Signal: wrong. The short predicted continued downside, but TSLA rose ~2.6% over the holding period (319.97 → 328.44), and the maximum favorable excursion was only +0.34% versus -4.23% adverse — the trade was essentially never working.

Timing: The rationale cites a 26% post-earnings plunge, which suggests the move may have already occurred before entry, but the data here (only -0.88% since prior close at decision time) doesn't establish when the plunge happened relative to entry, so timing can't be settled from this record.

Exit: The exit at -2.65% avoided the worst unrealized level (-4.23%), so exit execution salvaged something; but with only +0.34% ever available, no exit could have made this profitable. The dominant factor is a wrong directional signal.

Signal/timing: wrong, and stale. The 8% earnings-driven decline had already occurred before entry (price was flat vs. prior close at +0.09%), so the short was betting on continuation of a move the market had already absorbed — and instead the stock rebounded ~1% overnight, making the directional call wrong for the holding window. Exit: the trade did see +1.59% unrealized (~+$9.4) at some point, so a better exit was theoretically available, but the mechanical next-close exit landed near the worst of the range (-5.77 vs. worst ~-$9.5). Dominant factor: entering on already-priced-in news — the rationale describes a reaction that had happened, not one still to come; the exit rule is secondary. The data doesn't show intraday timing of the +1.59% peak, so whether it was realistically capturable can't be settled here.

Signal: Correct — the short direction paid off; MU fell from 882.47 to 875.66 (+6.81, ~0.77%).

Timing: Partly missed. Price context at decision showed MU roughly flat (+0.28% vs prev close of 892.49), but the fill came in at 882.47 — about 1.1% below the prior close — so a meaningful chunk of the anticipated sell-off occurred between decision and fill. The data here doesn't show whether that gap was execution lag or an overnight gap, so exactly how much of the move was forgone can't be settled.

Exit: The dominant issue. The trade saw +3.66% unrealized (roughly +32 on this position) but the fixed next-close exit banked only ~0.77% — about a fifth of the best available — while also riding through a -3.80% adverse swing. Right call, sloppy entry basis, and an exit that captured a small fraction of what the move offered.

Signal: wrong. The short predicted overnight downside on the regulatory news, but AAPL rose from 312.63 to 313.95 (-0.42% against the position), so the directional call failed.

Timing: not the issue. Price was only +0.35% above prior close at decision time — the adverse move happened after entry, not before it.

Exit: gave back what was available. The position was briefly +0.64% in the money, but the mechanical next-close exit landed near the worst unrealized (-0.69%), so essentially all the transient favorable move was surrendered. The dominant factor is the wrong directional signal; the exit merely locked in a loss close to the maximum drawdown seen while open.

Signal: wrong. NVDA rallied ~2% overnight instead of continuing down; the short lost -2.03% (-$17.80). Timing: the rationale itself suggests the news-driven decline had already occurred before entry (the article describes a sell-off that already happened, and the entry-time context shows the stock roughly flat since prior close), so the trade was shorting stale news rather than an ongoing move. Exit: it captured close to the worst available — max favorable was only +0.31% versus a worst of -2.46%, so the mechanical next-close exit gave back nearly the full adverse range, though with only +0.31% ever available there was little to capture anyway.

Dominant factor: bad signal — the thesis of continued downside was simply wrong, and the tiny best-unrealized (+0.31%) shows no exit rule could have salvaged much. Whether this was mean-reversion after the prior-day drop or fresh positive news overnight can't be determined from the data here.

Signal/timing: The rationale describes a surge that had already occurred — price context at decision showed MSFT flat-to-down (-0.40% since prev close, -0.08% last 30m), so the "FRESH" label looks wrong and the move was likely already priced in. Whether the bullish thesis was directionally valid longer-term isn't settled by this data, but over the holding period the direction was wrong: price finished below entry.

Exit: The trade saw +0.56% unrealized upside but exited at -0.15%, near the worst of -0.60% — so the exit gave back the modest gain that was available, though the range was small in absolute terms.

Dominant factor: Stale signal / bad timing — entering on news of a surge that predated the trade, with no confirming momentum at decision time.

