Signal: Wrong for the holding period — the predicted overnight drift didn't materialize; price fell ~0.8% from entry to exit. Timing: The move had largely already happened — the news-driven pop left price +0.68% over prior close and +2.00% in the final 30 minutes, so the entry chased a spike at 492.55. Exit: The mechanical next-close exit gave back nearly everything available, exiting near the worst unrealized (-1.06%) while +1.31% was briefly available intraday.

Dominant factor: timing — entering after a +2% late-session surge on already-public news meant buying the top of the move, and the subsequent decline looks like mean reversion of that spike rather than a mispredicted fresh catalyst.

Signal: Directionally right, but barely — the long finished +0.12%, which is weak confirmation of the news-driven drift thesis. Timing: Not a pre-run entry; the stock was flat-to-down at decision time (-0.17% from prior close), so the move hadn't already happened. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the fixed next-close exit captured only +0.12% of a +2.52% best unrealized gain while sitting through a -5.62% drawdown, meaning the mechanical hold both left most of the available upside on the table and took on risk far out of proportion to the realized reward.

Signal: correct — the bearish call played out, with price falling after entry (max favorable move +0.71%). Timing: partially eroded — AAPL was already down 0.46% from the prior close at decision time, though most of the captured move still lay ahead; the data doesn't show how much the fill lagged the signal beyond that. Exit is the dominant factor: the trade was closed early because it was netted out by an opposing long decision, capturing only ~0.19% of a +0.71% favorable excursion — the position-netting mechanics, not the market, cut the profit to roughly a quarter of what was available.

Signal: right. The bearish call worked — the trade was never underwater (worst unrealized +0.23%) and price fell steadily after entry. Timing: fine — entry came after a +0.74% rise from prior close, so the down-move had not already occurred; the short caught it from near the top. Exit: partially captured — the trade banked ~+1.03% versus a peak of +1.64% available, leaving roughly a third of the move on the table because it was closed early by netting against an opposing long decision, not by the signal playing out.

Dominant factor: the mechanical early close (netting rule) truncated an otherwise correct and well-timed trade — though the data here doesn't show whether the +1.64% peak came before or after the forced exit, so the exact forgone amount at close-time isn't settled.

Signal: Wrong over this holding period — TSM fell ~1.6% from entry, and the best it ever got was +0.93%, so the bullish thesis never meaningfully materialized. Timing: The move hadn't obviously run at decision time (+0.23% since prev close), but the fill at 422.0 was ~1.2% above the decision-time price, so entry chased a worse level than the rationale was based on; whether that gap was slippage or delay isn't settled by the data here. Exit: Poor capture — exiting at -1.60% is close to the worst unrealized (-2.04%) and far below the +0.93% peak, but with the signal itself failing, the dominant factor is simply a wrong-direction call; the exit merely locked in near the bottom of a losing trade.

Signal was wrong — the stock never moved meaningfully in the trade's favor (best unrealized only -0.18%, i.e., it never even got back to entry) and fell steadily to a -2.4% loss. Timing compounded it: the rationale was backward-looking (already-reported Q2 earnings and one-off gains), and entry came after a +0.64% move above prior close, chasing news likely already priced in. The exit itself was reasonable — the -19.89 P&L (-2.37%) landed near but above the worst unrealized of -3.08%, so little additional upside was left on the table; the dominant factor is a bad directional call on stale news, not exit execution.

Signal: right. The bullish repricing call played out — price rose from 307.50 to 311.42 (+1.27%), and the pre-entry dip (-0.80% since prior close) means the move had not already happened; entry actually caught the stock below the prior close, so timing was favorable rather than chasing.

Exit: near-optimal. The +1.27% realized gain captured almost all of the +1.34% best unrealized, with only -0.32% adverse excursion along the way.

Dominant factor: correct directional signal, cleanly executed — this trade worked on all three dimensions, with nothing in the data suggesting luck vs. thesis (the supply-chain news causality can't be verified from price data alone).

