Signal: Right — the long call worked, with the position drifting up ~2.0% overnight and never dropping more than 1.09%.

Timing: The news had already moved the stock +1.58% before entry (entry at 310.09 vs prev close 305.59), so the trade paid up for stale momentum — but the continuation drift still materialized, so the late entry didn't kill the trade.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit captured +2.0% of a +2.91% peak — roughly two-thirds of the best available, a reasonable capture rather than a giveback. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal that kept working past the initial pop; this was a clean win despite chasing an already-moved price.

Signal: Right — the long call on positive earnings paid off, with the position closing +2.09%. Timing: The move had not already happened; price was only +0.41% off the prior close at decision time (and the fill was actually below the prior close), so entry didn't chase. Exit: Good capture — +2.09% realized against +2.67% best unrealized, so the exit got most of what was available.

Dominant factor: correct signal with efficient exit. The notable caveat is the -6.83% worst unrealized drawdown while open — the trade rode through a swing far larger than the final gain, which the fixed close-to-close rule survived by luck of the path, not by design. The data here doesn't show when in the holding period that drawdown occurred.

Signal: Wrong over the holding horizon — the short lost 2.4% (259.52 → 265.76), though the +3.17% best unrealized shows the predicted downside did occur intraperiod before reversing hard. Timing: Entry came after only a modest dip (-0.40% since prior close), so the move had not meaningfully happened pre-entry; timing isn't the issue here. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the position was up as much as +3.17% while open, but the mechanical next-close exit gave back the entire gain and then some, realizing near the worst unrealized (-2.60%). Bluntly: the trade captured roughly the worst available outcome despite a substantial favorable move being on the table.

Signal: the predicted overnight upward drift didn't materialize — the position spent its life mostly against the thesis, sinking as much as -5.58% versus a peak of only +0.63%, so the direction call was effectively wrong (or at best a coin flip that ended flat). Timing: the pre-entry move was negligible (-0.24% since prior close), so there's no evidence the move had already happened; the Berkshire news simply didn't produce drift in this window. Exit: closing at +0.02 recovered essentially everything and dodged the large drawdown, but with only +0.63% ever available, there was little to capture — the dominant factor is a failed signal, not exit execution.

Signal: Right — the long call paid off with a +3.84% move from entry to exit.

Timing: Not chased; the stock was actually down 0.94% from prior close at decision time, so entry came at a slight discount rather than after the move had already run.

Exit: Near-perfect capture — the +3.84% realized gain equals the best unrealized level while open, and the trade rode through a -3.50% drawdown to get there. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal with an exit that happened to land at the peak; whether that peak-capture was skill or the mechanical next-close rule getting lucky can't be determined from this single trade.

Signal: the direction was right — MSFT closed up ~0.5% from entry — but the rationale is suspect: the cited news (Microsoft accepting IREN's deployment, Nvidia certifying IREN's systems) is primarily an IREN catalyst, not a MSFT one, so the win may be coincidental to the stated thesis. Timing: only a modest +0.60% had occurred pre-entry, so the trade wasn't badly chasing. Exit: the mechanical next-close exit captured +0.53% against a best unrealized of +2.79% (and sat through a -5.47% drawdown), so most of the available move was left on the table — the dominant factor here is the exit, with the ticker/catalyst mismatch as a close second worth flagging.

Signal: The bullish call never materialized — best unrealized was just +0.03% while worst hit -2.31%, so the stock went essentially nowhere but down during the holding period. Timing: The rationale was flagged FRESH and price context showed no prior move (+0.02% since prev close), yet the fill at 222.07 was ~1.1% above the 219.74 prev close, indicating the pop happened between decision and fill — the entry bought into a move that had already partially run. Exit: The exit was a mechanical netting against an opposing short (not a signal-based close), landing at -1.45%, better than the -2.31% worst but with effectively zero upside ever available to capture.

Dominant factor: bad signal — the direction was simply wrong for the duration held, though the early forced close means we can't know if the thesis would have played out later.

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The bearish thesis never materialized: the trade was at most +0.07% in the money while open, and AAPL rallied ~1.8% against the short. Timing can't be blamed on a move already priced in at entry — the stock was flat pre-entry (-0.02% since prior close) — though whether the regulatory news itself was long-stale isn't settled by this data (an 18% YTD revenue decline sounds like a slow-burn story, but that's inference, not evidence here). The exit was reasonable given the losing signal: the -1.8% realized loss sits between the +0.07% best and -2.70% worst, so the exit avoided the maximum drawdown rather than failing to capture a gain that was never available.

Signal: right. The bullish call played out — price rose from 262.07 to 265.75 (+1.40%), consistent with the AWS earnings thesis.

Timing: partially degraded at the fill. At decision time the stock was only +0.17% vs. prev close (259.45), so the move hadn't run yet — but the fill at 262.07 was ~1% above prev close, meaning roughly a percent of the pop occurred between decision and entry. Whether that gap was slippage or delay isn't determinable from this data.

Exit: near-optimal. The +1.40% realized captured almost all of the +1.61% best unrealized, with modest -1.26% adverse excursion along the way. Dominant factor: a correct signal executed well — the only leakage was the entry fill above the decision-time price.

Signal: wrong. The bullish call never materialized — the position was up at most +0.07% while open, so there was essentially nothing favorable to capture. Timing: suspect. Decision-time context showed TSM roughly flat (+0.06% vs prev close of 413.37), yet the fill came at 417.99, ~1.1% higher — the entry chased a spike that occurred between decision and fill, and the data here can't settle whether the news itself was already priced in before that. Exit: acceptable given the loser — realized -1.13% sits between the +0.07% best and -2.35% worst, so the exit cut losses roughly halfway off the bottom rather than riding it down.

