Signal: Right — the long earnings-drift call paid off, with price finishing +1.65% above entry. Timing: Only +0.50% of the move had occurred by decision time, so entry wasn't chasing an exhausted move; however, the entry fill (496.79) was ~1% above prior close, worse than the price context implied, and the position sat through a -4.91% drawdown before recovering — the data here doesn't show whether that drawdown was avoidable with different entry timing. Exit: Very good — +1.65% realized against a +1.88% best unrealized, capturing nearly all of the available upside.

Dominant factor: correct signal with a near-optimal exit; the notable blemish is the deep -4.91% interim drawdown the strategy had to survive to collect it.

Signal: wrong. The predicted overnight upside never materialized — AMZN fell 1.5% from entry, and the brief +0.97% peak was the only favorable excursion versus a -2.02% trough, so the stock spent most of the hold moving against the thesis. Timing: the data doesn't show a pre-entry pop to fade — the stock was actually down 0.85% on the day at decision time — so this wasn't a case of buying after the move; the anticipated move simply didn't come. Exit: the mechanical next-close exit at -1.52% was in the middle of the range (better than the -2.02% worst, worse than the +0.97% best), so exit execution neither rescued nor worsened much — the dominant factor is a bad signal: the partnership news did not translate into overnight drift.

Signal: Wrong over the holding window — the position lost ground from entry to exit, so the predicted overnight drift didn't materialize in the direction bet.

Timing: The move had largely already happened — entry at 578.19 was ~1.4% above the prior close of 570.05, meaning the trade bought the settlement-news pop rather than getting ahead of it, and the position then reverted.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit gave back everything available — the trade saw +1.66% unrealized at its best but exited near the worst (-1.19% realized vs. -1.69% trough). The dominant factor is timing: the entry chased a news move that was already priced in, and the fixed-close exit compounded it by holding through the reversal instead of capturing the intraday gain that briefly existed.

Signal: Right — GOOGL continued lower after entry, and the short finished profitable (+2.94 USD, ~+0.43%).

Timing: Partially late — the stock was already down ~1.5% from the prior close at decision time, so a chunk of the dilution-news move had occurred pre-entry; still, meaningful downside remained afterward, so the signal wasn't fully stale.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit captured about half the available move — +0.43% realized versus +0.96% best unrealized (worst was only -0.37%, so risk was modest). The dominant factor here is exit slippage relative to the intraday best: the trade was directionally correct but the hold-to-close rule left roughly half the open profit on the table. Whether that's systematic or noise can't be settled from this single trade.

Signal: Right — the overnight drift was positive and the trade finished up (+0.32%, +$3.03). Timing: The stock had already run ~1.2% into the close before entry, so some event-announcement enthusiasm was likely priced in; whether more of the move was "used up" pre-entry can't be settled from this data alone. Exit: Good — the +0.32% realized captured most of the +0.52% best unrealized, and the fixed next-close exit avoided locking in the -1.26% worst drawdown.

Dominant factor: correct signal with near-full capture of a small available move — a working trade, just modest, with the intraday -1.26% drawdown showing the position wore meaningful risk for a small edge.

Signal: Ambiguous on merits — the cited news (a Samsung competitive advance) reads as bearish for Micron, yet the strategy went long; the data here can't settle whether the drift thesis was sound, only that close-to-close the direction was slightly wrong (-0.22%).

Timing: Entry came after a modest +0.89% run from the prior close (entry 934.8 vs. 932.97), so a small part of any move was already priced in, but not enough to be decisive.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The position was up as much as +5.18% while open (~+48 USD unrealized) but the fixed next-close exit surrendered essentially all of it, closing at -2.07 USD. The trade had substantial favorable movement available and the mechanical exit captured none of it.

Signal: The close-to-close direction call was wrong — the trade lost -0.79% — though price did trade up to +2.25% unrealized at some point, so the upside wasn't entirely absent, just not sustained to the mechanical exit.

Timing: The move was already partly in: the news-driven surge had pushed AMD +1.27% by entry, so the strategy bought after the catalyst was public and priced, which is the classic failure mode of an overnight-drift entry on a stale headline.

Exit: The fixed next-close exit captured near the bottom of the range (-0.79% vs. a +2.25% best and -1.91% worst), so meaningful upside was available and given back — but since the rule is mechanical, this reflects the signal fading rather than a discretionary exit error. Dominant factor: timing — chasing a surge that had already happened.

Signal: Right — the bullish AI-guidance thesis played out, with the stock rising ~4.3% overnight. Timing: The move had not already happened by entry; the stock was down 1.51% from the prior close at decision time, so the entry actually caught the move at a slight discount rather than chasing it. Exit: Near-perfect capture — the +4.30% realized gain essentially matched the +4.32% best unrealized, with minimal drawdown (-0.55%). The dominant factor is a correct signal executed cleanly on both ends; nothing in this trade's data suggests a flaw.

Signal: Partially right — the stock rallied as much as +2.44% while the trade was open, so the predicted upward drift did materialize intraday. Timing: Entry wasn't chasing; price was slightly down (-0.43%) from prior close at decision time, so the move had not already happened. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the mechanical next-close exit gave back the entire +2.44% (~$42) of favorable movement and closed near the worst unrealized level (-1.27%), locking in -$15.48. The trade lost money despite the thesis being directionally correct during the holding period; the fixed exit captured none of what was available.

