Signal: wrong. The long overnight-drift bet failed — TSLA fell from 350.18 to 345.60 (-1.31%), and the best unrealized gain while open was only +0.33%, so there was essentially no favorable move to capture. Timing: the stock was already +1.45% off the prior close at entry, so the trade bought after an initial pop, but the data can't confirm whether that pop was news-driven or that the news was already priced in — only that entry came after a run-up. Exit: the mechanical next-close exit landed at -1.31%, between the best (+0.33%) and worst (-2.01%) marks, so the exit gave up little; the dominant factor is simply a wrong directional signal, not exit execution.

Signal: right. The long call worked — price rose +1.14% from entry, and the trade never went meaningfully against it (worst drawdown just -0.33%). Timing: fine — despite the +0.34%/+0.50% pre-entry drift, the fill at 310.11 was actually slightly below the prior close, so the move had not already been consumed. Exit: good capture — +1.14% realized against a +1.70% peak, leaving only ~0.5% on the table, which is normal slippage for a fixed next-close exit rather than a flaw. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal; whether the M5/M6 news itself drove the move can't be settled from this data.

Signal: Directionally right, but barely — price closed higher than entry, so the drift call wasn't wrong.

Timing: The move had largely already happened. TSM was +1.25% over prior close at decision time, and the fill at 416.68 was ~1.6% above the prior close of 410.13 — the earnings pop was mostly consumed before entry, leaving only ~0.09% of drift to capture.

Exit: The close-to-close exit captured +0.09% versus a best unrealized of +0.95% (~$7.90 on 2 shares vs. $0.76 realized), so most of the available intraday gain was left behind — though a mechanical next-close exit doesn't attempt to capture that peak by design.

Dominant factor: timing. Entering after the earnings move was already priced left almost nothing for the overnight-drift thesis to earn; the exit just confirmed how little was left.

Signal: Right, at least intraday — the long thesis saw up to +5.99% unrealized, so the predicted upward direction did materialize while the trade was open.

Timing: Not stale at entry — price was down 0.71% from prior close going in, so the move hadn't already run; entry was fine.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The mechanical next-close exit gave back the entire +5.99% peak (roughly +$47 available on 3 shares) and closed at -$2.40, near the -2.62% worst. The signal worked; the fixed exit timing captured essentially none of what was available.

Signal: Right — long paid off, with exit +0.94% above entry. Timing: Partially late — entry at 492.21 was already ~1.0% above the prior close of 487.31, so some of the drift had occurred pre-fill, yet the position still gained further. Exit: Near-optimal — the +0.94% realized is essentially the +1.00% best unrealized, though the position endured a -5.65% drawdown en route, meaning the fixed next-close exit happened to land at the peak.

Dominant factor: a correct directional call whose mechanical exit luckily coincided with the high-water mark; the -5.65% adverse excursion shows the result was fragile, not that the thesis was strongly validated. The data here can't confirm whether the Meta/Azure news itself drove the move versus broader market action.

Signal: right. The bullish call worked — the trade never went underwater (worst unrealized +0.03%) and price rose from entry.

Timing: fine. Price was down -0.75% on the day and flat over the prior 30 minutes at decision time, so the move had not already run before entry.

Exit: mostly captured, but for an unrelated reason. The close netted +0.66% versus a best unrealized of +0.84%, so roughly three-quarters of the available move was banked — yet the exit was administrative (netted out against an outranking short decision), not a judgment on this trade. The dominant factor is a correct signal; the exit quality here is essentially incidental, since the close timing wasn't driven by this trade's thesis. Whether holding longer would have done better isn't knowable from this data.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call didn't play out — AMZN went nowhere and drifted slightly negative, with the worst unrealized (-0.85%) roughly 3x the best (+0.26%). A broad, macro-scale AI capex headline is not the kind of stock-specific catalyst that produced a directional move here; the predicted direction simply didn't materialize during the holding period.

Timing: No evidence the move had already happened — price was only +0.26% since prior close and flat over the last 30 minutes at decision time, so the trade wasn't chasing a spike.

Exit: The near-flat exit (-0.30 USD, ~-0.04%) captured close to the best of a bad situation — it missed the small +0.26% peak but avoided most of the -0.85% drawdown. The loss is attributable to the signal producing no move, not to poor exit execution.

Signal was the failure. The trade never went positive (best unrealized −0.06%), so the bullish call was simply wrong over the holding period — the Berkshire stake news produced no upward move. Timing wasn't the issue in the sense of chasing a completed move: price was flat at decision time (+0.01% since prev close), though whether the news was already priced in before that window can't be settled from this data. The exit at −1.07% sat between the best (−0.06%) and worst (−1.54%) unrealized, so exit execution neither rescued nor materially worsened a trade that offered essentially nothing to capture.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was simply wrong — AAPL rose ~1.4% against the short, and the position was never meaningfully in profit (best unrealized -0.01%), so the market didn't move in the predicted direction at all.

Timing: Not the issue — price was nearly flat at entry (+0.14% since prev close, +0.06% last 30m), so the trade wasn't chasing a move that had already occurred; the anticipated decline just never materialized.

Exit: With best unrealized at -0.01%, there was essentially nothing available to capture; the exit at -1.36% was between the best and worst (-1.92%), so exit execution neither saved nor cost much relative to what was on offer. The loss is attributable to a bad directional signal, not timing or exit management.

