Signal: Marginally right at best — the trade closed up only +0.10% while dipping as much as -3.52% underwater, so the "overnight drift" thesis barely materialized and the position spent its life mostly against the entry. Note also the rationale is about AI capex benefiting Nvidia; its relevance to a GOOGL long is tenuous on its face.

Timing: The data doesn't cleanly settle this — the context showed +0.44% since prior close at decision time, yet the fill (344.03) came in below prior close (345.90), so any pre-entry run-up had already reversed by the fill; whether the news-driven move was spent can't be determined from what's here.

Exit: Reasonable — +0.10% realized against a best unrealized of +0.23%, so the mechanical exit captured roughly half of the very small upside that ever existed.

Dominant factor: Weak signal. The predicted drift was essentially absent (max +0.23% up vs -3.52% down), and the tiny profit reflects luck in the exit landing on the right side of noise, not thesis validation.

Signal: wrong. The short predicted downside from the regulatory news, but AAPL rose ~1.5% over the holding period, so the direction call failed outright. Timing: the stock was only down 0.52% since prior close at entry, so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed move — this wasn't a late-entry problem. Exit: the exit at -1.48% sits between the best (+0.26%) and worst (-1.90%) unrealized, so the mechanical next-close exit gave back little; even a perfect exit would have captured only +0.26%, confirming there was essentially nothing available on the short side. The dominant factor is a bad signal — the news-based directional thesis (that a Commerce Department directive would hurt Apple) simply didn't play out in the price.

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The trade predicted continued upward drift after strong earnings, but AVGO never rallied (best unrealized only +0.25%) and instead sold off, closing down -3.34% on the position. Timing is partly indeterminate from this data: the stock was only +1.03% since prior close at entry, but we can't see how much of the earnings move had already occurred in prior sessions. The exit gave back nearly everything available on the downside (exited -3.34% vs. worst of -3.80%), but with a max upside of +0.25% there was essentially nothing for any exit to capture — the loss came from the direction call, not the exit mechanics.

Signal: Correct — TSLA fell further after entry (338.21 → 336.85, +0.40% on the short).

Timing: Part of the move was already gone — price was down ~1.2% from the prior close (342.27) by fill, worse than the -0.55% seen at decision time, so the short entered into an already-falling stock.

Exit (dominant factor): The exit is the blunt problem — the position saw +1.99% unrealized (roughly +$13 on this size) but the mechanical next-close exit captured only +0.40% (+$2.72), giving back about 80% of the available move. Whether the drawdown to peak was avoidable can't be judged from timing data here, but the realized-vs-best gap is clear.

Signal (dominant factor): The predicted upward drift was wrong — NVDA fell ~2.5% by the next close, and the max favorable move was only +0.59%, so there was never meaningful upside to capture.

Timing: The stock was only +0.50% off the prior close at entry, so the news wasn't dramatically pre-priced by that point; the data here doesn't show how much the announcement had already moved the stock before the prior close, though.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit landed near the worst of the range (-2.51% realized vs. -2.83% worst), but with a best unrealized of +0.59% no exit would have salvaged much — this was a bad signal, not a bad exit.

Signal: wrong. The predicted overnight upward drift didn't materialize — PLTR closed down ~0.5% from entry (172.80 → 171.85), so the direction was simply incorrect over the holding window.

Timing: not settled by this data. The rationale cites an earnings beat, but nothing here shows when that news was released relative to entry; the flat-to-slightly-down price context at decision time (-0.32% since prev close) is consistent with the pop having already occurred, but that's inference, not fact.

Exit: mid-range, as designed. The mechanical next-close exit landed at -0.55%, between the +1.92% best and -1.92% worst unrealized — it left the +1.92% peak uncaptured but also avoided the trough. The dominant factor is the signal: a bad directional call, with the exit rule performing neutrally given what was available.

Signal: wrong. The predicted overnight upward drift never materialized — the stock fell ~3.6% from entry, and the best unrealized gain was a negligible +0.36%, so there was essentially no favorable move to capture at any point.

Timing: The stock was already up 1.30% from the prior close at decision time, so part of the news pop was priced in by entry — but that's secondary, since the position went on to lose far more than the entry premium.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit at -3.61% was better than the worst unrealized (-4.54%), so the exit didn't materially worsen a bad trade. The dominant factor is simply a failed signal: the news-driven drift thesis was directionally wrong.

Signal/timing: The predicted post-earnings drift didn't materialize — the stock closed lower (-0.51% from entry), and the rationale itself notes the 15% earnings surge had already occurred, so entry came after the move was largely priced in. Note the price context (-0.69% since prev close) suggests the stock was already fading by entry, consistent with the pop being spent.

Exit: The -0.51% exit sits roughly midway between the best (+0.46%) and worst (-1.11%) unrealized, so the mechanical next-close exit neither missed a meaningful gain nor took the full downside — exit execution isn't the story here.

