Signal: correct — the long call on the favorable ruling paid off, with price rising ~1.5% from entry to exit and virtually no adverse excursion (worst -0.03%). Timing: the stock was already up +1.02% from the prior close at decision time, so part of the reaction was missed, but the bulk of the move clearly came after entry. Exit: the mechanical next-close exit captured +1.55% of a +2.17% max unrealized gain — roughly 70% of what was available — so the dominant factor here is simply a correct signal with a reasonably efficient, if slightly early-relative-to-peak, exit.

Signal: Correct — the long call worked, with price rising +1.05% from entry to exit (325.06 → 328.47). Timing: The move had not already happened; entry was only +0.31% above prior close, so the strategy caught the drift rather than chasing it. Exit: The next-close exit captured +1.05% of a +1.73% best unrealized gain — a solid ~60% of the available move — though the trade also sat through a -2.54% drawdown, meaning the position was materially underwater at some point before recovering.

Dominant factor: Signal. The direction was right and the mechanical exit captured most of what was available; the notable caveat is that intraday risk (-2.54%) exceeded the realized gain, which the data here can't attribute to anything specific in the rationale.

Signal: Marginally right — the trade closed up +0.29%, but that's a trivial drift for a "strong earnings" catalyst, and the -4.33% worst unrealized shows the position spent time deeply against the thesis. Whether the earnings pop had already occurred before entry can't be confirmed from the data here (the decision-time context shows the stock slightly down, not extended, but there's no view of the prior day's move).

Exit: Effectively optimal — the exit at +0.29% matched the best unrealized (+0.29%), so nothing available was left on the table.

Dominant factor: Weak signal. The exit captured everything available, but "everything" was +0.29% against a -4.33% intraday drawdown — the predicted post-earnings drift essentially didn't materialize, and the small profit reflects luck in the recovery timing rather than a working edge.

Signal: wrong. The short predicted downward drift, but AMZN rose ~1.6% overnight (254.91 → 259.04), so the direction call failed outright. Timing: not the issue — entry was essentially at the prior close (-0.14% pre-entry move), so nothing had been given away before the fill. Exit: captured roughly what the trade offered — best unrealized was only +0.12% while worst was -1.79%, and the mechanical next-close exit at -1.62% landed near the bottom of that range, but there was never meaningful profit available to harvest. The dominant factor is signal failure: the news-based short thesis was simply wrong on direction.

Signal: Wrong. The short predicted downside from regulatory scrutiny, but TSLA rose ~5.7% against the position — the direction call failed outright.

Timing: The stock was only down -0.94% pre-entry, so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed move; the adverse rally happened after entry, not before.

Exit: Nearly nothing was available to capture — best unrealized was just +0.30% versus a worst of -7.74%, and the exit at -5.7% actually avoided the trough. The dominant factor is plainly the signal: the thesis was directionally wrong, and no exit rule could have salvaged a trade that never went more than 0.3% in its favor.

Signal: Wrong over the holding window — the stock fell 0.80% from entry, and the best unrealized gain was only +0.38%, so there was essentially no upside to capture. Timing: Much of the move had already happened by entry: QCOM was up +1.88% on the day at decision time, and the fill at 169.79 was well above the prior close of 166.61, meaning the trade chased a pop that then faded. Exit: The next-close exit actually did well relative to what was available — the -0.80% realized loss sits far above the -2.79% worst unrealized, so exit mechanics weren't the problem. The dominant factor is a bad/late signal: buying after a ~2% intraday run left no drift to harvest. (Whether the price-increase news itself was genuinely bullish for QCOM can't be settled from this data.)

Signal: wrong. The bearish call failed — AAPL rose from 325.66 to 328.44 (+0.85%) while the trade was open, so the predicted direction simply didn't materialize. Timing: the move had not already happened at entry (price was only -0.40% off prior close and actually filled above it), so this wasn't a stale-signal problem. Exit: middling — a brief +0.40% unrealized gain existed but the -0.85% realized loss landed between the best and the -1.54% worst, so the exit gave up the small available profit but also avoided the maximum drawdown. The dominant factor is a bad signal: the lawsuit headline did not translate into downside during the holding period.

Signal: right. The bullish read on the Broadcom AI-demand news played out — NVDA rose ~1.5% from entry, and the worst unrealized of +0.20% means the trade was essentially never underwater. Timing: fine, arguably favorable — price was slightly down at decision time (-0.40% since prev close), so the trade didn't chase a move that had already happened, though the entry fill at 225.24 was ~0.4% above the quoted context, suggesting some slippage between decision and fill. Exit: partial capture — the +1.51% realized gain took roughly two-thirds of the +2.26% peak, a reasonable but not full harvest. Dominant factor: correct signal; the trade worked as intended, with only modest give-back at the exit.

Signal: correct. The bullish call was right — the position never dipped below +0.34% unrealized and reached +1.77% at peak, so direction was sound.

Timing: partially late. Only +0.59% had moved by decision time, but the fill at 506.18 was +1.88% above prev close, meaning nearly 1.3% of the move happened between decision and fill; a meaningful chunk of the run was consumed before entry.

