Signal: Wrong — the long thesis on the positive chip-benchmark news didn't materialize; AVGO fell -0.73% from entry to exit. Timing: The move had not already happened by entry (price was only -0.36% from prior close, slightly down), so this wasn't a case of chasing a spent move — the predicted drift simply never occurred. Exit: The mechanical next-close exit landed at -0.73%, between the best (+0.54%) and worst (-1.19%) unrealized, so exit execution neither cost nor saved much relative to what was available intraday.

Dominant factor: signal failure — the news-driven upside prediction was directionally wrong.

Signal: Right — MSFT fell another ~0.79% after entry, so the short direction was correct even post-entry. Timing: The stock was already down 1.28% from prior close at entry, so some of the anticipated move had occurred, but the continued decline shows the signal wasn't fully spent. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the trade captured +0.79% against a best unrealized of +2.22% (worst was only -0.15%), meaning the mechanical next-close exit gave back roughly two-thirds of the available move. Whether the AI-capex thesis itself drove the price action can't be settled from this data.

Signal: Right — the short-side thesis played out, with the stock falling as much as 4.40% below entry while the position was open. Timing: Partially late — AMZN had already dropped 1.88% from the prior close before entry, though the data shows most of the favorable move (up to +4.40% unrealized) still occurred after the fill, so timing wasn't the main issue. Exit: This is the dominant failure — the fixed next-close exit gave back the entire +4.40% unrealized gain and closed slightly underwater (-$0.48 vs. a max drawdown of only -0.73%), meaning the strategy captured essentially none of what was available.

Blunt diagnosis: correct signal, acceptable timing, exit rule surrendered a large winning move and turned it into a small loss.

Signal: Effectively wrong-to-flat. The predicted overnight upward drift never materialized — the position spent time down as much as -3.64% and only clawed back to +0.02% by the exit. A catalyst that lets the trade go 3.6% underwater is not confirming the thesis.

Timing: The data doesn't settle whether the news was already priced in — price was slightly down (-0.29%) into entry, so there's no evidence of a pre-entry pop, but also no evidence the market hadn't already digested the announcement earlier.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit actually captured nearly all of the tiny upside available (+0.02% realized vs. +0.15% max) and, by luck of timing, avoided the large drawdown. The dominant factor is the signal: the news-based drift edge simply didn't show up, and the near-breakeven result masks a trade that was mostly deep in the red.

Signal: correct. The bullish call played out — the trade never went underwater (worst unrealized +0.01%) and closed up ~1.0%. Timing: fine — the pre-entry move was small (+0.44% from prior close), and the entry actually filled below the prior close, so the move hadn't already been consumed. Exit: partial capture — +$6.86 (~+1.0%) against a best unrealized of +1.79%, so the exit left roughly 40% of the available move on the table, though it captured a solid majority.

Dominant factor: a correct signal cleanly executed; the only weakness is the exit taking about half the peak gain. Whether the +1.79% peak was realistically capturable at exit time isn't determinable from this data.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — the trade never showed a positive tick (best unrealized was -0.27%), so the bullish call didn't pay at any point while open. Timing: The entry came after some run-up (fill 327.83 vs. prev close 325.13, ~+0.8%), consistent with chasing a stale news pop, though the data can't confirm how much of the F1 news was already priced in. Exit: The early close (netted against an opposing short signal, not a price decision) actually salvaged the trade — the -0.39% realized loss sits well above the -1.29% worst unrealized. Dominant factor: bad signal — the direction simply never materialized while the position was open.

Signal: right. The bullish call played out — NVDA rose from 219.96 to a peak of ~+3.57% with almost no adverse move (-0.35% worst), so the direction was correct and low-risk.

Timing: partially eroded. At decision time the move hadn't happened (-0.01% vs prev close), but the fill at 219.96 was already ~1.2% above the 217.44 prev close, meaning a chunk of the pop occurred between decision and entry; the data here doesn't show why (slippage, delay, or gap).

Exit: the dominant factor. The exit at 224.11 captured +1.89% of a +3.57% best unrealized — roughly half the available move was given back, turning a clean signal win into a mediocre capture.

Signal: Right direction — the short profited and price never moved much against it (worst -0.63%). Note the rationale itself is odd (bullish Nvidia news as a bearish AMD thesis is plausible competitor logic, but the data here can't confirm that link drove the move).

Timing: Fine — entry came with the stock only -0.70% off prior close and flat over the last 30 minutes, so the move hadn't already been spent.

Exit: The dominant weakness. The trade captured +0.55% (+$5.04) against a best unrealized of +1.40% — roughly 60% of the available favorable move was left on the table.

Signal: correct — the bullish call played out, with the position gaining ~+2.0% and never drawing down more than -0.67%.

Timing: fine — entry was only ~0.4% above the prior close after a modest +0.31% drift, so the move had not meaningfully happened before entry.

Exit: near-optimal — the +18.48 (+1.97%) realized P&L captured almost all of the +2.12% peak unrealized gain. The dominant factor here is simply a correct directional signal executed and exited well; nothing in this data suggests a problem. (Whether the fundamental rationale itself was the driver of the move can't be determined from this data.)

Signal: Directionally the short "worked" only marginally — MSFT drifted 5 cents lower — and the rationale itself is suspect: an Nvidia–Hugging Face acquisition has no stated causal link to MSFT, and the data here can't confirm the bearish thesis was ever valid rather than noise.

