Signal: Marginally right at best — QCOM barely moved over the holding period (160.44 → 160.40), so the predicted earnings-driven downside drift essentially didn't materialize after entry.

Timing: The decision-time context showed the stock up +1.14% vs prev close (161.91), yet the fill came at 160.44 — roughly a -0.9% drop occurred between decision and fill, meaning much of the available down-move happened before the position was actually on.

Exit: The fixed next-close exit captured +$0.24 against a best unrealized of +0.73% (~$7 on 6 shares), while also dodging a -2.78% adverse swing. The dominant factor is timing/signal decay: the move the rationale anticipated largely occurred pre-fill, leaving a near-flat holding period where the exit had little to capture.

Signal: Right — the short saw up to +2.30% unrealized gain while open, so the predicted downward move did materialize. Timing: Entry wasn't chasing a completed move; the stock was only -0.52% off the prior close (and the fill at 547.39 was actually above prev close), so the decline largely happened after entry. Exit: This is the dominant failure — the mechanical hold-to-next-close exit gave back the entire ~+2.30% favorable excursion (worth roughly +$12) and closed at -$2.25, near the worst end of the range; the trade captured none of what was available. Blunt diagnosis: exit, not signal or timing, killed this trade.

Signal: right. The long call worked — price rose +2.2% from entry to exit, and the pre-entry context (-0.03% since prior close) shows the move had not already occurred by entry, so timing was fine. Exit: good. The mechanical next-close exit captured +2.22% of a maximum +2.78% unrealized gain, with negligible adverse excursion (-0.23%), i.e., roughly 80% of the best available move. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal cleanly harvested; note the data can't confirm the earnings news was the actual driver of the drift, only that the predicted direction played out.

Signal: Partially right — the long thesis did materialize intraday, with the position up as much as +3.37%, but the move fully reversed by the close, so over the actual holding horizon (close-to-close) the direction was wrong. Timing: No evidence the move was already spent at entry — price was roughly flat versus prior close (-0.24%), so this wasn't a chase. Exit: The mechanical next-close exit is the dominant factor: it left the entire +3.37% peak on the table and locked in -0.77% (-$6.64), capturing near the worst of the range (-1.39% trough) rather than any of the available upside. The rationale's China-chip catalyst may have driven the intraday pop, but the data here can't confirm that attribution.

Signal: Right — the long call on the earnings beat paid off, with price closing up +3.2% from entry. Timing: The move had not already happened at entry (price was flat, -0.17% vs. prior close), so entry captured the drift as intended — though the -6.39% worst unrealized shows the position endured a severe adverse swing while open. Exit: The next-close exit captured +3.21% against a best unrealized of +4.35%, i.e., most of what was available.

Dominant factor: correct signal with a well-timed entry; the mechanical exit gave back only ~1.1pp of the peak. The data here doesn't show when the -6.39% drawdown occurred, so whether the trade was ever near a plausible stop-out can't be settled from this record.

Signal: Right — the long call on the AI-driven earnings news played out; the position was barely ever underwater (worst -0.39%). Timing: Fine — only +0.82% of the move had occurred by entry, so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed pop. Exit: This is the dominant failure — the trade captured just +1.21% (+$8.80) against a peak unrealized gain of +6.25%, meaning the mechanical next-close exit surrendered roughly four-fifths of the available move. The data doesn't show when the peak occurred intraday, but the gap between realized and best unrealized makes exit the clear weak link here.

Signal: Right — the long thesis (advanced-node pricing strength) played out; the stock never went meaningfully against the position (worst unrealized only +0.07%).

Timing: Partly late — the stock had already moved +0.73% above the prior close by fill (entry 415.1 vs. 412.09), so some of the drift the strategy targets was consumed before entry.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The trade peaked at +2.29% unrealized but the scheduled next-close exit captured only +0.79% (+$6.52), leaving roughly two-thirds of the available move on the table. Whether the peak was capturable under the mechanical exit rule isn't something this data settles — but the gap between realized and best unrealized is the standout fact.

Signal: Right. The long call paid off — ASML rose ~0.7% from entry to exit (+$12.09), consistent with the bullish thesis.

