Signal: Right — the predicted upward drift materialized in a big way, with the position up as much as +6.65% while open. Timing: The stock was already +0.70% off the prior close at decision time and the fill at 578.53 was ~1.3% above prev close, so some of the move was paid for at entry, though this was minor relative to the intraday peak. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the mechanical next-close exit gave back the entire +6.65% (~$38) of unrealized gain and closed at a -$6.49 loss, capturing none of what was available. Blunt diagnosis: correct signal, wasted by a hold-to-close exit that rode a large gain into a loss.

Signal: right. The bullish AI-demand thesis played out — MU rose +2.32% from entry to exit.

Timing: fine. Price was down -1.69% from prior close and still drifting lower at entry, so the move had not already happened; the entry actually caught a small dip before the rally.

Exit: near-optimal. The +21.64 P&L (+2.32%) captured almost all of the +2.41% best unrealized, with only modest adverse excursion (-1.37%) along the way. The dominant factor is simply a correct directional signal executed cleanly — signal quality drove this trade, and the mechanical next-close exit happened to land near the peak.

Signal/timing: The predicted overnight drift never materialized — the stock was already up ~1.8% by entry (the partnership pop had largely happened), and from the fill it only ever gained +0.05% before sliding, so the entry effectively bought the top of the news move.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit captured -2.02%, which was better than the worst unrealized (-3.48%) but there was essentially nothing positive available to capture (+0.05% max).

Dominant factor: Timing — entering after a +1.85% pre-entry run-up meant the news was priced in, and the position was a fade of the pop rather than a ride of the drift. Whether the news itself was a valid multi-day signal isn't settled by this one-day window.

Signal: Partially validated — the short saw +6.60% unrealized at its best, so downside did materialize while open, though the stock ultimately closed sharply higher, so the one-day directional call was wrong at the horizon actually traded.

Timing: Some of the move had already occurred — the stock was down 0.72% at decision time and the fill at 349.34 was ~1.5% below prior close — but this is minor relative to what followed.

Exit (dominant factor): The mechanical next-close exit is the blunt failure here: the trade held through a +6.60% favorable excursion and exited at -5.46%, essentially the worst unrealized level (-5.55%). Nearly the entire available gain was surrendered and converted into a near-maximum loss by the fixed exit rule.

Signal: wrong. The short bet on continued negative drift failed outright — QCOM rallied ~4% against the position (164.17 → 170.70). Note the rationale's claimed 31% drop is inconsistent with the price context shown (-0.19% since prev close), so whether the news-driven selloff had already fully played out before entry can't be settled from this data — though the +0.78% last-30m move hinted momentum was already turning up at entry.

Exit: near the worst. Best unrealized was +0.90% (a briefly profitable moment), worst was -4.24%, and the realized loss (~-3.98%) exited close to the bottom of that range — the mechanical next-close exit gave back essentially everything available and rode the loss nearly to its maximum.

Dominant factor: bad signal. The predicted direction was simply wrong; timing and exit are secondary given the position was underwater by design of the directional call.

Signal: Wrong — the long overnight-drift call didn't play out; price closed 0.16% below entry, so the predicted upward drift failed to materialize. Timing: Not a late entry — only +0.13% had moved before entry, so the trade wasn't chasing a move already made. Exit: The mechanical next-close exit landed mid-range: it gave back the +0.86% peak that was briefly available but avoided most of the -1.74% trough; the small -$1.50 loss is roughly what a fixed-time exit delivers when the thesis is flat-to-wrong.

Dominant factor: signal — the drift edge simply didn't show up on this trade; entry timing and exit mechanics were secondary. Note the news-based rationale (a Q2 2026 Rule of 40 figure) can't be validated from the data here.

Signal (dominant factor): wrong. The bullish call never worked — the position's best unrealized was -0.03%, meaning the trade was essentially never in profit, and price fell as much as -2.00% while open. The direction was simply incorrect over the holding period.

Timing: not the issue. Price context at entry (-0.24% since prior close, +0.04% last 30m) shows no meaningful pre-entry move, so the loss can't be attributed to chasing a move that already happened — the anticipated rally just never materialized.

Exit: mid-range, and not a strategy decision. The -1.12% realized loss sits between the best (-0.03%) and worst (-2.00%) unrealized, so the exit avoided the bottom but the close was mechanical — netted out by an opposing short decision — so this data says nothing about whether the strategy's own exit logic would have done better or worse.

