Signal: Correct — the short moved in the predicted direction and finished profitable. Timing: Fine — price was up +0.69% at decision time, so the entry wasn't chasing a move that had already happened; the short was placed ahead of the decline. Exit: This is the failure — the trade captured roughly +0.22% (+$2.22) against a best unrealized gain of +7.08%, meaning the fixed next-close exit gave back nearly all of a very large favorable move (versus only -0.89% worst-case risk while open).

Dominant factor, bluntly: exit. The signal and timing worked; the mechanical exit surrendered ~97% of the available profit. The data doesn't show when the +7.08% peak occurred within the holding window, so whether it was ever capturable before the scheduled exit can't be determined from what's here.

Signal: wrong. The short predicted a decline on regulatory news, but AAPL rose over the holding period (entry 305.16 → exit 305.84, roughly -0.22% against the position). The max favorable move was only +0.28% versus -0.72% adverse, so the direction call was simply incorrect — the dominant factor.

Timing: partly unfavorable, partly unclear. The stock was already up +0.37% at decision time (and the fill at 305.16 was ~0.96% above the prior close of 302.25, suggesting further slippage or drift into entry), but the data doesn't show whether any anticipated news-driven selloff had already occurred and reversed before entry.

Exit: near the middle of the range. The -0.22% realized loss sits between the +0.28% best and -0.72% worst unrealized — the exit avoided the worst but a small profit was briefly available; still, the tiny favorable range confirms the thesis never really worked, so exit mechanics were secondary to the bad signal.

Signal: right — the bullish-guidance thesis played out, with the stock rallying +6.26% from entry to exit. Timing: the move had not already happened; entry was slightly below the prior close (-0.16% pre-entry drift), so essentially the entire move occurred while the position was open (worst unrealized only +0.06%, meaning it never went meaningfully against the trade). Exit: near-optimal — the +6.26% realized gain captured almost all of the +6.33% best unrealized. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal, cleanly captured; nothing in this data points to a timing or exit deficiency.

Signal: Mixed-to-wrong — the long drift call ended slightly negative (−0.07%), and notably the journal's own cited news is bearish (demand shortfalls, capex pullback), contradicting the long direction; the data can't settle whether the drift signal itself was valid beyond this one flat outcome.

Timing: The stock was already +0.66% above prior close at decision time, and the fill at 225.19 was another ~0.5% above that reference — a meaningful chunk of any overnight drift was consumed before entry.

Exit: This is the dominant factor: the position reached +0.91% unrealized (roughly +$8 vs the −$0.60 realized), but the mechanical exit-at-next-close gave it all back. The move was available; the fixed exit didn't capture it.

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The regulatory-tailwind thesis predicted upside, but AMZN fell ~0.9% over the holding period, with the best unrealized gain only +0.21%, so there was essentially no favorable move to capture at any point. Timing wasn't the issue in the sense of a missed move — the stock was only modestly down (-0.54%) at entry and kept falling, meaning the anticipated drift simply never materialized. The exit at -0.89% sits near the worst unrealized (-0.93%), but given the mechanical next-close exit and the absence of any meaningful upside while open, exit execution cost little relative to the bad directional call.

Signal: Partially right — GOOGL did close above the prior close (345.48 vs 343.54, +0.56%), so the upward-drift direction held at the news level.

Timing: This is the dominant factor. The +0.82% move had already happened by decision time, and the fill at 346.63 was +0.90% above prior close — the entry price consumed more than the entire realized drift, converting a directionally correct call into a -0.33% loss.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit left the +0.94% peak on the table and landed near the middle of the [-0.60%, +0.94%] range; that's a cost, but secondary to entering after the move. Whether the interim peak was capturable under this strategy's rules isn't determinable from this data — the fixed-close exit did what it was designed to do.

Signal (dominant factor): wrong. The bullish call never materialized — the position's best unrealized was -0.03%, meaning the price essentially never traded above entry while open, so no exit timing could have made this profitable.

Timing: The fill at 600.39 was ~0.95% above the prior close despite only +0.16%/+0.35% moves being known at decision time, suggesting some run-up between signal and fill, but the data here doesn't establish whether the anticipated move had already occurred more broadly.

Exit: The -1.49% realized loss sits near the worst unrealized (-1.61%), so the exit caught close to the bottom of the range — but note the close was forced by netting against an outranking short signal, not a deliberate exit, and given the best available was -0.03%, exit choice was largely irrelevant to the outcome.

Signal: Correct — the bearish call played out, with the short capturing a real downward move (+$4.34 on a 0.62% decline).

Timing: The rationale claims the departure had already "caused a significant drop," but price context at decision time showed GOOGL slightly up (+0.10% vs prev close, +0.07% last 30m), and entry filled above prior close — so the move had not already happened by entry; whether the news itself was stale can't be determined from this data.

Exit: Good capture — the trade banked 0.62% of a maximum available 0.89% (roughly 70%), well clear of the -0.65% worst drawdown. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal with entry ahead of the move; the trade worked as intended.

Signal: Right — the bearish call played out; price fell after entry and the trade closed profitable. Timing: Fine — at decision time price was flat-to-up vs. prior close (+0.05%), so the anticipated downside had not already occurred. Exit: The dominant weakness — the trade captured only ~0.11% of a +0.61% best unrealized move (roughly a fifth of what was available), leaving most of the correctly-predicted move on the table; the data here doesn't show why the exit fired, so whether that was rule-driven or reversal-driven can't be settled from this record.