Timing: No evidence the move was already spent; price was slightly below the prior close at decision time (-0.17%), so entry didn't chase an existing rally.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The trade saw +2.13% unrealized (~$37) at its best, but the fixed next-close exit captured only about a third of that. Downside exposure was minor (-0.35%). Whether the peak was capturable in practice isn't settled by this data — a mechanical hold-to-close strategy by design doesn't attempt to — but the fact is the exit left roughly $25 of the available move on the table.

Signal: Correct — the long thesis played out, with AMD rising ~1.2% from entry to exit. Timing: Mostly fine — entry at 468.38 was only ~0.4% above the prior close of 466.42, so little of the move had been consumed before the fill (though the +0.64% last-30m drift suggests some momentum was already underway). Exit: The mechanical next-close exit captured +1.18% against a best unrealized of +1.95%, so roughly 60% of the peak was banked; the -1.11% drawdown was ridden through without harm.

Dominant factor: signal quality — the directional call was right and drove the profit; the exit rule left about a third of the available gain on the table, which is a secondary observation, not the story of this trade.

Signal: Wrong — the bullish M&A call never materialized; the stock topped out at just +0.33% above entry before sliding. Timing: Entry was ~0.4% above the prior close after a modest +0.57% overnight move, so a small amount of the anticipated pop may have been priced in, but the data doesn't show a large pre-entry run-up — timing wasn't the main issue. Exit: The -1.27% realized loss (-$11.08) was near the worst unrealized of -1.43%, meaning the exit gave up nearly the full drawdown, but with only +0.33% ever available there was little upside to capture regardless. Dominant factor: a bad signal — the predicted direction was simply wrong.

Signal: wrong. The bullish repricing thesis never materialized — the trade was underwater essentially the whole time (best unrealized only -0.25%), so this wasn't a timing issue where the move happened and then reversed; the predicted move simply didn't occur after entry. Timing: there was a modest pre-entry run-up (+1.09% since prior close, plus slippage to a fill ~1.4% above prior close), which may mean some of the news was already priced in, but the data here can't confirm how much of the total move preceded the signal. Exit: reasonable given a bad position — the -2.03% realized loss sits between the best (-0.25%) and worst (-2.88%) unrealized, so the exit neither nailed the bottom nor gave back much extra. Dominant factor: a wrong directional signal.

Signal was the failure. The bullish call didn't play out over the holding period: the stock never rose more than +0.26% before dropping, and price finished below entry. Timing wasn't the issue — the pre-entry move was negligible (+0.20% since prior close, +0.06% in the last 30m), so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed move. The exit was middling but acceptable: the -0.48% realized loss sits between the +0.26% best and -1.26% worst unrealized, meaning there was little upside to capture and the exit avoided roughly the worst of the drawdown. Note the rationale (analyst rating/CEO succession news) can't be validated for freshness from the data here — only that the price hadn't yet moved on it at entry.

Signal: Right — the bullish repricing call played out, with the stock rising steadily after entry (worst drawdown only -0.58%).

Timing: Some of the move had occurred by entry (+1.35% from prior close), but the bulk clearly had not — the position went on to gain up to +4.79%, so entry was not chasing an exhausted move.

Exit: Good capture — the +3.84% realized gain took roughly 80% of the +4.79% peak available. The dominant factor here is simply a correct signal executed reasonably well on both ends; nothing in this data points to a meaningful flaw.

Signal (dominant factor): wrong. The bearish call never materialized — META rose after entry, and the position was underwater the entire time (best unrealized was still a -0.40% loss), so the predicted direction simply didn't happen in the holding window.

Timing: Not the issue here — price was only +0.70% on the day at decision time with a flat last 30 minutes, so there's no evidence a big bearish move had already been missed; the problem is the move went the other way.

Exit: Middling — the -1.11% realized loss sits between the best (-0.40%) and worst (-1.82%) unrealized marks, so the exit neither salvaged the smallest available loss nor took the maximum damage; with no winning moment available, exit quality is secondary to the bad signal.

Signal: wrong. The bearish call never worked — best unrealized was 0.00%, meaning GOOGL never traded below entry; the position went straight against the short. Notably, the catalyst was a Meta trial, and the data here doesn't establish that a GOOGL spillover thesis was ever valid — the price action says it wasn't.