Dominant factor: bad signal (direction simply wrong over the holding window), compounded by an adverse entry fill well above the decision-time price.

Signal/timing: The predicted bearish move had already occurred before entry — the 12% drop cited in the rationale was history (price was only -0.32% since prev close at decision time), so this was a stale signal labeled FRESH. Post-entry, direction was wrong: TSLA rebounded ~2.9% against the short.

Exit: The exit at 349.83 captured essentially the worst of it — the -2.91% max drawdown versus a briefly available +1.02% gain — so the exit gave back everything on offer, though the small +1.02% best suggests little was ever available.

Dominant factor: Timing — the trade shorted a move that had already happened, then rode the mean-reversion bounce to near its worst point.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — the stock never gave more than +0.31% upside before sliding, so the bullish repricing call simply didn't play out while the position was open. Timing: The entry chased strength (filled ~1.6% above prior close after a +1.57% 30-minute run), which worsened the entry price, but even a better fill wouldn't have salvaged a move that peaked at +0.31%. Exit: The -2.47% realized loss sits between the +0.31% best and -4.18% worst unrealized, so the exit avoided the trough but there was essentially nothing to capture.

Dominant factor: bad signal (or a thesis whose horizon exceeded the hold — the data here can't distinguish whether the repricing move came later).

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was wrong — MSFT rose after entry, with the position spending most of its life underwater (max adverse -1.57% vs. only +0.22% ever in favor). The predicted regulatory-driven decline never materialized in the price.

Timing: The move had not already happened by entry — the stock was only -0.47% off the prior close and flat in the last 30 minutes, so entry wasn't chasing a stale move; the thesis simply didn't play out.

Exit: The exit at -0.58% gave back the brief +0.22% peak but cut the loss well above the -1.57% worst, so exit execution was reasonable given a bad signal — the loss was thesis-driven, not exit-driven.

Signal: Nominally right — the trade exited positive (+0.21%) — but the symmetric ±0.83% unrealized range shows GOOGL chopped both ways while open, so the data doesn't confirm the warrant news actually drove a directional move rather than ordinary noise.

Timing: Entry wasn't late; price was down 0.50% from prior close with only a +0.16% recent drift, so the anticipated move had not already occurred by entry.

Exit: The exit captured roughly a quarter of the best available move (+0.21% realized vs. +0.83% peak), which is the dominant factor here — a bluntly mediocre exit inside a range-bound trade, leaving most of the available upside on the table, though avoiding the equal-sized downside.

Signal: correct — the bearish call played out, with the position reaching +2.80% unrealized while open. Timing: the stock had already dropped 1.15% from the prior close before entry, so some of the repricing was consumed pre-fill, but enough downside remained afterward that timing wasn't the main issue. Exit: this is the dominant factor — the trade closed at +0.62% (+$6.21) after having +2.80% available, capturing under a quarter of the best unrealized move; the data here doesn't show why the exit fired, only that it left most of the gain on the table.

Signal (dominant factor): wrong. The bearish thesis failed — PLTR rose ~2% against the short, and the position never gained more than +0.53% while open. Timing: entry context shows only a +0.32% day-over-day move, so there's no evidence the predicted downside had already occurred; the direction simply didn't materialize. Exit: the -1.96% realized loss sits near the worst unrealized (-2.57%) rather than near the modest +0.53% peak, so the exit gave back nearly everything available, but that's secondary — with a max favorable move of only half a percent, there was little to capture even with perfect exits.

Signal: Directionally right, but barely — the bullish call yielded only a ~0.16% gain, and the price had already risen +0.71% from the prior close before entry, so much of the news reaction appears to have been priced in by the time of the fill (timing was late relative to the catalyst).

Exit: The close was mechanical (netted out against an outranking short signal, not a strategy-driven exit), yet it captured nearly all of what was available — +0.16% realized against a best unrealized of +0.19% and worst of -0.15%. Whether the move continued after exit isn't in the data, so opportunity cost beyond the holding window can't be assessed.

Dominant factor: Timing — entering after most of the pop left almost no edge to capture; the signal and exit were fine but the available move was already spent.

Signal: Right — the bearish call played out; META fell from 548.61 to 546.01 (-0.47%). Timing: No evidence the move was stale — price was up +0.89% on the day at decision time, so the entry was ahead of the decline, not chasing it (though the -0.95% adverse excursion shows the trade first moved meaningfully against the short before working). Exit: Strong capture — the +0.47% realized is nearly all of the +0.55% best unrealized.

Dominant factor: correct signal with a near-optimal exit; this trade did about as well as was available. The only caveat is the drawdown to -0.95% was larger than the eventual gain, but the data here doesn't indicate whether that reflected a timing flaw or ordinary noise.

Signal: The bearish call was directionally correct — NVDA fell from 218.86 to 217.13 while the trade was open. Whether AMD's strong results logically imply NVDA weakness is dubious as a rationale, but the data here can't settle causation, only that the direction worked. Timing: Entry was not late — NVDA was only down 0.35% from prior close with essentially no move in the last 30 minutes, so the move had not already happened. Exit: The exit was near-optimal — the realized gain (~0.79% on the short) matches the best unrealized of +0.79%, meaning the trade captured essentially all of what was available.

Dominant factor: correct signal with a well-timed exit that captured the full available move; this trade worked as intended, even if the entry rationale's logic (AMD strength → NVDA short) is questionable on its face.