Signal: marginally right — price drifted up and the trade closed green, though the +0.09% move is too small to strongly confirm the bullish repricing thesis. Timing: the stock had already run +1.60% in the prior 30 minutes, so entry chased a move partly in progress (entry 420.4 vs prev close 418.16). Exit: this is the dominant factor — the position saw +0.87% unrealized (~+7.30 USD) but exited at +0.78 USD, capturing roughly a tenth of what was available; the exit gave back most of the move.

The signal was wrong: the bullish repricing thesis never materialized — the stock topped out at just +0.20% above entry and then fell steadily, ending -4.83%. Timing played a minor role (entry was ~1% above prior close after a small pre-entry pop, so a bit of the favorable move was already gone), but that's marginal next to the directional miss. The exit gave back nearly all of the available range — it captured close to the worst unrealized (-6.13%) rather than any of the tiny upside — but the dominant factor is simply a bad directional call.

The bullish signal failed over the holding period: PLTR never rose more than +0.12% after entry and fell steadily, so there was essentially no favorable move to capture. Timing evidence points to a stale catalyst — the "surge" cited in the rationale had already occurred, with price actually down -0.98% from prior close and fading (-0.51% last 30m) at entry. The exit near -1.88% is close to the worst unrealized (-2.01%), but with a best of only +0.12% there was nothing meaningful available; the dominant factor is a bad/late signal, not exit execution.

Signal: correct — the bearish call worked; price fell after entry and the trade barely went underwater (worst unrealized only -0.13%). Timing: only mildly late — the stock was down just 0.87% from prior close at decision time, so most of the captured move occurred after entry; whether a larger post-earnings drop had already been absorbed before that isn't determinable from this data. Exit: this is the dominant factor — the trade banked ~+0.46% against a best unrealized of +1.18%, capturing well under half of the favorable move that was available.

Signal: Right. The bullish repricing call worked — the trade never went underwater (worst unrealized was still +0.25%) and MU rose after entry.

Timing: Broadly fine. Entry was only +0.88% above prior close (and after a -1.92% dip in the last 30 minutes), so the anticipated move had not meaningfully occurred before entry; the data here doesn't show how much of the multi-year thesis was already priced in, and can't.

Exit: The weak link and the dominant factor. Peak unrealized was +3.29% (~+29.60/share equivalent) but the trade banked only +0.61% (+5.49) — the exit captured under a fifth of what was available on a signal that was correct the entire time.

Signal: Correct — the bearish call was validated, with the short reaching +1.46% unrealized (roughly 8.6 points of favorable movement) against only -0.09% adverse. Timing: Fine — price was only +0.33% above prev close at decision, so the anticipated move had not already occurred. Exit: This is the dominant failure — the trade gave back the entire +1.46% and closed at -0.37 USD, capturing essentially none of the available move; the exit turned a clearly right directional call into a small loss.

Signal: Weak-to-unconfirmed. The thesis was second-hand read-through (AMD's guidance implying MSFT demand), and while open the stock never moved decisively — peaking at just +0.42% against a -0.63% drawdown — so the data here doesn't settle whether the bullish call was right; the trade was cut before the thesis could play out.

Timing: Not the problem — MSFT was slightly down at entry (-0.53% from prior close), so the trade wasn't chasing a move that had already happened.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The position was closed not on price but administratively — netted out by an outranking opposing short signal (decision 7979). The -1.12 exit landed roughly mid-range between the +0.42% best and -0.63% worst unrealized, meaning the exit neither captured the available upside nor reflected any price-based judgment; the trade's outcome was determined by signal-conflict mechanics, not by the market or the entry thesis.

Signal: Directionally correct but barely — MSFT drifted down slightly after entry, and the trade closed +$1.46. Timing: MSFT was already down 0.69% from prior close at decision time, and the post-entry range was tiny (+0.18%/-0.33%), so most of any news-driven move had likely already occurred; the data can't confirm exactly when the news broke relative to that decline. Exit: The exit was fine — it captured roughly +0.15% of a +0.18% max, near the best available.

Dominant factor: timing. The "FRESH" verdict looks stale — there was almost nothing left to capture after entry, and the small profit reflects noise-level drift, not the thesis playing out.