Timing: Partly compromised. The decision-time price implied ~499.5 (prev close 501.02, -0.31%), but the fill came at 496.72 — roughly 0.55% of downside had already occurred between decision and entry, eating much of any bearish move.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The trade saw +0.58% favorable unrealized (~$5.75 on this position) but exited for +$0.10, capturing under 2% of the best available move — the exit gave back essentially everything the position briefly earned.

Signal: Wrong over the holding window — the short saw only +0.24% of favorable movement against -0.72% adverse, and the price drifted up; whether the tariff thesis plays out longer-term isn't testable from this data since the position was closed early for administrative reasons (netted out against a conflicting long decision), not on the merits.

Timing: Entry wasn't chasing a move — price was only -0.49% off the prior close and had ticked up +0.37% in the last 30 minutes, so the trade didn't enter after the predicted decline had already occurred.

Exit: The -1.28 loss (-0.16%) sits between the +0.24% best and -0.72% worst, so the exit neither captured the small available gain nor took the full drawdown; the dominant factor is that the trade was terminated by an unrelated netting rule against an opposing signal, so this outcome reflects portfolio bookkeeping more than a verdict on the bearish thesis itself.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was simply wrong over the holding period — AMZN rose from 253.68 to 254.84, and the position was underwater essentially the entire time (best unrealized was still -0.10%), so no profitable exit ever existed.

Timing: The rationale claims shares had "entered correction territory," which suggests the drop may have already occurred before entry, but the decision-time context (-0.12% since prev close, +0.06% last 30m) shows no fresh move to fade or ride — the data here doesn't settle whether the news was already priced in, though the flat tape at entry is consistent with a stale story.

Exit: The exit at -0.46% landed mid-range between the best (-0.10%) and worst (-0.96%) unrealized, so exit execution was neither the problem nor a save — the trade was a loser at every point, making this a signal failure, not an exit failure.

Signal: Right — the bearish call played out, with price falling as much as 1.51% below entry while the trade was open. Timing: Entry looks fine; price was roughly flat versus prior close (+0.34%, -0.07% last 30m), so the anticipated move hadn't already occurred. Exit: This is the failure — the trade exited at essentially the worst unrealized level (-0.42% vs. worst of -0.42%), surrendering the entire +1.51% favorable move and turning a correct call into a -$0.44 loss. The dominant factor is exit execution: the strategy identified the direction, entered before the move, then gave all of it back.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was wrong — META rose ~1% against the short, and the best the trade ever showed was +0.12% unrealized, so the predicted move essentially never materialized. Timing: The context shows no prior downmove at decision time (-0.18% since prev close), but the fill at 586.49 was ~1.4% above the prior close of 578.54, meaning price ran up between decision and entry; whether the news was already priced in can't be settled from this data. Exit: The exit was reasonable given what was available — the -0.99% loss sits between the +0.12% best and -2.22% worst, so the trade cut losses before the maximum drawdown rather than leaving meaningful profit on the table.

Signal: Partially validated — the stock did move up to +0.92% unrealized while open, so the bullish direction wasn't wrong in the short window; whether the earnings thesis itself played out isn't determinable from this data (no post-earnings price or report outcome shown). Timing: Fine — entry came after a small dip (-0.83% from prior close), not chasing a move that had already occurred. Exit: This is the dominant failure — the trade saw +0.92% of favorable movement available (~+6.75 USD on the position) but exited at roughly -0.10%, near the worst unrealized of -0.33%, giving back essentially everything the position earned. Bluntly: the exit, not the signal or timing, destroyed this trade.

Signal: Right — the bullish call on TSM (sympathy with Nvidia's beat/guide) played out, with price rising ~0.5% from entry. Timing: Entry came after a small dip (-0.18% since prev close, -0.46% last 30m), so no evidence the move had already run at entry — though the data doesn't show whether the earnings reaction was priced in before the prior close, so "freshness" can't be fully verified here. Exit: Good capture — the +0.52% realized gain took most of the +0.65% peak unrealized, against a modest -0.33% worst drawdown. Dominant factor: a correct signal executed and exited cleanly; the only unresolved question is pre-close pricing-in, which this data doesn't settle.

Signal: Correct — the bearish call played out, with AAPL falling ~0.48% from entry to exit. Timing: Fine — at entry the stock was up +0.41% on the day and rising in the prior 30 minutes, so the predicted decline had not yet occurred; the entry actually caught a small local high. Exit: Adequate but partial — the +4.71 P&L (~0.48%) captured roughly 60% of the +0.79% best unrealized move, against minimal adverse excursion (-0.13%).

Dominant factor: the signal was right and timing was clean; the only shortfall was the exit leaving about a third of the available move uncaptured, which the data here can't attribute to a specific exit rule.

Signal: The bearish call didn't play out over the holding period — SMCI chopped in a narrow band (+0.67%/-0.75%) and finished above entry, so within this window the predicted direction was wrong, or at least never materialized. Timing: Not a stale-move problem — the stock was flat vs. prev close (-0.04%) at decision time, so the entry wasn't chasing a move that had already happened (the +0.82% in the last 30m is minor). Exit: The exit at -0.65% is nearly the worst unrealized (-0.75%), while a +0.67% gain was available at the peak — the exit captured close to the bottom of what the trade offered.

Dominant factor: the signal simply didn't deliver in the window traded — this was a chop trade with no directional edge realized — with the exit near the worst point of the range turning a scratch into a full loss. Whether the bearish thesis is right on a longer horizon isn't settled by this data.