Signal: right. The long call worked — AAPL rose ~1.56% from entry, and the worst drawdown was a trivial -0.28%.

Timing: mostly fine, small cost. Only +0.30% had moved by decision time, but the fill at 314.74 was ~0.41% above the prior close, so a modest chunk of the overnight drift was paid at entry rather than captured.

Exit: adequate, not optimal. The +1.56% realized (+$14.70) captured about two-thirds of the +2.39% peak unrealized — consistent with a mechanical next-close exit giving back some intraday high. The dominant factor is simply a correct signal; whether the news catalyst in the rationale actually drove the move can't be determined from this data.

Signal (dominant factor): The predicted direction was flat-out wrong. The short never showed a single tick of profit (best unrealized +0.00%) — GOOGL rose ~1.9% against the position while it was open.

Timing: Entry at 340.31 was already ~0.5% below the prior close, so a slice of the news-driven decline had occurred before entry, but that's secondary — the anticipated continuation simply never came.

Exit: With nothing available on the profitable side, the exit's job was damage limitation; the -1.89% realized loss sits close to but slightly better than the worst unrealized (-2.57%), so the exit lost little relative to what the position offered. The core failure is the signal: the drift went the other way.

Signal: wrong. The short bet on further downside, but META rose ~1.2% from entry to exit (571.42 → 578.34), and the position was barely ever profitable (max +0.25% unrealized vs. -2.95% at worst). Timing: the stock was already down -1.12% by entry, so whatever negative reaction the news drove may have been largely priced in — though the data can't confirm the settlement news caused that earlier drop. Exit: the -1.21% realized loss sits well inside the -2.95% worst drawdown, so the fixed next-close exit avoided the worst; there was essentially nothing on the upside to capture. Dominant factor: bad signal — the predicted direction simply didn't materialize after entry.

Signal: right. The long call worked — MSFT drifted up another +1.75% after entry, on top of the +1.92% already priced in by decision time. Timing: partially late — roughly half the total move from prior close had already happened before entry, but meaningful upside remained. Exit: good capture — the +8.83 P&L (+1.75%) took most of the +2.49% best unrealized, though the -6.90% worst unrealized is striking for a stated one-day overnight hold; the data here doesn't explain how a close-to-next-close trade saw that drawdown, so either the hold was longer than the rationale states or something is unrecorded. Dominant factor: correct signal with solid exit capture — the unexplained -6.90% drawdown is the one thing this record can't settle.

Signal: Partly right — the anticipated downside did materialize while the trade was open (best unrealized +5.23%, price fell to ~$243), so the short thesis wasn't wrong on direction intraday.

Timing: The stock had already fallen 1.81% from prior close by entry, so some of the news-driven move was consumed before the fill — though the further 5% drop shows meaningful downside remained.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The mechanical next-close exit surrendered the entire +5.23% favorable move and closed at 266.27, near the worst unrealized (-4.23%), locking in -3.83% (-$29.46). The signal delivered; the fixed-horizon exit rode the full reversal and captured close to the worst available outcome.

Signal: Essentially wrong — the predicted overnight upward drift didn't materialize; price closed flat-to-down from entry (-0.04%), and the downside excursion (-2.28%) was far larger than the upside (+0.94%).

Timing: Partially pre-empted — the stock was already +0.71% off the prior close by decision time, and the fill at 164.20 was another ~0.3% above that reference, so entry paid up for a move that had partly occurred.

Exit: The close-to-close exit gave back the modest +0.94% that was briefly available, but that's the mechanical rule, not discretion; the near-flat P&L was actually a decent escape given the -2.28% worst case. Dominant factor: signal — the M&A catalyst simply didn't produce the expected drift.

Signal/timing failure — stale news. The rationale cites an 8.7% earnings surge, but price context at decision time (-0.57% vs prior close, drifting down over the last 30m) indicates that move had already happened before entry; the "FRESH" verdict looks wrong. Post-entry, the direction was wrong: the trade never got more than +0.95% in favor and fell as far as -4.41%. The exit at -3.92% is near the worst unrealized, but with only +0.95% ever available, exit quality is a minor factor — the dominant problem is entering long on an already-priced-in move.

Signal: correct — the short gained 0.92% (+$8.68), though whether the Nvidia/Hugging Face news was the actual driver of AMD's decline can't be settled from this data. Timing: partially late — AMD had already fallen 0.93% from prior close by decision time, and the position endured a -1.64% adverse excursion before turning profitable, so entry timing was mediocre. Exit: excellent and the dominant factor here — the +0.93% best unrealized was essentially fully captured (exit at ~+0.92%), meaning the trade banked nearly everything available despite the rough ride in between.

Signal: correct — the bullish call played out, with the position moving as much as +1.89% in its favor and only -0.21% against. Timing: reasonably fresh — only +0.54% had accrued since the prior close at decision time, so most of the move came after entry (though entry filled ~0.54% above prev close, a modest slippage from the decision price). Exit: captured about +1.06% of the +1.89% peak — roughly half the available move left on the table, but a solidly positive capture. Dominant factor: a correct signal executed adequately; the only real cost was an exit that gave back some of the peak, not a flaw in direction or timing.

