Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. GOOGL rose from 343.62 to 346.65 (+0.88%) over the holding period, moving against the short; the trade was never meaningfully in profit (best unrealized only +0.32%). Note the rationale claims a ~4% drop, but the price context shows only -0.66% since prior close, so whether the news move had already been fully absorbed before entry can't be settled from this data — regardless, no downward drift materialized. The exit near -0.88% gave back nearly the full worst unrealized (-1.19%), but with a max of +0.32% available, there was essentially nothing to capture; this was a directional loss, not an exit failure.

Signal: right. The stock rose as much as +3.00% while the trade was open, so the predicted upward drift did materialize after entry.

Timing: partially eroded. The news had already pushed AMD +1.00% by decision time, and the fill at 482.32 (+1.69% over prev close) suggests further gap between decision and entry — but since +3% more upside remained, timing wasn't fatal.

Exit: the dominant failure. The mechanical next-close exit surrendered essentially all of the +3.00% peak unrealized gain, ending at -0.14 USD — the move happened and fully retraced within the holding window, so the fixed exit captured none of what was available.

Signal: right — the long paid off with a +3.56% move, and the direction of the news-based thesis (positive TSLA-adjacent AI catalyst) was borne out, though whether the rationale caused the move can't be verified from this data. Timing: good — entry came after a -1.97% decline from prior close, so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed move. Exit: strong — +3.56% realized versus +4.26% best and -0.81% worst unrealized, capturing most of what was available; the dominant factor here is simply a correct directional signal executed cleanly.

Signal: Right — the bullish guidance thesis played out; the stock never traded below entry (worst unrealized -0.00%) and closed +2.05% higher.

Timing: Partially late — the stock was already +1.90% above the prior close at entry, so a meaningful chunk of the news-driven move happened before the fill; the trade still captured fresh continuation, though.

Exit: The fixed next-close exit banked +2.05% against a peak of +3.54%, so roughly 1.5 points of unrealized gain were given back — acceptable capture, but the mechanical exit, not the signal, is what limited the result. Dominant factor: correct signal with a clean, drawdown-free ride; the outcome was good and the main cost was pre-entry drift plus giving back some of the peak.

Signal: Right — the long call worked; price drifted up and the trade closed +0.51% ($4.24). Timing: The stock was already +1.65% off the prior close at entry, so some of the news move was consumed pre-entry, but enough drift remained that entry wasn't fatally late. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the position saw +2.27% unrealized (~$18.85) but the fixed next-close exit captured only about a quarter of that; the mechanical exit, not the signal, left most of the available move on the table.

Signal: Wrong. The rationale predicted continued downward drift after the earnings miss, but QCOM rose ~0.85% from entry to exit; the maximum favorable move while open was only +0.53%, so the short thesis never materially played out.

Timing: The data can't fully settle this — price was only -0.21% off the prior close at decision time, so no big move had visibly happened by entry, but whether the earnings selloff had already been absorbed in earlier sessions isn't shown here. Note the fill at 163.15 was actually above the 162.68 prior close, slightly worse than the decision-time context implied.

Exit: Reasonable given what was available — the -0.85% realized loss sits well inside the -2.16% worst unrealized, and the +0.53% best was fleeting and small.

Dominant factor: Signal failure — the direction was simply wrong; exit execution neither caused nor could have salvaged much.

Signal: correct — TSM continued higher overnight, consistent with the earnings-driven thesis, and downside risk was trivial (-0.31% worst).

Timing: partially late — the stock was already +1.66% off the prior close at decision time, so a chunk of the earnings reaction was priced in before entry (whether the July revenue news itself was fully absorbed can't be settled from this data alone).

Exit: the dominant issue. The trade banked +0.51% (+$4.40), but the position saw +1.80% unrealized (~$15.4 available), meaning the fixed next-close exit gave back roughly two-thirds of the peak move. Right direction, mediocre entry level, and an exit that captured only a minority of what was available — exit capture is the bluntest shortfall here.

Signal: wrong over the holding period — AAPL rose ~1.25% after entry, and the best the short ever showed was a negligible +0.04%. Timing: the bearish news appears already priced in, with the stock down ~1% from the prior close before entry, so the trade shorted after the move. Exit: near the worst of the trade (-1.47% max drawdown vs. -1.25% realized), but with essentially zero favorable excursion there was nothing available to capture — the dominant factor is a stale/wrong signal, not exit execution.

Signal: wrong. The rationale predicted upward drift on strong earnings, but the stock fell ~1% over the hold; the market was already down 1.62% into entry despite the "strong" report, hinting the news was priced or received negatively (the capex hike), though the data here can't confirm which. Timing: entry came after a meaningful down move, and no post-entry rebound materialized — the best unrealized was only +0.68%, so even a perfect exit would have captured little. Exit: near-worst — realized -0.98% vs a worst of -1.03% — but the dominant factor is the signal itself: the predicted direction simply didn't occur, and the exit only compounded a trade with almost no upside available.

Signal/timing: The predicted bullish direction never materialized after entry — the best unrealized gain was a negligible +0.05%, meaning essentially all of the move (+0.98% from prev close, +0.60% in the prior 30 minutes) had already happened by fill; the trade chased a sympathy pop (SMCI earnings traded via NVDA) with no follow-through.

Exit: The exit at -0.49% sat between the extremes (+0.05% / -1.13%), so it cut the loss roughly in half rather than riding to the worst — the exit is not the problem, since there was virtually no upside available to capture.