Signal: correct — the earnings-driven bullish call played out, with the position gaining +2.37% (417.08 → 426.96). Timing: the move had not already happened; price was only +0.21% off the prior close at decision time and entry was essentially at the prior close, with worst unrealized of just -0.02% confirming near-zero adverse drift. Exit: solid but not perfect — the trade captured +2.37% of a +3.00% peak, giving back roughly 0.6 points to the mechanical next-close exit; the dominant factor here is simply a correct signal with clean timing, and the exit left only a modest amount on the table.

Signal: Wrong, or at best marginal — the short only ever got +0.64% in its favor while moving −1.15% against it, so the bearish thesis didn't play out over the holding period. Timing: The stock was already down 0.92% from prior close at decision time, so part of any tariff-driven move may have been priced in, but the data here can't confirm how much of the news was already absorbed. Exit: Poor even given the weak signal — the trade closed at −0.94% (−$8.76), near the worst unrealized (−1.15%), after passing up a small available gain (+0.64%).

Dominant factor: The signal was wrong — AAPL rose while the trade was open, and the exit compounded it by realizing close to the maximum drawdown rather than the modest gain that was briefly available.

Signal: right. The bullish call on the robotaxi permit news played out — price rose ~2% after entry with minimal adverse excursion (-0.30% worst).

Timing: mostly fine. Price was only +0.15% on the day at decision time, though the fill at 347.84 was ~0.6% above prior close, so a small slice of the move preceded entry — not enough to say it was chased.

Exit: strong. The +13.82 (+1.99%) captured nearly all of the +2.26% best unrealized. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal, executed cleanly on both ends; nothing here suggests a problem with any leg of this trade.

Signal: Wrong over the holding window — GOOGL drifted up against the short, with only +0.18% ever available on the right side versus -0.62% against. Whether the bearish thesis would have played out longer-term is unknowable here, since the trade was closed early by being netted against an opposing long decision, not by the strategy's own exit logic.

Timing: The move had partly happened — entry at 339.54 was already ~0.7% below the prior close of 342.00, worse than the -0.39% quoted at decision time, so the short filled after additional downside.

Exit: The forced exit at -0.41% gave back nearly all the way to the worst unrealized (-0.62%) and captured none of the small favorable excursion. The dominant factor is a wrong (or at least unconfirmed) directional signal, compounded by an administrative early close that makes this trade a poor test of the original thesis.

Signal: The bullish sympathy call didn't play out — AMD drifted down over the hold, and the best unrealized gain was only +0.71%, so even a perfect exit captured little; the predicted repricing largely failed to materialize in AMD.

Timing: The stock was already +1.09% on the day at decision time, consistent with some of the Nvidia-sympathy move being priced in before entry, though the data here can't fully separate "already moved" from "never moved much" — note the fill (477.11) sits oddly below the prev close (480.93) given the +1.09% context, which the data doesn't explain.

Exit: The -0.28% realized loss landed between the +0.71% best and -1.43% worst — the exit was unremarkable, neither capturing the small peak nor riding to the bottom. Dominant factor: weak signal — the sympathy thesis simply didn't produce a tradeable move in AMD.

Signal: Effectively wrong-to-weak — while the trade closed green, the position went as much as 2.72% against the short versus only 0.67% in its favor, so the bearish regulatory thesis mostly didn't play out during the holding period. Timing: Little evidence of chasing — the stock was only -0.35% off the prior close at decision time, so the move hadn't already happened; entry timing isn't the issue here. Exit: Captured +0.13% of a +0.67% best available, so roughly 80% of the achievable gain was left behind, but the dominant factor is the weak signal — the +0.75 P&L is closer to luck than thesis confirmation given the 4:1 adverse-to-favorable excursion ratio. (The data doesn't show whether the drawdown preceded or followed the peak gain, so exit sequencing can't be fully judged.)

Signal: Right — the bullish call played out; the stock rose ~1.5% from entry with barely any adverse move (worst -0.27%).

Timing: Good — entry came at 492.34, below the prior close (496.37) after a -0.78% dip, so the move had not already happened; the trade caught the rebound rather than chasing it.

Exit: The dominant factor. The trade was closed early not on signal but by netting against an opposing short (decision 13879), capturing +1.53% of a +2.59% peak — roughly 60% of what was available, leaving about a point on the table for a non-signal, mechanical reason.

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The bearish call on MSFT (based on an Nvidia/Hugging Face deal, a tenuous link to MSFT at best) failed: the stock rose steadily after entry, offering at most +0.35% unrealized before ending near the worst point (-1.24%). Timing isn't the issue — the anticipated move never occurred at all rather than having already happened (price was only +0.80% on the day at decision). The exit gave back nearly the full adverse excursion (-1.05% realized vs. -1.24% worst), but with only +0.35% ever available, no exit rule would have salvaged a materially better outcome from a bad signal.

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The bullish read-through (Broadcom's AI chip strength implying good things for GOOGL) never materialized: the stock's best unrealized gain while open was a negligible +0.04%, so there was essentially no upside to capture. Timing wasn't the issue — price was slightly down at entry (-0.38% from prior close), so the trade hadn't missed a move; the exit at -0.15% was near the worst unrealized (-0.17%), but with a max favorable of +0.04% there was nothing meaningful available to capture regardless, so exit quality is a non-factor here.

Signal was the dominant failure. The bullish M&A thesis never materialized during the holding window — best unrealized was a negligible +0.03%, so there was essentially no upside to capture at any point. Timing was a minor contributor: entry came after a +0.71% pop from prior close (and a fill ~0.7% above that close), suggesting some of the news reaction was already priced in, though the data can't confirm how much. The exit was reasonable given what was available — the -0.48% realized loss sits between the +0.03% best and -0.84% worst, so the exit didn't leave meaningful gains on the table; there were none.