Signal: Wrong over the holding window — the predicted post-earnings continuation didn't materialize; AAPL closed slightly below entry (-0.14%), and the trade never moved more than +0.88% in its favor, so there was no meaningful drift to catch.

Timing: Partially stale — the stock was already +0.77% above the prior close at entry, so some of the earnings reaction described in the rationale had been absorbed before the position opened.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit landed near the middle of the +0.88%/-0.75% unrealized range, giving back a modest available gain, but with a range that tight the exit cost is minor. The dominant factor is signal failure: the earnings-drift thesis simply didn't produce a move after entry.

The predicted upward drift didn't materialize: the stock never gained more than +0.66% while open and fell as much as -5.97%, so the signal was wrong over the holding period. Timing compounds this — the entry at 262.22 was already ~1.4% above the prior close, meaning much of the earnings pop was priced in before the fill. The mechanical next-close exit at -0.40% was actually near the best available outcome (far from the -5.97% trough, and only +0.66% was ever on offer), so exit execution isn't the problem — the dominant factor is a signal that failed after the move had largely happened.

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The predicted post-earnings drift didn't materialize; the stock fell ~0.55% from entry to exit, and the entry price (348.2 vs prev close 344.82, ~+1%) suggests part of any earnings pop had already occurred before the fill. Timing thus compounded the problem, but the exit was actually decent: with only +0.71% best unrealized available and a worst of -4.87%, the -0.55% realized loss recovered most of the drawdown rather than leaving money on the table.

Signal: Directionally right, but barely — META drifted up only +0.32% from entry, and the adverse excursion (-1.04%) was twice the favorable one (+0.51%), so the bullish thesis had weak follow-through.

Timing: The stock was already +1.04% at decision time and the fill (567.8) sat +1.57% above the prior close, so most of the repricing appears to have occurred before entry; the data can't confirm when the Hatch news broke, but the pre-entry run-up is consistent with a late entry.

Exit: Solid — +0.32% captured out of a +0.51% max available, roughly two-thirds of the (small) move on offer. The dominant factor is timing: entering after a ~1.5% pre-fill move left little residual edge, not a bad exit.

Signal: correct. The bullish call played out — the position rose almost monotonically (worst unrealized just -0.04%). Timing: mostly fine. Some of the move preceded entry (+1.12% from prev close), but only +0.11% in the last 30 minutes, so the entry wasn't badly chasing; note the fill at 210.33 vs. the 208.48 reference implies a bit more slippage/drift than the quoted context shows. Exit: captured most of what was available — +1.28% realized against a +1.96% best unrealized, leaving roughly a third on the table but not a material miss. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal executed cleanly; nothing in the data indicates whether the "repricing" thesis (data center guidance) was the actual driver of the move.

Signal: wrong. The bearish call never played out — TSLA rose after entry, with only +0.29% max favorable move versus -1.26% adverse, so the loss stems primarily from a bad directional read, not stale timing (price was only +0.48% off the prior close at decision time, so the anticipated drop hadn't already occurred; it simply didn't occur at all).

Exit: administrative, not signal-driven. The trade was closed early because it was netted out against a conflicting long-TSLA decision, and the exit landed near the worst of the range (-1.02% realized vs. -1.26% worst), so little was left on the table — but the exit tells us nothing about the strategy's own exit logic.

Dominant factor: the bearish signal was simply wrong. Whether the Cybertruck news was genuinely fresh at entry can't be settled from the data here.

Signal: Right. The bearish call worked — GOOGL fell from 349.98 to 348.46 while the trade was open, and the position was never meaningfully underwater (worst unrealized +0.03%).

Timing: Not chased. Price was up +0.68% on the day at decision time, so the predicted downside move had not already occurred; entry was near the local high, which favored the short.

Exit: Good capture. The +3.04 (+0.43%) realized P&L took roughly 80% of the best unrealized (+0.55%), and the exit was triggered mechanically by netting against a competing long decision rather than by the signal itself — so the near-full capture is partly luck of the netting timing, not a deliberate exit. Dominant factor: a correct signal with a favorable entry point; nothing here indicts signal, timing, or exit.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call was wrong over the holding period — the trade never went positive (best unrealized was -0.06%), so there was essentially no favorable move to capture at any point.