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The bullish thesis (AI-earnings sympathy from MSFT/AMZN) never materialized in GOOGL: the position was underwater essentially the entire time (best unrealized only -0.03%), so there was no favorable move to capture. Timing wasn't the issue — price was roughly flat at decision time (-0.02% since prior close), so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed move, though the fill at 358.42 was ~0.2% above prior close. The exit near -0.98% sits between best (-0.03%) and worst (-1.28%) unrealized, meaning exit execution neither gave up gains nor caught the bottom — with no upside ever available, exit quality is secondary to the failed directional call.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was wrong — META rose ~0.77% against the short, and the trade never gained more than +0.36% unrealized. Timing: The move had not already happened at entry (price was only down ~0.25% from prior close), so this wasn't a stale-signal problem — the predicted decline simply didn't materialize. Exit: The exit at -4.55 was middling relative to what was available (best +0.36%, worst -1.45%): it missed the small favorable window but also avoided the worst drawdown, so exit execution is a secondary issue at most. Bluntly: bad directional signal.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out; the position never went underwater (worst unrealized just +0.04%). Timing: Mostly fine — price was only +0.31% off prior close at decision, so the move hadn't already run, though the fill at 273.87 (vs. 272.26 close) shows some slippage into the entry. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the trade captured +0.52% (+$4.29) against a best unrealized of +1.59%, giving back roughly two-thirds of the available gain. Right direction, acceptable timing, weak exit capture. (Note: the data here doesn't confirm whether the tariff-refund story itself was accurate or already priced in beyond the small pre-entry move.)

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out; the trade closed +1.49% with minimal adverse excursion (worst -0.47%).

Timing: Some of the move had already occurred — the stock was +0.57% from prior close at decision time, and the fill at 323.36 was ~1.2% above prev close, so entry gave up a chunk of the early move. Whether the news itself was already priced in beyond that can't be settled from this data.

Exit (dominant factor): The exit captured roughly half of what was available — +1.49% realized vs. a peak unrealized of +3.14%. The signal worked; the exit left about 1.6 percentage points (~$16) on the table, making exit capture the weakest link on an otherwise clean trade.

Signal: right. The bullish call worked — the position never went underwater (worst unrealized +0.19%) and rose steadily after entry.

Timing: partially pre-empted, but not fatally. Entry at 221.0 was ~0.9% above the prior close of 218.99, more than the +0.46% quoted at decision time, so some of the move was already paid for at fill — yet the stock kept rising, so the trade wasn't chasing a spent move.

Exit: good capture. The +1.21% realized (+$10.72) took roughly three-quarters of the +1.67% peak available. Dominant factor here is simply a correct signal with continuation after entry; nothing in the data indicates a problem worth flagging. (Whether the "FRESH" news claim was actually fresh or accurate can't be verified from this data.)

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out, with the stock rising ~0.88% from entry to exit. Timing: Good — price was slightly down (-0.33% since prior close, flat last 30m) at decision time, so the move had not already occurred; entry caught the run rather than chasing it. Exit: Strong — the +8.19 (+0.88%) captured most of the +1.10% best unrealized, with negligible drawdown (-0.08%). Dominant factor: a correct signal executed cleanly at all three stages — this trade worked essentially as intended. (Whether the Gemini/Siri news itself actually drove the move can't be confirmed from this data.)

Signal: Directionally right but only trivially — TSM drifted down 0.08% from entry, a noise-level move that doesn't validate the geopolitical thesis; the stock never sold off meaningfully (max favorable move just +0.17%, and it went +0.43% against the short at worst).

Timing: Price was up only +0.27% from prior close and flat over the last 30 minutes at decision time, so there's no evidence the anticipated drop had already occurred — the drop simply never materialized at size.

Exit: The +$0.70 exit captured about half of the tiny best-case (+0.17% ≈ +$1.42 unrealized), which is fine execution given nothing was available. Dominant factor: weak signal — the "FRESH" bearish catalyst produced no real move, and the small profit is noise, not thesis confirmation.

Signal: The predicted bullish move never materialized while the trade was open — price stayed essentially flat (range +0.03% to -0.26%), so the data can't confirm the direction was right, only that it didn't pay off in the holding window. Timing: No evidence the move had already happened; price was slightly down (-0.69% from prev close) at entry, so this wasn't a chase — the catalyst simply produced no follow-through. Exit: The exit was fine — -0.03 USD on a max unrealized range of roughly +0.03%/-0.26% means the exit captured close to the best available and avoided the worst.

Dominant factor: signal — the news catalyst generated no tradeable move during the trade's life; timing and exit were non-issues.