized +3.32% (+$33.15) versus a best unrealized of +4.53%, leaving roughly a quarter of the peak move on the table. Dominant factor: a correct signal with clean timing; the exit was the only modest leak.

Timing is the dominant factor. The trade chased a move that had largely already happened — AMD was up ~2% from prior close (with +1.8% in the last 30 minutes alone) at decision time, and the fill at 485.93 was another ~0.5% above that context price. Whether the bullish repricing thesis was ultimately right can't be settled from this data: price only reached +1.00% unrealized before fading, which is consistent with the news being priced in by entry rather than the signal being wrong. The exit at -0.46% was reasonable given what was available — it avoided the -1.70% worst case while giving back the modest +1.00% peak, so the loss reflects a late entry, not poor exit execution.

Signal: wrong. The bearish thesis didn't play out — MU rallied ~1.5% against the short, and the best the position ever showed was a trivial +0.19% unrealized. Timing: not the issue — at entry the stock was only -0.35% from prior close, so the predicted decline hadn't already occurred; it simply never came. Exit: roughly fair given a bad trade — the -12.01 loss (~-1.47%) sits between the best (+0.19%) and worst (-2.03%) unrealized, so the exit neither missed meaningful upside nor rode the position to its worst point. The dominant factor is a failed directional signal: the Kioxia read-through to Micron did not materialize in price.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was wrong — AVGO rose ~0.6% against the short, and the regulatory headline produced no meaningful downside. Timing: The stock was down only ~0.2% at entry, so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed move; the predicted decline simply never occurred. Exit: The trade only ever showed +0.13% unrealized in its favor versus -0.98% at worst, so the -4.86 USD exit (~-0.63%) sits between those; there was essentially nothing to capture, and the exit avoided the worst but this is an execution footnote — the bad signal is the story.