Signal: Right. The short thesis (selling pressure from Citadel's block trades) played out decisively — the position was essentially never underwater (worst unrealized just +0.04%).

Timing: Mostly intact at entry. The stock was down only 0.51% from the prior close at decision time, so the bulk of the ~6% move came after the fill.

Exit: Good but incomplete — the mechanical next-close exit banked +6.0% against a peak unrealized of +8.2%, capturing roughly three-quarters of the available move. The dominant factor here is simply a correct directional signal on a large move; the exit rule left some gains behind but wasn't the story.

Signal: right. The long call worked — GOOGL drifted up ~1.16% from entry to exit, with minimal adverse excursion (-0.58%).

Timing: partially late. The stock was already +1.34% off the prior close at decision time, so a chunk of the earnings pop had happened pre-entry; however, meaningful upside remained, so the drift thesis wasn't fully priced out.

Exit: adequate, not optimal. The +1.16% realized capture is roughly half the +2.11% best unrealized — the mechanical next-close exit gave back about a point from the peak, but that's a known property of the rule, not a failure of this trade. Dominant factor: the directional signal was correct and did the work; the entry chased part of an already-made move, which was the main drag on capturable gains.

Signal (dominant factor): The predicted overnight drift was simply wrong — AMD fell ~3.75% from entry, and the best unrealized gain while open was a negligible +0.04%, so there was essentially no upside to capture at any point.

Timing: The stock was already +1.28% above the prior close at decision time, so some of the news-driven pop had occurred before entry — but even a flat entry wouldn't have saved this trade given the subsequent decline.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit at -3.75% landed near the worst unrealized (-4.60%) but that reflects the trade's trajectory, not a poor exit choice; with a peak of +0.04%, no exit rule could have made this profitable. Bad direction call is the story here.

Signal: Wrong. The rationale predicted upward drift on bullish capex/dividend news, but TSM fell ~2.2% from entry to exit — the direction call failed outright.

Timing: The stock was only +0.47% above prev close at decision time and entry was ~0.6% above prev close, so the anticipated move had not already happened; there's no evidence of chasing a spent move here.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit at -2.2% gave back nothing meaningful — max favorable was only +0.45%, so at best a small gain was available, and the exit landed near (though above) the -3.18% worst. The dominant factor is bluntly a bad signal: the news-based long thesis was simply wrong for this holding window, not a timing or exit-execution problem.

Signal: the short direction was at least transiently right — the position was up as much as +3.24% unrealized while open, so the predicted downside move did materialize. Timing: entry came after only a +0.32% drift from the prior close, so the data doesn't suggest the move was already spent at entry. Exit is the dominant factor: the fixed next-close exit gave back the entire +3.24% favorable move and rode the reversal to a -1.11% loss (−$10.72), capturing the worst part of the range rather than any of the available gain.

Signal: wrong. The predicted overnight drift never materialized — the stock fell 2.27% from entry, with a maximum favorable move of only +0.39%, so the direction call failed outright. Timing compounded it slightly: the news-driven pop (+0.84% at decision, fill nearly 1% above prev close) meant entry chased a move that had already occurred. Exit was mechanical and landed at essentially the worst point (-2.27% realized vs -2.28% worst unrealized), but with only +0.39% ever available, no exit rule could have salvaged much — the dominant factor is a bad signal, not exit execution.

Signal: right. Bearish call on the recall news played out — TSLA fell after entry and the position was never meaningfully underwater (worst unrealized was still +0.13%).

Timing: mostly fine, with a caveat. At decision time the stock was only down -0.38% with a flat last 30m, so the move hadn't already happened; however, the fill at 358.94 is ~1.1% below prev close versus the -0.38% context, a gap the data here doesn't explain (slippage or delay between decision and fill).

Exit: good capture. P&L of +8.74/share (~2.4%) took roughly 83% of the +2.93% best unrealized. Dominant factor: a correct, timely signal executed cleanly — this trade worked as intended.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call was simply wrong — the trade never went positive (best unrealized only -0.16%) and NVDA fell steadily after entry, so the earnings-driven upside thesis didn't play out in the holding window.

Timing: Not the issue — price was essentially flat at entry (-0.09% from prior close, +0.21% last 30m), so the trade wasn't chasing a move that had already occurred.

Exit: The -2.86% realized loss sits near the worst unrealized (-3.20%), but with the best point being only -0.16%, there was almost nothing better available to capture; the exit is a symptom of the bad signal, not an independent failure. Whether an earlier stop was possible under the strategy's rules isn't determinable from this data.

Signal: right. The bullish call on the Azure backlog news played out — price rose ~1.12% from entry with almost no adverse move (worst unrealized only -0.10%).