Timing: The move had partly happened by entry — price was already up +0.34% from prev close and +0.50% in the last 30m at decision time, and the fill at 312.66 was ~0.75% above prev close, buying into a pop that then faded.

Exit: The -0.79% realized loss sits between the best (-0.06%) and worst (-1.41%) unrealized, so the exit was middling but the range confirms there was no profit available; the loss stems from the failed signal (and chasing a stale pop), not exit execution.

Signal: Wrong over the holding window — the stock never gained more than +0.31% after entry and drifted down, so the bullish earnings call didn't materialize while the trade was open (whether it played out later isn't shown here).

Timing: The fill at 360.5 was ~0.5% above the prior close despite the decision-time context showing only +0.35%, suggesting a modest chase on already-public earnings news — but the data here can't confirm how much of the anticipated move was already priced in.

Exit: The exit at -1.16% gave back nearly all the way to the worst unrealized (-1.43%) and captured none of the small +0.31% peak; still, the dominant factor is the signal — there was essentially no upside available to capture, so this was a directional miss, not an exit failure.

Signal was the failure. The bullish thesis was a second-hand read-through (Broadcom/Micron earnings applied to GOOGL), and GOOGL never moved in the predicted direction while the trade was open — best unrealized was a negligible +0.02%, so there was essentially no upside at any point. Timing wasn't the issue: the move hadn't already happened at entry (+0.05% since prior close), so this wasn't a late chase. The exit was reasonable given what was available — the -0.61% realized loss sits between the +0.02% best and -0.82% worst, meaning almost nothing better was on offer; whether the thesis would have played out over a longer horizon isn't answerable from this data.

Signal: Right — direction was bullish and price drifted up after entry (best +0.50%, worst only −0.16%). Timing: The move was largely already in by entry — the stock was +1.25% over prior close at decision time and the fill (415.29) was well above prev close (410.13), so the strategy paid for most of the earnings repricing and captured only the residual drift. Exit: Reasonable — the +0.32% realized (+$2.62) captured roughly two-thirds of the +0.50% peak available, so little was left on the table within the holding window.

Dominant factor: late timing. The signal was correct but stale — the bulk of the earnings move happened before entry, leaving only a small residual to capture, which the exit did adequately. (Note: data doesn't show how large the pre-entry move was beyond +1.25% same-day, so whether an earlier session captured more is unknowable here.)

Signal: After entry, the direction was wrong — the stock never advanced more than +0.83% and drifted down; whether the news would have repriced TSLA longer-term isn't determinable from this data.

Timing: The trade chased a move already underway: entry at 353.90 was ~1.4% above the prior close, after the +1.45%/+0.74% run-up cited at decision time, so much of the anticipated repricing was likely already in the price.

Exit: The exit at -1.03% captured nearly the full worst unrealized drawdown (-1.07%) and none of the modest +0.83% peak — the dominant factor here is timing (late entry into an extended move), compounded by an exit at effectively the low of the holding period.

Signal: the bullish call went essentially untested — AMZN barely moved while the trade was open (best +0.14%, worst −0.41%), so the direction wasn't confirmed so much as it simply didn't materialize; a 2026 capex narrative is a slow-burn thesis and this window shows no price response either way. Timing: the data doesn't indicate the move had already happened — price was slightly down on the day at entry, so there's no evidence of chasing. Exit: at −0.03%, the exit gave up nearly nothing relative to the +0.14% peak available; the dominant factor is a non-event signal — the catalyst produced no tradeable move in the holding period, and the small loss is noise, not an exit or timing failure.

Signal: correct — the bullish call played out, with MSFT moving up while the position was open. Timing: the stock was already +0.54% off the prior close at decision time and the fill at 490.00 sits ~0.55% above that close, so some of the news-driven move was already in the price by entry; whether more upside was "left on the table" pre-entry can't be judged from this data alone. Exit: excellent — the +0.40% realized gain matches or slightly exceeds the best unrealized (+0.38%), meaning the exit captured essentially everything available with negligible drawdown (-0.05%).

Dominant factor: a correct signal with a near-perfect exit; the only blemish is that entry occurred after a modest initial pop, which capped the trade at a small absolute gain.