Exit: the dominant factor. The trade closed at +0.84% against a best unrealized of +1.77% — roughly half the available gain was given back, and with the worst unrealized never below +0.34%, the exit under-captured a trade that was never in danger. (Whether the restructuring news itself was the driver can't be verified from this data.)

Signal: Right — the bullish call played out, with the trade riding to +6.29% and barely dipping (-0.21%), a clean directional win. Timing: Mixed — at decision time the stock was only +0.74% off prev close, so the news wasn't fully priced, but the fill at 174.68 was ~3.1% above prev close, meaning a meaningful chunk of the move occurred between decision and entry; the data here doesn't show why (fill delay vs. fast tape). Exit: Solid — +4.32% realized against +6.29% peak captures roughly two-thirds of the available move. Dominant factor: a correct signal, with the main leakage being the pre-fill run-up rather than the exit.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — TSM rose after the short entry (410.58 → 413.11), and the -0.62% realized loss sits near the worst unrealized (-0.71%), so the bearish tariff thesis didn't play out while the position was open.

Timing: The stock was only down -0.71% from prior close at entry with a flat last 30 minutes, so the move hadn't meaningfully happened yet — this wasn't a chase; the direction was simply wrong (at least on this horizon).

Exit: The trade briefly showed +0.61% but was closed near its worst point, and not on merit — it was mechanically netted out by a higher-ranked long TSM decision. The dominant factor is the bad directional signal, but note the exit was forced by an internal conflict (the system held opposing views on the same ticker), so this exit tells us little about what the short thesis would have captured if held.

Signal: Marginally right — the bullish call did see price move up to +0.63% unrealized, so direction wasn't wrong, though the DDR4-shortage rationale's link to GOOGL upside can't be validated from this data.

Timing: The fill at 342.26 was ~1.5% above prev close (337.12), while the decision-time context showed only +0.26% — so a meaningful chunk of the move occurred between decision and entry, eroding the edge.

Exit: This is the dominant factor: the trade captured +$0.12 (+0.02%) against +0.63% of favorable movement available — roughly 3% of the peak unrealized gain — so the exit gave back nearly everything the (weak) signal delivered.

Signal: Right — the bullish earnings call played out; the position gained +1.66%, close to the max unrealized of +1.71%.

Timing: The move had not already happened by entry — the stock was down at decision time (-0.67% vs prev close) and filled well below prev close (449.16 vs 457.06), so the trade caught the recovery rather than chasing it.

Exit: Near-optimal capture — +14.92 on a +1.71% peak means the early close (forced by netting against an opposing short signal, not the strategy's own exit logic) happened to land almost at the top; the data can't tell us whether holding past the netting event would have given more or less. Dominant factor: correct signal with a lucky-but-clean exit; the noteworthy fact is the exit was driven by an internal conflicting signal, not the entry thesis resolving.

Signal: right. The bullish call played out — price rose ~1.9% from entry to exit. Timing: fine, or at least not late. At decision time the stock was roughly flat vs. prior close (-0.37%), and the fill at 939.12 was well below prior close, so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed pop — though the data doesn't show when the Q2 news actually broke, so we can't fully rule out that the article was stale. Exit: near-optimal. The +1.94% realized P&L captured almost all of the +2.09% best unrealized, versus a -1.84% worst drawdown that was ridden out.

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal executed with an exit that harvested essentially the entire available move — this trade worked as intended.

Signal: Directionally right in the narrow sense — AMD drifted down and the short closed +0.21% — but the move was tiny and within noise (best +0.46%, worst -0.68%; the adverse excursion exceeded the favorable one). Whether the Nvidia–MediaTek news actually drove AMD lower can't be settled from this data; the rationale's link from a Nvidia/MediaTek deal to a bearish AMD thesis is indirect.

Timing: Not stale — price was roughly flat pre-entry (-0.11% from prior close), so the entry didn't chase an already-completed move.

Exit: Captured roughly half the best available (+0.21% of +0.46%), which is reasonable given the small range.

Dominant factor: Weak signal — this was essentially a coin-flip trade on a second-order news read, and the sub-1% total price range means the small profit says little about thesis quality.

Signal: right. The bullish call played out — price rose ~0.85% from entry with almost no adverse excursion (worst -0.08%). Timing: not stale — the stock was actually down 0.65% from prior close at decision time, so the entry caught the move rather than chasing it. Exit: near-optimal — the +7.00 P&L (+0.85%) captured essentially all of the +0.88% best unrealized. Dominant factor: a correct signal executed cleanly; nothing in this data indicates a problem at any stage.

Signal: Right — the bullish call worked; price never went meaningfully against the position (worst -0.02%) and drifted up after entry.

Timing: Partially late — AMZN was already +1.31% from prior close at decision time, so a chunk of the repricing was in the price before entry; the remaining move captured was small (+0.25%).

Exit: Reasonable — the +0.25% realized was about 60% of the best unrealized (+0.42%), so the exit captured most of what was available. The dominant factor is timing: the trade was directionally correct but entered after most of the day's move, leaving only a thin residual gain to harvest.