Dominant factor: Timing — entering after the news-driven move was already priced in, leaving the position with no edge; whether the underlying SMCI→NVDA read-through thesis was ever valid can't be settled from this data alone.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — the stock never traded above entry (best unrealized -0.00%), so the bullish repricing thesis didn't materialize after the fill. Note also the news was about Nvidia, with AVGO traded as a proxy; whether that read-through was ever valid isn't settled by this data.

Timing: Likely a factor — AVGO was already up +1.97% from the prior close at decision time, so any Nvidia-driven repricing may have been absorbed before entry, though the data can't fully separate "move already done" from "signal simply wrong."

Exit: The exit rode the position essentially to the worst unrealized (-1.66% vs. -1.67% realized), but with zero favorable excursion there was nothing to capture; the dominant factor is the failed/pre-priced signal, not exit execution.

Signal: Right — the bullish call on the strike resolution played out, with price rising +1.60% from entry to exit. Timing: The stock was already up +1.8% from prior close at decision time and the entry filled even higher (333.59), so part of the repricing had occurred — but the further gain shows the move wasn't exhausted. Exit: Solid capture — +1.60% realized against a +2.32% peak and only -0.34% worst drawdown, so roughly two-thirds of the available move was banked.

Dominant factor: correct signal with a still-live move despite the late entry; nothing here indicts the trade. The main leakage was the ~0.7% between peak and exit, which is modest.

Timing is the dominant factor. The stock was already up ~1% from the prior close at entry (with the last 30 minutes actually fading, -0.69%), so the trade bought after the pop the rationale describes. Post-entry, the bullish signal never confirmed within the holding window — price barely rose (+0.19% max) and mostly drifted down (-0.90% worst) — though the data can't tell us whether the thesis played out on a longer horizon. The exit at -0.31% was reasonable relative to what was available: it gave back the small +0.19% peak but avoided most of the -0.90% drawdown, so exit execution was not the problem.

The bearish signal appears to have been right while the trade was open — price fell as much as +0.55% in the short's favor versus only -0.17% against — so direction and timing (entry came after a +0.79% rise, not after the predicted drop) look fine. The dominant factor is the exit: the position was closed early because it was netted out against a conflicting long-GOOGL decision, locking in -0.44 USD at roughly the worst unrealized point instead of capturing any of the +0.55% that was available. Whether the move would have persisted beyond the close isn't determinable from this data, but the realized exit clearly captured none of the favorable excursion.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call didn't play out — AAPL rose from 303.34 to 304.93 while the trade was open, so the predicted direction was wrong over the holding window. Timing: The move had not already happened by entry — price was up +0.42% since prior close, not down — so this wasn't a case of shorting after a drop; the decline simply never came. Exit: The trade closed near its worst — a -0.52% loss against a worst unrealized of -0.62% and a best of only +0.22% — so the exit gave back essentially everything available, but the small +0.22% peak means even a perfect exit would have barely been profitable. The dominant factor is a wrong (or at least non-materializing) directional signal, not exit execution.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out, with META rising from 585.12 to 594.80 and essentially never trading against the position (worst unrealized -0.01%).

Timing: The stock was already +1.08% off the prior close at decision time, so some repricing had occurred pre-entry, but the bulk of the captured move came after the fill — timing cost was modest, not disqualifying.

Exit: Near-optimal — the +1.65% realized gain captured almost all of the +1.77% best unrealized. The dominant factor here is simply a correct signal executed cleanly; nothing in the data suggests meaningful money was left on the table.

Signal/timing failure, not exit. The bullish thesis had largely played out before entry — the fill at 492.44 was ~2% above the prior close (482.93), meaning the trade bought after the pop; post-entry, the stock never gave more than +0.62% and fell as much as -2.05%, so the predicted direction was effectively wrong from the entry price onward. The exit at 482.38 (-2.04%) landed almost exactly at the worst unrealized level, but with only +0.62% ever available, better exit timing could have salvaged little — the dominant factor is chasing a move that had already happened. Whether the bond-offering news itself warranted a bullish repricing at all cannot be settled from this data; only that no further upside materialized after entry.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call didn't play out — AMZN never moved meaningfully up while the trade was open (best unrealized just +0.08%), so the predicted direction was simply wrong over the holding period. Timing: The stock was only modestly down at entry (-0.54% from prior close), so there's no evidence the move had already happened; there was no bullish move to be late to. Exit: The -0.35% realized loss sits near the worst unrealized (-0.38%), so the exit was close to the bottom of the range — but with only +0.08% ever available, better exit timing could have salvaged almost nothing. Whether the regulatory catalyst itself was stale or invalid can't be settled from this data; what's clear is the signal produced no favorable move.

Signal: Directionally correct but barely — the stock drifted up only +0.16% at best while open, so the bullish call produced negligible follow-through rather than a real move.

Timing: GOOGL was already +0.82% off the prior close at decision time (entry 346.30 vs. 343.54 close), so a meaningful chunk of any news-driven move preceded entry; whether the "FRESH" label was accurate can't be verified from this data alone.

Exit: The exit captured +0.03% of a +0.16% best unrealized — leaving most of an already-tiny move on the table — but with a max drawdown of only -0.04%, there was essentially nothing to capture. Dominant factor: timing/stale signal — the post-entry move was near zero, suggesting the catalyst was largely priced in by entry.