Signal: correct. The short thesis (supply-constraint negative news) played out — AAPL fell another ~0.94% after entry, delivering +$8.67.

Timing: partially late. The stock had already dropped 1.97% from prior close by entry, so a meaningful chunk of the news reaction was priced in before the fill; the trade only captured the residual drift.

Exit: adequate but not optimal. Best unrealized was +1.55% versus the +0.94% realized — the mechanical next-close exit gave back roughly 40% of the peak move, while the worst drawdown (-0.55%) was never threatening. Dominant factor: correct signal on a move that was already substantially underway, with the mechanical exit capturing most but not all of what remained.

Signal: Wrong, or at least absent — the long thesis produced a −0.14% move (867.37 → 866.13), and the position spent more time underwater (worst −2.32%) than ahead (best +1.13%). Timing: The data here doesn't settle whether the earnings-driven move had already happened before entry; note the fill (867.37) is ~1.2% below the prev close (877.57) despite the decision-time context showing only −0.19%, an unexplained gap. Exit: The mechanical next-close exit gave back the +1.13% that was briefly available, but with a flat-to-negative drift there was no reliable edge to capture — the dominant factor is a signal that simply didn't play out, not a bad exit.

Signal: Right — the long call paid off, closing +0.68% above entry. Timing: Partially degraded — the stock was already +1.23% off prior close at decision time and the fill at 595.18 gave back some edge versus the 592.10 reference, though most of the eventual move was still ahead. Exit: The mechanical next-close exit captured only about a quarter of the +2.82% best unrealized gain, and the position also rode through a -4.01% drawdown, so the dominant factor here is the exit leaving most of the available upside (and tolerating heavy adverse excursion); whether the fundamental rationale (capex guidance) drove the move can't be settled from this data.

Signal: Wrong — the predicted continued upside didn't materialize; MSFT fell ~0.6% from entry, and the position was almost never in the green (best unrealized just +0.05%).

Timing: The move had largely already happened — the stock was up +1.66% off the prior close at decision time, so the trade bought after the news-driven pop rather than ahead of it.

Exit: The next-close exit gave back -0.60%, landing between the best (+0.05%) and worst (-1.33%) unrealized — there was essentially no available upside to capture, so the exit isn't the problem. Dominant factor: chasing an already-priced-in move (timing), compounded by a directional signal that simply didn't follow through.

Signal: right. The short predicted downside and GOOGL fell ~3.7% by exit; worst unrealized of only -0.28% means the trade was essentially never underwater.

Timing: fine. At entry the stock was only +0.24% from prior close, so the feared move hadn't already occurred — entry caught nearly the full decline.

Exit: partial capture. The mechanical next-close exit realized +26.42 vs. a peak unrealized of +6.07% (~$43 on 2 shares), giving back roughly 40% of the best available gain. Dominant factor: a correct signal with clean timing; the only slippage is the fixed exit leaving some of the intraday move uncaptured, which is inherent to the close-to-close rule rather than a signal failure.

Signal: Right — the short thesis (margin compression/negative FCF despite record revenue) played out; the position was up as much as +5.34% unrealized while open, so a substantial downward move did occur.

Timing: Fine — the stock was only +0.29% off the prior close at decision time, so the move had not already happened by entry; the data doesn't show meaningful pre-entry decay of the edge.

Exit: The failure point, bluntly. The mechanical next-close exit rode a +5.34% favorable excursion (~$53 available on 3 shares) all the way back through zero to a -$5.19 loss — essentially all available profit was given back, making exit mechanics, not the signal, the dominant factor in this outcome.

Signal: right. The short direction was validated — the position was up as much as +6.99% unrealized against only -1.37% adverse, so the predicted downside materialized while the trade was open.

Timing: fine, arguably favorable. The stock had rallied +2.54% in the last 30 minutes into entry, so the short was filled near a local high rather than after the anticipated decline had already occurred.

Exit: the dominant failure. The mechanical next-close exit captured +0.15% (+$1.35) out of a move that reached +6.99% unrealized — nearly the entire favorable move was given back before the scheduled exit. The data doesn't show when the peak occurred intraday, but the gap between best-unrealized and realized P&L is unambiguous: this was a correct call whose value was almost entirely lost at the exit stage.

Signal: Wrong. The rationale predicted upward overnight drift on strong earnings, but the stock fell ~1.5% from entry (422.47 → 416.26). Note the fill was already ~1.2% below the prior close of 427.76, and the -0.45%/-1.09% pre-entry drift suggests selling pressure at decision time — though whether the earnings pop had already been fully priced in before entry can't be settled from this data alone.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit gave back what was available: the position saw +1.00% unrealized at its best but closed at roughly -1.5%, near the -2.17% worst. The exit rule captured the bad tail, not the good one.