Signal: Right — the bearish call played out, with NVDA falling ~1.3% from entry. Timing: Fresh — price context at decision time (-0.11% since prev close, +0.04% last 30m) shows the move had not yet occurred. Exit: Strong — the +10.92 P&L (~+1.29%) captured nearly all of the +1.40% best unrealized, with only -0.52% adverse drawdown along the way.

Dominant factor: correct signal on a fresh entry, with an exit that harvested almost the entire available move — this trade worked as intended on all three dimensions. Note the entry rationale rests on an unverified journal claim (the "Jalapeño chip" story), so whether the thesis itself was sound versus lucky can't be settled from this data.

Signal: Directionally right, at least briefly — the trade reached +1.24% unrealized, so the bullish call had something to capture. (Whether the rationale's logic holds is another matter: a non-Nvidia custom chip beating Nvidia is an odd basis for an AMD long, but the data here can't settle that.)

Timing: Partly stale — decision-time context showed AMD at -0.88% (479.18), yet the fill came at 484.58, ~1.1% higher, meaning a meaningful chunk of the move occurred between decision and entry.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The position was closed not on merit but because it was netted out against a competing short decision, exiting at -0.34% and turning an available +1.24% into a -$3.28 loss — the exit captured none of what the trade offered.

Signal/timing: The bearish thesis never paid off after entry — the stock ran against the short, offering a maximum of only +0.25% favorable movement — largely because the move had already happened: META was down 5.31% in the 30 minutes before entry, so the short chased an exhausted repricing that then reversed. Exit: The -2.14% realized loss sits between the +0.25% best and -3.90% worst unrealized, so the exit was neither a blowup nor a rescue; there was essentially nothing available to capture. Dominant factor: timing — entering after a -5.31% flush left no room for the signal to work, and whether the underlying bearish read was correct on a longer horizon can't be settled from this data.

Signal: Partially right — price did move up +0.86% while the trade was open, but it didn't hold; the bullish call wasn't decisively wrong or right over this holding period, and note the thesis (2027 capex forecast) is a multi-year story being traded on an intraday horizon.

Timing: Entry came after a +0.66% pop in the prior 30 minutes and 0.46% above the prior close, so part of the news repricing was likely already in the fill price — the data can't confirm how much, but the entry was chasing recent strength.

Exit: This is the dominant factor: the trade saw +0.86% unrealized (~+8 USD) and was closed at -0.24% (-2.23 USD), near the middle of the -1.01% worst — the exit gave back essentially all available gains and captured none of the favorable move.

Signal: direction was right within the window — price fell after entry — though the rationale itself (record Nvidia revenue) is a bullish sector datapoint whose bearish read-through to AMD isn't explained, so whether the thesis or noise drove the move can't be settled here. Timing: price was up +0.76% from prior close at decision, so the entry wasn't chasing a move that had already happened; the small prior 30m dip (-0.59%) doesn't indicate staleness. Exit: the +4.32 realized (~0.45%/share) captured essentially all of the +0.46% best unrealized — near-perfect exit, even though it was mechanical (netted out against an opposing AMD long, not signal-driven) — so the dominant factor is a lucky-but-complete exit on a small favorable move.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was wrong over the holding period — ASML rose from 1732.62 to 1743.48 after entry, and the trade never went meaningfully positive (best unrealized was -0.01%).

Timing: The stock was only down 0.59% from prior close at decision time, so the entry wasn't chasing an already-completed move; the small pre-entry dip was noise relative to the thesis, though whether the news was already fully priced in can't be determined from this data.

Exit: With a best of -0.01% and worst of -0.98%, there was essentially no profit available to capture; the -0.63% realized loss sits in the middle of the adverse range, so exit execution was neither the problem nor a savior — the direction was simply wrong.

Signal: Weakly right at best — the bullish call saw only +0.61% peak upside while open, and note the rationale is a sympathy play (Nvidia earnings anticipation), so whether the underlying catalyst validated the thesis isn't determinable from this data. Timing: Entry at 480.96 was ~0.37% above prev close after a -0.51% 30-min pullback — mildly elevated, but not evidence the move was already spent. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the trade closed at -0.32%, essentially at the worst unrealized (-0.38%), surrendering the entire +0.61% that was available; the exit captured nearly the trough of the trade's range.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was wrong — MSFT never moved down, with best unrealized of just +0.01% and a steady drift against the position; note also the rationale is about Nvidia raising AI server prices, and the data here doesn't establish why that's bearish for MSFT specifically. Timing: The predicted move hadn't already occurred by entry (price was up +0.79% on the day), so this isn't a late entry — there was simply no bearish move to capture. Exit: The exit at -0.25% was near the worst unrealized (-0.28%), but with essentially nothing favorable available (+0.01% peak), the exit gave up little; the loss stems from the signal, not exit execution.

Signal: Wrong, at least over the holding window — the bullish thesis never materialized; the stock drifted down and the best the position ever showed was +0.01%. Timing: The data doesn't show a pre-entry run-up (only +0.21% since prev close at decision time), so this wasn't a case of chasing a completed move — though whether the news was already priced in from an earlier session can't be settled from what's here. Exit: The -0.31% loss matches the worst unrealized exactly, meaning the exit hit the bottom tick of the trade's range, but with a max upside of +0.01% there was essentially nothing available to capture. Dominant factor: signal failure — the predicted bullish move simply never occurred.