Timing: not the problem. The stock was only +0.70% on the day at entry, so this wasn't a case of shorting after a move had already played out.

Exit: reasonable given a bad hand. The -6.68 loss (~-0.98%) sits between the best (0.00%) and worst (-1.49%) unrealized, so the exit cut off some of the maximum drawdown; there was simply no profit available to capture. Dominant factor: a failed directional signal, likely compounded by trading GOOGL on a Meta-specific headline.

Signal/timing: The bullish thesis never played out over the holding period — the trade was underwater the entire time (best unrealized was still -0.58%). Timing looks like the dominant problem: the market-share news is the kind that gets priced quickly, AMD was already +0.99% at decision time, and the fill at 477.26 was another ~0.7% above that, so the entry chased a move that had largely happened.

Exit: The exit was actually decent — closing at -0.70% versus a worst unrealized of -2.95% captured most of what was salvageable, given nothing positive was ever available.

Dominant factor: Stale entry into an already-extended move; whether the underlying bullish signal was flat-out wrong or just fully priced in can't be settled from this window alone, but there was no upside available to capture from this entry price.

Signal: right. The bullish call worked — the trade never went underwater (worst unrealized +0.03%) and price moved up after entry. Timing: fine. Price was flat versus prior close (-0.01%) at decision time, so the anticipated move had not already occurred; entry at 480.0 was actually slightly below prior close. Exit: partial capture. The +6.68 P&L equals roughly +0.70% versus a best unrealized of +1.31%, so the exit banked about half of the peak move available.

Dominant factor: a correct signal with a mediocre exit — the trade left roughly half the available gain on the table, though it captured a clean profit with essentially zero adverse excursion. Note the data doesn't show why the exit occurred where it did (target, stop, or time-based), so whether the giveback was rule-driven or discretionary can't be determined here.

Signal: directionally correct but barely — the short gained +0.37%, within a ±0.5% intraday wiggle that's closer to noise than confirmation of the broad "AI debt fatigue" thesis; this trade doesn't really validate the rationale. Timing: not stale — price was only -0.24% off the prior close at decision time, so the predicted move hadn't already occurred. Exit: solid — the +2.85 P&L (+0.37%) captured roughly 70% of the best unrealized (+0.52%) and avoided the -0.50% drawdown; the dominant factor is that the available move was simply tiny relative to the macro-scale rationale, and the data here can't settle whether the thesis itself has any edge.

Signal: Right — the bullish repricing call played out, with the stock moving up to +4.45% unrealized and never dropping more than -0.34% against the position. Timing: Good — only +0.33% had moved since prior close at decision time, so entry was not chasing an already-completed move. Exit: Solid but not perfect — the +3.27% realized gain (+$28.50) captured roughly three-quarters of the +4.45% peak available.

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal with clean timing; the modest give-back from the high is minor by comparison. Note the data here doesn't show whether the contract news itself drove the move or something else did — only that the predicted direction materialized.

Signal: Directionally correct but barely — the stock only managed +0.38% at its best while open, versus a -0.58% worst, so the bullish edge after entry was marginal at best.

Timing: This is the dominant factor. AVGO was already up ~0.9% from prev close at the fill (entry 367.32 vs. 364.03 close), meaning most of the news-driven pop was priced in before entry despite the "FRESH" verdict; the -0.41% last-30m drift also hinted momentum was fading.

Exit: The exit at +0.13% captured roughly a third of the +0.38% peak available — acceptable given the thin range, and it avoided the larger downside excursion. The trade wasn't wrong so much as late: it bought after the move.

Signal: Directionally right — price drifted up after entry, and the worst drawdown was only -0.15%, so the bullish call wasn't wrong. Timing: The stock was up just +0.47% from prev close with essentially no momentum in the last 30 minutes, so entry wasn't chasing a spent move; however, whether the news itself was already priced in earlier can't be determined from this data. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the trade banked +0.09% (+$0.74) against a best unrealized of +0.44%, capturing only about a fifth of what was available; a correct but modest signal was mostly given back by the exit.