Dominant factor: Wrong directional signal — the post-earnings drift went the opposite way, and no exit rule would have salvaged more than the brief +1% spike.

Signal: Wrong. The short thesis (regulatory pressure driving TSM down overnight) didn't materialize — the stock rose ~0.6% from entry to exit.

Timing: The data doesn't show a pre-entry down-move being missed; price was actually up +0.35% on the day at decision time, so there's no evidence the predicted move had already happened — it simply never occurred.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit at -0.59% landed between the best (+0.39%) and worst (-1.07%) unrealized marks, so the exit neither missed a meaningful profit window nor caught the worst of it. Dominant factor: bad signal — the direction call was simply wrong.

Signal: wrong — dominant factor. The predicted overnight drift never materialized: the best the position ever saw was +0.25%, while it fell as much as -2.47%, so the long direction was simply incorrect over the holding window.

Timing: Some of the anticipated move had already occurred before entry — the fill at 278.27 was ~1.4% above the prior close (274.48), buying into strength after a +0.70% day, which worsened the entry but isn't the main story given the subsequent decline.

Exit: The fixed next-close exit at 272.34 (-2.13%) captured nearly the full drawdown, close to the -2.47% worst and far from the meager +0.25% best — but that's a consequence of the mechanical rule, not a discretionary exit failure; the trade offered almost nothing to capture on the long side.

Signal was wrong: the rationale predicted downside from the Chinese DUV competitive threat, but ASML rose ~3.4% against the short position. Timing wasn't the issue — the stock was only +0.52% since prior close at entry, so there's no evidence the anticipated move had already occurred; the predicted move simply never came. The exit captured close to the worst available outcome (-3.44% realized vs. best +0.23% / worst -4.64%), but with a max favorable excursion of just +0.23%, there was essentially nothing to capture — the dominant factor is a flat-out wrong directional signal.

Signal: The bullish call didn't play out — after entry, TSLA oscillated in a narrow ±0.8% band and closed the trade essentially flat (-0.06%), so there was no directional follow-through to capture. Timing: Most of the day's gain (+0.59% from prev close) had already occurred by entry, and the data here can't show whether an earlier entry would have caught more, only that entry came after the visible pop. Exit: The -$0.63 result sits near the midpoint of the +0.78%/-0.84% unrealized range, so the exit left roughly the peak +0.78% on the table but also avoided the worst drawdown — a wash. The dominant factor is the signal: the predicted move simply never materialized while the position was open.

Signal/timing: The bullish call didn't play out during the trade — the stock never gained more than +0.21% after entry and drifted down. The entry came after the stock was already up ~0.8% on the day (and the fill at 871.8 was ~1.25% above prior close), consistent with the AI-demand news being largely priced in by entry, though the data here can't prove the story was fully stale versus simply failing to follow through.

Exit: The exit captured most of what was available — closing at -0.62% versus a worst unrealized of -2.82% and a best of only +0.21%, so there was essentially no profit to be had at any point.

Dominant factor: Timing — the trade chased a move that had already happened, leaving no upside in the holding window; the exit itself was reasonable damage control.

Signal: right — price rose after entry and the trade closed green, consistent with the bullish repricing call. Timing: partly late — the stock was already +1.08% off prior close at decision time, and the remaining move while open was modest (max +0.88%). Exit: captured +0.40% (+$3.36) of a +0.88% best unrealized, so roughly half the available move was left on the table, though against a shallow -0.38% worst case. Dominant factor: exit efficiency — the signal worked, but the exit banked only about half of what was available; whether the pre-entry +1.08% was itself part of the news repricing can't be settled from this data.

Signal: wrong. After entry NVDA never moved meaningfully in the predicted direction (best unrealized just +0.04%) and fell steadily, so the bullish repricing call didn't play out over the holding period. Timing: partially stale — the stock was already +1.12% on the day at decision time and the fill at 221.15 was another ~1.6% above prev close, suggesting the news-driven pop was largely priced in by entry; whether more upside existed later isn't determinable from this data. Exit: near the floor — the -1.52% realized loss sits close to the -2.12% worst unrealized, with essentially no profit ever available to capture, so the dominant factor is the failed signal (chasing an already-run news move), not exit execution.

Signal: wrong. The bearish call on AMD didn't play out — the stock rose ~1.9% against the short (466.03 → 474.71), and the rationale itself is shaky: it describes an Nvidia–Intel partnership, with the bearish read-through to AMD left implicit and untested.