Signal: weak at best — the short spent time down as much as -2.10% (price rallied ~2% against the bearish call) versus a peak favorable move of only +0.45%, so the predicted direction was mostly wrong while the position was open. Timing: the data doesn't show a stale entry — price was only +0.31% since prior close at decision time — though the fill at 576.17 (about +0.9% over prior close) is notably above the quoted context, which the data here doesn't explain. Exit: the +1.22 (+0.21%) result captured roughly half the modest +0.45% available and was driven by a mechanical netting against another position, not the thesis; the dominant factor is a bad signal that got bailed out by a lucky forced exit.

Signal: right. The bearish call played out — TSM dropped ~1.9% after entry. Timing: fine. Price was essentially flat at decision time (+0.04% vs. prior close), so the move had not already occurred; the trade caught the decline rather than chasing it. Exit: near-optimal. The +16.32 P&L (~+1.91%) captured almost all of the +2.04% best unrealized, with only -0.66% adverse excursion.

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal, executed and exited cleanly — this trade worked as intended on all three dimensions. Note that the data here can't confirm the tariff news was the actual cause of the decline, only that direction and magnitude aligned with the thesis.

Signal: Partially validated — the short saw +1.58% unrealized at its best, so the bearish direction did play out while the trade was open. Timing: Only a modest -0.39% had occurred by entry (with a +0.51% bounce in the last 30m), so the trade wasn't obviously chasing an exhausted move; the data doesn't show whether the earnings drop referenced in the rationale had largely priced in before that. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the trade held through +1.58% of favorable movement and exited at -0.25%, surrendering essentially all of the available gain and turning a correct-direction trade into a loss.

Signal was the problem. The bullish call never materialized: AVGO drifted down after entry, with a max favorable move of only +0.40% against a -1.79% worst drawdown. Timing wasn't the issue — the stock was roughly flat vs. prior close (+0.15%) at decision time, so the trade didn't chase an already-completed move; whether the $100B-by-2027 guidance was genuinely fresh news or already priced in earlier can't be settled from this data alone. The exit at -0.74% was reasonable given what was available, landing between the best (+0.40%) and worst (-1.79%) unrealized — there was never meaningful upside to capture.

Signal: right. The bullish call worked — price rose from 343.66 to 346.61 with virtually no adverse excursion (worst -0.05%), so the direction was clean.

Timing: mostly fine, mildly late. Entry came after a +0.93% overnight gap, so a small part of the move was already spent, but the 30-minute trend was flat and the position still gained ~0.86% after entry, so the trade wasn't chasing an exhausted move.

Exit: the weak link. The exit captured +0.86% of a +1.57% best unrealized — roughly half the available gain was left on the table. Dominant factor: exit efficiency, not signal or timing; the data doesn't show why the exit fired where it did (no stop/target info here), only that it undercaptured.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call was simply wrong — TSLA fell ~1.2% from entry, and the position never gained more than +0.27% while open. Timing: The move had not already happened; price was slightly down on the day at entry (-0.47%), so this wasn't chasing a stale rally. Exit: The -8.20 exit (~-1.16%) landed between the best (+0.27%) and worst (-2.32%) unrealized, so the exit salvaged roughly half the drawdown, but with a max upside of only +0.27% there was essentially nothing to capture. The trade failed because the directional signal didn't play out, not because of timing or exit execution.

Signal: Directionally right — the short moved as much as +1.42% in your favor with only −0.11% adverse, so the bearish call worked over the holding period. Timing: The rationale cites a 31% drop that had already occurred, so the trade entered after the bulk of the repricing; still, the entry itself wasn't late for the intraday move actually captured (only −0.19% since prior close at decision time). Exit: This is the dominant failure — the exit locked in roughly 0.07% (+$0.72) of a +1.42% favorable excursion, giving up about 95% of what was available; whether that was a rule-based exit or noise isn't determinable from this data.

Signal: Mildly right — the stock traded up to +0.45% while open, consistent with the bullish call, though the move was small. Timing: Not stale — only +0.13% since prior close at decision time, so entry wasn't chasing an already-completed move. Exit: The dominant failure — the trade closed at essentially breakeven (-$0.05) despite +0.45% of favorable unrealized movement being available, capturing none of it. Bluntly: this was an exit problem; the signal did its (modest) job and the timing was fine, but the exit surrendered all available gains.

Signal: Right — the bullish read on the settlement paid off; the stock rose after entry. Timing: Partially late — about +0.70% of the move had already occurred by decision time (entry 574.8 vs. prior close 571.10), though a comparable further leg (+0.57%) remained. Exit: Efficient — the +3.28 P&L (+0.57%) captured essentially all of the +0.60% best unrealized gain, with minimal drawdown (-0.14%).

Dominant factor: a correct signal with a near-optimal exit; the only mild drag was entering after part of the news-driven pop, which capped the size of the available move.