Signal: Directionally right, but barely — price fell only 0.13% from entry to exit, and whether the helium-supply thesis actually drove it can't be determined from this data. Timing: Decision-time context showed the stock roughly flat (-0.10% vs prev close of 430.55), yet the fill came at 426.80 — ~0.9% lower — so a meaningful chunk of the anticipated move occurred between decision and entry. Exit: The trade captured +$1.10 (~0.13%) against a best unrealized of +0.57%, banking only about a quarter of the available downside; the dominant factor here is the exit leaving most of the achievable move on the table, compounded by the pre-fill price slide.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — the bullish call never materialized; the trade was at most +0.07% in the green before sliding to -1.04%, so the direction was simply not right while the position was open.

Timing: The fill at 226.98 was ~0.75% above the prior close even though decision-time context showed only +0.17%, meaning the entry chased a pop between decision and fill; whether the news itself was already fully priced can't be settled from this data.

Exit: The exit at -0.86% gave back nearly the full worst-case drawdown (-1.04%) with essentially no upside ever available to capture, so the exit didn't leave money on the table — the dominant factor is a failed signal, compounded by an entry filled into a short-lived pop.

Signal: Partially vindicated — the bullish call saw +1.97% unrealized upside while open, so the predicted direction did materialize at some point, though the stock also dropped -2.48% below entry, so the move was noisy rather than cleanly directional. Timing: The fill at 344.14 was ~1.2% above prev close (339.96) despite the decision-time context showing only +0.43%, meaning the entry paid up meaningfully beyond known prices; whether the news-driven move was already spent can't be fully settled from this data, but the entry clearly chased. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the trade closed at -0.49% (-$3.40) after having +1.97% available, capturing none of the favorable move; the exit gave back everything that was there and settled in the middle of the range.

Bluntly: the exit is the main failure here — upside existed and was surrendered — with the elevated entry fill a secondary drag.

Signal: correct. The bearish call played out — AMZN fell ~0.76% from entry, and the trade ended profitable (+$6.06).

Timing: fine. Price was only down -0.24% since prior close at decision time, so entry didn't chase an already-completed move.

Exit: near-optimal. The realized gain (~0.76%) matches the best unrealized (+0.76%) almost exactly, meaning the exit captured essentially everything available while open. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal executed cleanly end-to-end — though the data here can't confirm whether the macro rationale (AI-debt/yields) was the actual driver of the move versus coincidence.

Signal: mildly supportive but unproven — price never went below entry (worst +0.02%) and reached +0.09%, but the position was closed too early (netted out against an opposing short decision) to test the bullish thesis. Timing: some of the move had already occurred by entry (+0.34% since prior close, entry ~0.3% above it), though the data can't show whether more upside followed the forced exit. Exit is the dominant factor: the flat P&L came from an administrative netting close at the entry price, capturing none of the (admittedly trivial) +0.09% available — this trade tells you almost nothing about the signal itself.

Signal: Direction was right — the short gained as MSFT fell — though whether the cited catalyst (a SpaceX/Cursor deal, which involves MSFT only indirectly as an AI rival) actually drove the move can't be determined from this data. Timing: The move had not already happened; the stock was up +0.34% from prior close at decision time, so entry preceded the decline rather than chasing it. Exit: Solid capture — realized ~+0.61% against a best unrealized of +0.74% and worst of only -0.18%, so nearly all of the available move was banked.

Dominant factor: the trade worked on all three dimensions; the main open question is signal validity — the entry rationale's connection between the news and MSFT is tenuous, and this trade's data can't confirm the thesis rather than luck.

Signal: right. The bullish call worked — the trade never went underwater (worst unrealized +0.24%) and price rose steadily after entry.

Timing: mostly fine, minor pre-entry drift. Entry at 956.9 was ~0.7% above the prior close, so a bit of the move preceded the fill, but the data here doesn't show when the NAND news broke, so we can't settle how much of the thesis-driven move was already priced in.

Exit: strong capture. The +12.32 P&L (+1.29%) took roughly 85% of the best unrealized (+1.53%), which is about as clean as exits get. Dominant factor: a correct signal executed well — this trade offers little to criticize.

Signal: Right — the bearish call worked; META drifted lower after entry. Timing: The stock was already down 0.55% from prior close at decision time, and only 0.29% more downside materialized while open, so a portion of the earnings reaction preceded entry — though the data here doesn't show the full post-earnings move, so we can't quantify exactly how much was missed. Exit: Good — the +1.49 P&L (~+0.25%) captured nearly all of the +0.29% best unrealized, with minimal adverse excursion (-0.09%).

Dominant factor: Timing — the signal and exit both performed well, but the residual move available after entry was small, capping the trade at a trivial gain.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out; the position was essentially never underwater (worst -0.06%). Timing: Partially late — entry at 39.73 was already +1.5% above the 39.16 prior close, so a chunk of the post-earnings pop was consumed before the fill, though the stock still had room to run. Exit: The weak point — the trade banked +0.48% (+$4.75) against a best unrealized of +1.08%, capturing less than half of the available move despite near-zero drawdown risk while open. The dominant factor is the exit: a correct, low-risk signal was cut at roughly half its realized potential.