Timing: fine. Price was flat versus prior close (-0.04%) at decision time, so the move had not already occurred; entry caught it fresh.

Exit: mostly captured. The exit at 488.18 (+1.12%) took roughly 70% of the best unrealized gain (+1.58%), leaving modest upside on the table. Dominant factor: a correct signal with clean timing — this was simply a good trade, with only minor exit slippage from the peak.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call was simply wrong over the holding period — the position never went meaningfully positive (best unrealized was -0.03%), so there was no upside move to capture at any point.

Timing: Entry came after a -0.83% drift from prev close, but the data doesn't show a prior pop on this news, so I can't conclude the move was already spent — only that no bullish move materialized afterward.

Exit: The exit at -1.46% was essentially at the worst unrealized (-1.47%), but given the ceiling was break-even, the exit cost little versus what was available; the loss is attributable to the failed directional signal, not exit execution.

Signal: Partially right — price did move up as much as +0.60% after entry, so the bullish direction wasn't wrong, though the pre-entry context (+0.34% since prev close, flat last 30m) doesn't show a big move already priced in; whether the news was truly "fresh" can't be confirmed from this data alone.

Timing: Some drift is visible — the fill at 311.41 was ~+0.67% above prev close versus +0.34% at decision time, so roughly half the intraday gain occurred between decision and fill.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The trade saw +0.60% unrealized upside but was closed at −0.25%, near the −0.30% worst point — the exit captured essentially the bottom of the available range and turned a correct directional call into a loss.

Signal: Right. The bullish call played out — the trade never went underwater (worst unrealized +0.18%) and price climbed steadily after entry.

Timing: Fine. Only +0.49% had occurred since the prior close at decision time, and entry at 259.40 was just ~0.3% above prev close, so the move had not already been spent.

Exit: Captured most of what was available — exit at 262.17 (+1.07%) versus a best unrealized of +1.48%, leaving roughly a quarter of the peak on the table. Dominant factor: a correct signal cleanly executed; the only shortfall was a modestly early/sub-peak exit, which is within normal noise. Whether the Anthropic-IPO rationale actually drove the move can't be determined from this data.

Signal: The bullish call didn't play out — price closed 0.53% below entry, and the pre-entry tape (-0.46% since prev close, -0.40% in the last 30m) was already drifting against the thesis, suggesting the earnings pop had happened and been faded before the trade; whether the news was genuinely fresh at entry can't be confirmed from this data, but the price context points to staleness.

Timing/Exit: The trade did see +0.65% unrealized, so a small gain was available, but the exit at -0.53% gave that back while at least avoiding the -1.04% trough — the exit is mediocre, not the main problem.

Dominant factor: Stale signal/timing — entering long on already-reported record earnings into a declining tape; the predicted move appears to have been priced in before entry.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was simply wrong — META rose ~1.8% against the short, and the position never got more than +0.43% in its favor. The regulatory-lawsuit thesis didn't translate into downside during the holding period.

Timing: Entry was not chasing a move already made — price was roughly flat versus prior close (+0.19%) at decision time — so this wasn't a stale-signal problem.

Exit: The exit at -1.83% gave back nearly all of what was available on the downside (worst unrealized -2.17%), so the exit was near the bottom of the trade's range; but with the direction wrong throughout, no exit choice would have salvaged more than the fleeting +0.43%. The data here doesn't show whether the exit was rule-driven or discretionary.

Signal: wrong. The bullish call on the TSMC/Arm news didn't materialize — the stock never gained more than +0.16% while the trade was open and drifted lower, so the predicted direction simply failed over the holding period. Timing: the data doesn't show a prior run-up (price was slightly down at decision time, and the fill at 410.75 was well below the 418.90 prev close), so this wasn't a case of chasing a move that already happened — if anything the gap between decision-time price and fill suggests slippage/deterioration before entry, though the data here can't fully settle that. Exit: acceptable. The realized loss of -0.31% sits between the best (+0.16%) and worst (-1.33%) unrealized, so the exit gave up little of what was available — the dominant factor is a bad directional signal, not exit execution.

The bullish direction may have been correct on the news, but by entry the stock had already gained +1.18% from the prior close and was flat-to-down in the last 30 minutes — the repricing was largely done before the fill. Timing is the dominant factor: after entry the trade never had more than +0.08% available and bottomed at -0.29%, so the -0.68 point loss (exit at roughly -0.19%) is within the trivial range that existed; the exit didn't leave meaningful profit on the table. Whether the signal itself was wrong or merely stale can't be settled from this window alone — there was simply no post-entry move to capture.