Signal: wrong. The bullish call never materialized — the position was never meaningfully positive (best unrealized just -0.17%) and META only declined while open. Timing: not the issue — pre-entry drift was negligible (+0.09%), so this wasn't a case of chasing a move that already happened; the predicted move simply never came. Exit: roughly neutral — the forced early close (netted against a short signal) exited at -0.93%, between the best (-0.17%) and worst (-1.22%) unrealized, so little was left on the table given nothing positive was ever available. The dominant factor is a bad directional signal; note the Bernstein thesis is a 2026 projection, and this data can't tell us whether a longer hold would have vindicated it.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call was wrong — MSFT never moved meaningfully in the predicted direction, topping out at just +0.22% unrealized before sliding. The rationale is also weakly tied: the news is a Samsung supply story where Microsoft is a customer, a tenuous bullish driver for MSFT specifically.

Timing: The stock was already down -0.92% from prior close at decision time, so entry wasn't chasing a bullish move that had already happened; there's no evidence here of a stale signal, just an incorrect one.

Exit: The -0.77% realized loss (-3.92 on 510.92) is nearly the full worst unrealized drawdown of -0.82%, meaning the exit captured close to the maximum available loss — but with only +0.22% ever available on the upside, no exit could have salvaged much from a bad signal.

Signal: Right — bullish call, NVDA rose +0.93% from entry to exit. Timing: Not chased — entry was only +0.56% above prior close with a flat last 30 minutes, so the move hadn't already run at entry (though note the rationale leans partly on Nvidia earnings already public and a Broadcom event that hadn't occurred yet; whether that news was already priced in can't be settled from this data). Exit: Strong — the +0.93% realized gain captured nearly all of the +1.07% best unrealized, with drawdown (-0.91%) avoided.

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal with near-optimal exit capture; this trade worked essentially as intended.

Signal: Right — the bullish call played out, with TSLA rising ~4.3% from entry. Timing: Partly unsettled by the data: at decision time the stock was slightly down (-0.59% vs prev close, ~346.7), but the fill at 353.3 was ~1.9% higher, so some of the move occurred between decision and fill; whether the news itself was already priced in can't be determined from what's here. Exit: Near-optimal — the +4.26% realized gain captured essentially all of the +4.37% best unrealized, with minimal drawdown (-0.42%).

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal executed with an exit that captured almost the entire available move; the only leakage was the entry slippage between decision and fill.

Signal was the failure. The bullish call never worked: best unrealized was 0.00%, meaning the trade was underwater essentially the entire time it was open, ending down -1.0%. Timing wasn't the issue — the stock was only modestly down (-0.65% from prior close) at entry, so the adverse move hadn't already happened; it happened after entry. The exit was actually decent given the bad signal, cutting the loss at roughly -1.0% versus a worst unrealized of -2.29%, and with a peak of 0.00% there was no profit available to capture. Note the data here can't settle whether the Leo/Kuiper thesis itself was stale news versus simply not market-moving — only that the predicted direction didn't materialize.

Signal: Right — MU fell after entry and the short went positive, so the bearish call was directionally correct. Timing: Not clearly settled by the data — the decision-time context (-0.36% vs prev close of 932.86) doesn't match the fill at 947.29 (~+1.5% above prev close), so I can't tell whether the bearish move had already occurred or the entry actually caught a favorable pop. Exit: The dominant factor — the trade captured +0.59% against a best unrealized of +1.39%, and it was closed not on price but by being netted out against an opposing long decision, so roughly 60% of the available move was left on the table by a mechanical early exit.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call was wrong — GOOGL fell from 342.44 to 339.75 (-0.79%), and the best unrealized gain was only +0.15%, so the predicted upside essentially never materialized.

Timing: The stock was already down -0.75% from prior close at decision time, but the data here can't confirm whether an anticipated bullish move had already occurred earlier — the visible drift was against the thesis, not ahead of it.

Exit: The exit was reasonable given what was available — the -0.79% realized loss sits between the +0.15% best and -1.53% worst unrealized, so the exit roughly halved the maximum drawdown; there was no meaningful profit to capture. The failure is the directional signal, not execution.

Signal: right. The bearish call played out — TSM fell ~1.2% after entry, and the move had not already happened by entry (price was roughly flat vs. prior close at decision time, so the short wasn't chasing).

Exit: near-optimal. The +$9.98 (~1.19%) captured almost all of the +1.34% best unrealized, with modest -0.65% adverse excursion — notably, the exit was mechanical (netted out by an outranking long decision), not a deliberate take-profit, so the good capture is partly luck of timing.