Timing: at decision time AMD was only +0.76% on the day and flat over the last 30 minutes, so this doesn't look like chasing an already-completed move; the data here doesn't show a big prior spike.

Exit: near worst-case. The trade was briefly +0.45% but was closed at -1.86%, close to the -2.11% max drawdown — the exit surrendered essentially everything available. Dominant factor is the signal being simply wrong-direction, with the exit compounding it by realizing near the worst of the move.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call was simply wrong — the position never went positive (best unrealized was -0.38%), so there was no favorable move to capture at any point while the trade was open.

Timing: The move had not already happened by entry — price context showed the stock flat (-0.04% since prior close, +0.02% last 30m), so this wasn't a case of chasing a spent move; the anticipated rally just never materialized.

Exit: The exit at -1.51% sits between the best (-0.38%) and worst (-1.86%) unrealized, so it neither caught the least-bad exit nor the bottom — but with the best available outcome still a loss, exit quality is secondary here. The directional signal failing is the story.

Signal: correct — the bearish call played out, with the short never materially underwater (worst unrealized was still +0.30%). Timing: fine — price was only +0.26% off the prior close at decision time, so the anticipated move had not already occurred. Exit: captured ~1.42% of a maximum available ~2.05%, i.e., roughly 70% of the best case — a reasonable but not optimal exit. The dominant factor is simply a correct directional signal entered before the move; nothing in the data suggests a signal or timing flaw, and the only slippage from ideal was the exit leaving ~0.6% unrealized.

Signal: right. The bearish call worked — GOOGL fell ~3% after entry, and the trade never went meaningfully against the short (worst unrealized only +0.12%). Timing: mostly fine at decision time (stock was flat, -0.12% since prev close, so the move hadn't happened), though the fill at 354.63 was already ~0.8% below prev close, suggesting some slippage between decision and entry; the data here doesn't show why. Exit: excellent — the +21.92 P&L (~+3.09% on the short) captured nearly all of the +3.12% best unrealized.

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal with a near-optimal exit; this trade executed about as well as the available move allowed.

Signal: right. Bullish call played out — the trade never went more than -0.32% against entry and ran to +2.68% unrealized.

Timing: fine. At entry the stock was only +0.34% off prior close, so the move hadn't already been priced in; entry caught the run rather than chasing it.

Exit: the dominant factor, and it's weak. The realized +3.16 (+0.53%) captured only about a fifth of the +2.68% (~$16) peak that was available while open — the trade gave back most of what the signal earned. The data doesn't show why the exit fired there (rule, time stop, etc.), so cause of the giveback can't be determined from what's here.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call simply didn't play out — MSFT never moved meaningfully up while the trade was open, topping out at +0.07% unrealized versus -0.73% at worst. Timing: Price was slightly down at entry (-0.38% from prior close), so there's no evidence the move had already happened; the data just doesn't show any bullish move to be late for. Exit: The exit was effectively neutral — a -0.09 USD (~-0.02%) result near the top of the trade's actual range, capturing close to the best available and avoiding most of the -0.73% drawdown. The problem was the signal, not the execution.

Signal: Correct — the bearish call played out, with PLTR falling from 176.01 to 175.07 while the trade was open. Timing: Reasonable — despite the stock being down -1.36% from prior close at decision time, the fill at 176.01 was actually above the prior close of 175.23, so the short wasn't chasing an already-completed move. Exit: This is the dominant weakness — the trade captured only ~0.53% (+$4.70) of a +1.83% best unrealized gain, leaving roughly two-thirds of the available move uncaptured; whether that was a rule-based exit or something else isn't determinable from this data. Bluntly: right direction, adequate entry, weak exit capture.

The bearish signal was right: price had barely moved at entry (+0.30% since prior close), so the trade was genuinely fresh, and SMCI subsequently fell. The problem is the exit — the trade banked ~0.57% (+$5.58) against a best unrealized gain of +1.93%, capturing less than a third of the available move, with minimal adverse excursion (-0.33%) along the way. Dominant factor: premature exit, not signal or timing; the data here doesn't show why the exit fired, only that it left most of the move on the table.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was wrong — QCOM never moved meaningfully lower after entry, reaching only +0.15% favorable at best while going -0.56% against the position. Timing: Entry wasn't chasing; the stock was only +0.25% off the prior close, so the anticipated downmove hadn't already occurred — it simply didn't occur at all during the holding period. Exit: The -0.31% realized loss sits between the +0.15% best and -0.56% worst, so the exit gave up little; there was almost nothing favorable available to capture. Bluntly: this was a directional miss, not a timing or exit problem — though whether the bearish thesis would have played out over a longer horizon isn't answerable from this data.