Dominant factor: Timing/signal failure — chasing an earnings move that had already happened, with no residual drift left to capture.

Signal: wrong. The long thesis (positive AMD/Cerebras partnership drift) failed outright — the stock fell ~4.2% from entry to exit, and the tiny +0.55% best unrealized shows there was never a meaningful upside move to capture. Timing: the stock was only modestly down (-1.01% since prev close) at decision time, so the loss wasn't a case of chasing a move that had already occurred; the damage happened during the hold. Exit: the mechanical next-close exit (-4.25%) landed between the best (+0.55%) and worst (-5.89%) unrealized, so it neither foreseeably worsened nor rescued the trade — the dominant factor is simply a wrong directional call.

Signal: Right — the bullish call played out, with price rising ~1.0% from entry and never drawing down more than -0.39%.

Timing: Only a modest +0.61% had occurred since the prior close before entry, so most of the move came after the fill; that said, whether the "FRESH" label was accurate for a launch expected in September 2026 can't be settled from this data — the rally may not be attributable to this catalyst at all.

Exit: Good capture — the +9.36 P&L (+1.02%) took roughly 70% of the +1.42% peak unrealized gain. Dominant factor: a correct signal with a reasonably efficient exit; nothing here indicates a problem, though the causal link between the rationale and the move is unverified.

Signal: Correct — the bearish call played out, with META falling another ~1.8% after entry.

Timing: Some of the move had already happened — the stock was down 1.18% from prior close at decision time and the fill (554.38) was ~2.6% below prior close — but meaningful downside clearly remained, so entry wasn't chasing an exhausted move.

Exit: Near-optimal — realized +9.78 (+1.76%) against a best unrealized of +1.88% and worst of only -0.23%, capturing almost the entire available move with minimal adverse excursion. The dominant factor here is a correct directional signal executed cleanly; nothing in this data indicates a problem.

Signal (dominant factor): wrong. The bullish call didn't play out — PLTR fell ~1.2% from entry, and the best the trade ever saw was a modest +0.64%, so there was never a meaningful bullish move to capture during the holding period.

Timing: entry was chased. Known prices at decision were ~172.1 (prev close 172.55, down 0.49%), yet the fill came at 173.84 — roughly 0.9% above the last known price — meaning the trade bought into a pop that promptly reversed. Whether the underlying thesis had "already happened" before that isn't determinable from this data.

Exit: acceptable given the situation. The -1.18% realized sits between the best (+0.64%) and worst (-1.75%) unrealized, so the exit gave back the small peak but avoided the trough; with only +0.64% ever available, exit quality is secondary — the signal failure and the elevated fill are what drove the loss.

Signal: Directionally right, if barely — price rose after entry and the trade saw +1.02% unrealized upside, though whether the Anthropic-revenue rationale actually drove AMZN is not something this data can settle.

Timing: Not chased — entry was below the prior close (259.39 vs 261.31) with the stock roughly flat intraday, so the move had not already happened.

Exit: This is the dominant failure. The trade captured +0.36 USD (~+0.05%) against a best unrealized of +1.02% — roughly 95% of the available favorable move was given back or never taken, while the worst drawdown (-0.56%) was survived for essentially nothing. The exit, not the signal or timing, determined the outcome.

Signal: right. The bullish call played out — price rose ~0.9% from entry to exit, and the trade was never underwater (worst unrealized +0.04%). Timing: not stale — GOOGL was slightly down on the day at decision time and entry (341.20) was below the prior close (344.00), so the anticipated move had not already occurred. Exit: good capture — +0.92% realized against a best unrealized of +1.06%, leaving little on the table.

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal with a near-optimal exit; this is close to a clean win. Note that the rationale's factual claim (a Berkshire purchase) can't be verified from the data here — only the price outcome is confirmed.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was simply wrong — MSFT drifted up after entry, with only +0.11% ever available on the short side versus -0.66% against it. The China/regulatory thesis produced no meaningful downside move while the position was open.

Timing: Not the issue — the stock was essentially flat versus prior close (-0.02%) at decision time, so the trade wasn't chasing a move that had already happened.

Exit: The -0.22% realized loss sits between the best (+0.11%) and worst (-0.66%) unrealized marks, so the exit was reasonable given a losing signal; there was never enough favorable movement to capture. Whether the thesis would have played out over a longer horizon isn't answerable from this data.

Signal: Wrong — the bullish call didn't play out; the stock drifted down and the trade closed at -0.37%. Timing: Not the issue — entry at 338.0 was slightly below the prior close (-0.41% on the day, only +0.42% in the prior 30m), so the trade wasn't chasing a move that had already occurred. Exit: Middling — the exit at -0.37% sat between the best (+0.64%) and worst (-0.81%) unrealized, so a small gain was briefly available but the exit neither captured it nor took the full drawdown.

Dominant factor: signal failure — the news-driven bullish thesis simply didn't produce upward movement during the holding period. (Whether the catalyst was stale or already priced in before the day shown can't be determined from this data.)