Dominant factor: correct directional signal with fresh timing; the incidental early close happened to land near the peak of the move.

Signal: Correct — the bearish call worked; the position was never meaningfully underwater (worst unrealized +0.13%).

Timing: Fine at decision time (AMD only -0.12% off prior close, so the move hadn't been spent), though note the fill at 473.11 sits ~1.6% above the stated prev close of 465.58 — that gap between decision-time context and fill isn't explained by the data here.

Exit (dominant factor): The exit is the weak link — the trade banked +0.40% against a best unrealized of +1.64%, capturing only about a quarter of the favorable move that was available while open.

Signal: Right — the bullish call was correct; price never went meaningfully against the position (worst -0.08%) and rose while open. Timing: Fine — entry came before the move (+0.32% prior drift is negligible), so the trade wasn't chasing a stale pop. Exit: The dominant issue — the position was closed early by mechanical netting against an opposing S1 short signal, capturing only +0.22% (+$2.08) of the +1.02% best unrealized; the exit left roughly four-fifths of the available move on the table, and nothing in the data suggests the thesis itself had failed at exit.

Signal: right. The bullish call worked — price rose ~1.4% from entry, and the +0.77% pre-entry drift means only a small part of the move had already happened, so timing cost was modest (~0.9% above prev close at fill).

Exit: near-optimal. The +13.44 P&L (+1.43%) captured almost all of the +1.60% best unrealized, with minimal drawdown (-0.58%) endured.

Dominant factor: a correct signal executed and exited well — this trade is essentially clean. (Caveat: the rationale's earnings figures look implausible for MU and can't be verified from the data here, so whether the stated catalyst was real is unsettled — but the directional bet itself paid.)

Signal: right. The bullish call played out — the trade never went underwater (worst unrealized +0.03%) and rose steadily. Timing: good — at entry the stock was essentially flat vs. prior close (-0.08%), so the move had not already happened; the position caught the rise fresh. Exit: mostly captured — the +0.58% realized gain took about two-thirds of the +0.86% peak, leaving roughly a third on the table but not a material miss. The dominant factor is simply a correct signal executed at a good entry point; whether the earnings rationale itself (margin dynamics) was the true driver of the move can't be determined from this data.

Signal: Wrong over the holding window — after entry META drifted up, with max favorable move only +0.09% vs. -0.81% adverse, so the bearish thesis didn't play out while the trade was open. Timing: The stock was already down -1.17% from prior close at decision time, so much of any settlement-driven repricing had likely occurred before entry; the data can't confirm how much further downside the news "should" have produced. Exit: The -0.13% loss sits between the +0.09% best and -0.81% worst — the exit was reasonable given almost nothing favorable was ever available to capture.

Dominant factor: the signal simply didn't work post-entry — the market had largely absorbed the news before the fill, leaving no edge to harvest.

Signal: the bearish call didn't materialize — SMCI stayed essentially flat, oscillating within ±0.44% while the trade was open, so the regulatory news produced no meaningful downside move. Timing: the data doesn't show a prior selloff (price was +0.54% vs prev close at decision time), so this wasn't a case of shorting after the move; there was simply no move to catch. Exit: a small gain (+0.44% unrealized) was available and the exit instead landed near the worst point (-0.21%), but the dominant factor is the signal — the catalyst just didn't move the stock, and everything else is noise within a half-percent band.

Signal/timing: The bullish call produced essentially no move — the stock was already down 0.59% from prior close despite the "FRESH" earnings verdict, and while open it never traded more than ±0.2% either way. The negative drift at entry suggests the earnings pop was likely already priced in, though the data here can't confirm exactly when that move occurred.

Exit: The exit was actually good relative to what was available — +0.12% captured out of a +0.19% max favorable excursion, so nearly the full (tiny) opportunity was taken.

Dominant factor: Stale signal. The trade was flat-to-noise because the earnings news apparently had no remaining directional energy; the entry rationale's "FRESH" label is contradicted by the price action.

Signal/timing: The bearish call had largely played out before entry — AAPL was already down 1.16% from the prior close, and the last 30 minutes were actually ticking up (+0.20%). During the holding period the direction was effectively wrong: the stock drifted up, not down.

Exit: There was almost nothing to capture — best unrealized was just +0.04% versus worst of -0.34%. The -2.28 USD exit (~-0.24%) landed near the worst of the range, but the exit isn't the issue since the trade never had meaningful profit available.

Dominant factor: Timing — this was a chase of a move that had already happened; the CEO-transition repricing was in the price by entry, leaving no edge for the short.