Signal: partially right — the short was up as much as +6.09% unrealized at some point while open, so the predicted downside did materialize intraday, but price fully reversed to close ~2.6% above entry. Exit: this is the dominant factor — the mechanical hold-to-next-close exit surrendered the entire +6.09% favorable move and realized -21.12, near the worst unrealized (-3.39%). Timing: the data is ambiguous — decision-time context showed TSM down -1.42% from prev close (403.31), yet the fill was 406.18, above prev close, so the entry price and context don't reconcile and I can't cleanly assess how much of the move was already priced in at fill.

Bluntly: the exit rule, not the thesis, caused the loss — the trade was substantially profitable while open and the fixed exit gave it all back.

Signal: Correct — long AAPL rose ~+2.0% from entry to exit, so the predicted overnight drift direction played out.

Timing: Not late — entry at 302.94 was actually below the prev close (308.91) referenced at decision time, so the fill occurred after further weakness and the move happened after entry, not before. (The data doesn't explain the gap between decision-time price and fill.)

Exit: Near-optimal — the +2.04% realized captured most of the +2.46% best unrealized, with minimal adverse excursion (-0.30%). Dominant factor: a correct signal with a favorable fill; this trade worked as designed.

Signal was wrong: the short bet on continued downside from the Apple/CXMT news failed outright — MU rose ~7.5% from entry to exit. Timing wasn't the issue in the "move already happened" sense (price at decision was flat vs. prior close), though the fill at 832.09 vs. prev close 823.03 meant the short started ~1% worse than the decision-time context suggested. The exit was near the worst available (-7.5% realized vs. -8.30% worst / +0.79% best), but with less than 1% of favorable movement ever on offer, no exit could have salvaged this — the dominant factor is a bad directional signal.

Signal: wrong. The short predicted downside from regulatory escalation, but AVGO rallied ~7% against the position; it was never more than 0.12% in the money while open. Timing: the entry at 390.9 was only ~0.4% above prior close, so the adverse move had not already happened — it occurred after entry, confirming this is a direction failure, not a chasing failure. Exit: the fixed next-close exit realized roughly -7.1%, essentially the worst unrealized (-7.94%), so nearly the full drawdown was absorbed — but with a mechanical time-based exit and no favorable excursion to capture, there was nothing better available. The dominant factor is a bad signal: the bearish regulatory read was overwhelmed by whatever drove the rally (not identifiable from this data).

Signal: Right in direction — price rose after entry and the trade closed green (+0.54%), though the rationale itself was speculative merger chatter, so the "repricing" thesis can't really be validated or refuted from this data alone.

Timing: Partially late — TSLA was already up +1.12% on the day at decision time, so the entry chased some of the move, but the position still saw another +1.20% of favorable drift, so the move wasn't exhausted.

Exit: The dominant factor. The exit captured +0.54% against a best unrealized of +1.20% — roughly half the available gain was left on the table, though it did avoid the -1.34% worst-case drawdown. Signal and timing were adequate; the exit gave back the most.

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The bearish call on the lawsuit news never materialized: AAPL rose ~1.1% against the position, with the best unrealized gain a negligible +0.11%. Timing wasn't the issue — the stock was roughly flat at entry (-0.24% from prior close), so the move hadn't already run; there simply was no bearish move to capture. The exit (forced by netting against an opposing long signal, per the journal) locked in a loss near the worst unrealized (-1.10% vs. -1.35% trough), but given the +0.11% ceiling, no exit could have salvaged meaningful profit — the loss is attributable to the directional call, not exit execution.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was wrong — GOOGL rose ~0.7% while the trade was open, and the worst unrealized (-1.37%) far exceeded the best (+0.59%). The lawsuit thesis simply didn't reprice the stock downward during the holding period.

Timing: Entry came after a +1.62% 30-minute rally, so the trade wasn't chasing a move that had already occurred — price hadn't sold off pre-entry — but shorting into short-term upward momentum didn't help.

Exit: The close was mechanical (netted out against a long GOOGL decision), not a judgment call; it landed at roughly -0.67%, worse than the brief +0.59% best but better than the -1.37% worst. The data doesn't tell us whether holding longer would have vindicated the thesis — the forced exit truncates that question. Bottom line: bad signal, exit noise secondary.

Signal: correct. The bullish call worked — the trade never went meaningfully against entry (worst -0.06%) and rose as much as +1.63%.

Timing: entry chased. The rationale describes a surge that had already occurred, and the stock was up +2.00% in the prior 30 minutes at decision time — entry came after a sharp move, though the position still had room to run, so the chase wasn't fatal here.

Exit: the dominant factor, and it was poor. The exit captured only +0.24% (+$2.34) of a peak +1.63% unrealized gain with essentially zero adverse excursion — roughly 85% of the available move was left on the table. The data doesn't show why the exit fired, so whether it was a rule or discretion can't be determined from this record.

Signal: Right — the bullish repricing call played out, with price moving cleanly in the trade's favor (worst unrealized only -0.14%). Timing: Fine — entry was only +0.5% above prior close, so the bulk of the move came after entry, not before it. Exit: The weak link — the exit at +0.72% captured roughly half of the +1.34% peak available; the trade left about as much on the table as it banked. Dominant factor: correct signal with mediocre exit capture — a winning trade that realized ~50% of the available move. The data here doesn't indicate whether the exit was rule-driven or discretionary, so no conclusion on why the capture was partial.

Signal: Correct — bullish call, and the stock rose ~0.92% from entry to exit with minimal adverse excursion (-0.17%).

Timing: Partially late — price was already +0.93% off the prior close at decision time, so some of the news reaction was in the price by entry; whether the news itself was genuinely fresh can't be verified from this data.

Exit: Good capture — +0.92% realized against a best unrealized of +1.36%, roughly two-thirds of the available move, with almost no drawdown endured.

Dominant factor: The signal was right and the exit was competent; the main leakage was the ~0.9% pre-entry move already priced in before the fill.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — META never moved meaningfully in the short's favor (best unrealized was just -0.01%, i.e., essentially never profitable) and instead drifted up against the position. Timing: The stock was already down 0.45% from the prior close at decision time, so some of the earnings reaction had occurred pre-entry, but the data here can't tell us whether the bulk of the post-earnings decline happened before the fill. Exit: The exit was actually decent damage control — the -0.92 USD loss (~-0.16%) is well above the worst unrealized of -0.84% (~-4.9 USD), so the exit cut the loss rather than eating the full adverse move.

Dominant factor: signal failure — the bearish thesis simply didn't play out in price while the trade was open.