Signal: Right — the long call worked; price rose ~0.96% from entry and the worst unrealized was essentially zero (-0.08%).

Timing: Questionable but not fully settled by the data: decision-time context showed NVDA at -0.40% vs prev close (224.41), yet the fill was 228.58 — ~1.9% above prev close — meaning a substantial gap-up occurred between decision and fill, so part of the earnings move was already consumed at entry.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit captured +$8.76 (~+0.96%) of a +2.68% peak unrealized — roughly a third of what was available. The dominant factor is the entry fill absorbing a large gap the rationale's edge was meant to capture; the exit then gave back most of the remaining intraday high, but that's inherent to the fixed close-to-close mechanics rather than a directional miss.

Signal: correct — the bullish overnight-drift call on the AI-capex news played out, with the stock rallying ~3% from entry. Timing: fine — the move had not already occurred at entry (price was actually down 0.65% from prior close, and entry was only ~0.24% above prev close), so the trade caught the move rather than chasing it. Exit: near-optimal — the +2.98% realized gain (+$24.86) essentially matched the +3.00% best unrealized, with only modest -1.35% adverse excursion along the way. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal, cleanly captured — this trade worked as designed on all three dimensions.

Signal/timing: The bullish read on the AdX ruling wasn't validated post-entry — GOOGL fell -1.19% from the 342.31 fill. The favorable move appears to have already occurred before entry (up ~1% on the day at decision time, and the fill came in even higher at ~1.5% above prior close), so the trade bought the news after the pop.

Exit: The overnight hold captured close to the worst available outcome (-1.19% vs. a -1.50% trough), but the best unrealized was only +0.48%, so there was never much to capture — the exit didn't leave meaningful money on the table.

Dominant factor: Timing — entering after the news-driven rally left the position exposed to fade with almost no remaining upside. Whether the ruling would have supported drift from a pre-pop entry can't be determined from this data.

Signal: Right — the long thesis played out, with AMD rising ~4.9% from entry to exit. Timing: Good — entry came after a slight dip (-0.67% since prior close, only +0.15% in the last 30m), so the move had not already happened before entry. Exit: Near-optimal — the +$44.60 P&L (~+4.9%) captured essentially all of the best unrealized gain (+4.70%), with negligible adverse excursion (-0.13%).

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal with a clean entry; the fixed close-to-close exit happened to coincide with the peak of the move, so nothing was left on the table. Note the data here can't distinguish skill from luck in that exit — the mechanical next-close rule just landed well this time.

Signal: wrong. The short predicted downside from tariff-compliance uncertainty, but MU rallied ~6% while the trade was open. Timing: the move hadn't already happened at entry — price was roughly flat versus prior close (-0.12%), so this wasn't a chase; the news simply didn't produce the predicted direction. Exit: the mechanical next-close exit at -5.97% landed essentially at the worst unrealized (-5.99%), with only +0.38% ever available on the favorable side — so the exit gave away nothing, but there was almost nothing to capture. The dominant factor is a flatly wrong directional signal.

The signal didn't pay: the anticipated overnight drift from the data-center news was essentially flat-to-negative (entry 259.05 → exit 258.75, -0.12%), and the entry came after the stock had already run +1.31% off the prior close — the news-driven move appears to have largely happened before the fill, making timing the dominant factor. The exit was middling but reasonable: -0.90 USD sits between the best (+0.74%) and worst (-1.37%) unrealized, so execution didn't leave much on the table relative to what was available. Note the data can't fully separate "signal wrong" from "signal already priced in" — the flat overnight move is consistent with either, but the pre-entry run-up points to timing/chasing as the bluntest diagnosis.

Signal: Partly vindicated — the short went as much as +1.44% in the money while open, so the bearish direction had merit at least transiently, though price ultimately closed above entry.

Timing: Entry at 614.58 was actually above the prior close (+0.64%), so the predicted decline had not already occurred; entry wasn't chasing a stale move.

Exit: This is the dominant factor, bluntly: the trade exited at essentially the worst unrealized point (-0.40% vs. realized -0.41%), giving back the entire +1.44% favorable excursion. The exit captured none of what was available — a roughly $8-9 gain was on the table at the best point, and the trade instead booked near-maximum loss. (Whether the news thesis itself was valid long-term isn't settled by this data.)

Signal: correct — the bullish earnings thesis played out, with the trade never going underwater (worst unrealized +0.37%). Timing: only ~1% of the move had happened by entry, so the bulk of the repricing was still available. Exit: near-optimal — the +17.20 P&L (~+2.05%) essentially matches the +2.04% best unrealized, so the exit captured effectively everything on offer. Dominant factor: a correct signal executed cleanly; this trade worked as intended on all three dimensions.

Signal: Right — the bearish call played out; the trade was never underwater (worst unrealized +0.31%).

Timing: Fine — price was up +0.69% from prior close at decision time, so the anticipated decline had not already occurred; the entry caught the move rather than chasing it.

Exit: The weak point — the trade peaked at +2.03% unrealized but closed at roughly +0.77% (+$6.06), giving back about two-thirds of the available gain. Dominant factor: exit execution, not signal or timing.

Signal: Right direction — the bearish call preceded a real decline (509.65 → 500.32, about -1.8%). Timing: Good — only -0.29% had moved by entry, so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed move; the position never went underwater (worst unrealized was still +0.31%). Exit: Near-optimal — the +9.33 gain (~1.83%) captured almost all of the +1.98% peak available.

Dominant factor: a correct signal with clean execution on both ends; this trade worked essentially as intended. Note the data can't confirm the stated rationale (the OpenAI/Hugging Face story) actually caused the decline — only that the directional bet paid off.

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The bullish call went straight against the trade: price never moved more than +0.03% in its favor before sinking. Timing wasn't the issue — the stock was slightly down at entry (-0.52% since prior close), so the move hadn't already happened; the predicted move simply never occurred. The exit at -2.34% was reasonable given what was available: max unrealized gain was effectively zero (+0.03%), and the exit came off somewhat better than the worst drawdown of -3.14%, so there was no meaningful upside left uncaptured.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call was simply wrong — the position was never meaningfully positive (best unrealized only -0.23%), so the predicted direction failed outright rather than being a stale entry; the +0.10%/-0.20% pre-entry context shows no significant move had already occurred.

Exit: The exit at -1.32% sits near the worst unrealized (-1.61%), but with a best of -0.23% there was essentially nothing to capture — exit quality is a minor footnote given the signal failure.

Timing: Not an issue here; the entry wasn't late to a move, the move just never came. Whether the regulatory news was already priced in before the prior close can't be determined from this data.

Signal: right — the bullish call held; price never went meaningfully against the trade (worst -0.21%) and rallied afterward. Timing: entry came after a ~+0.98% pop from the prior close, but that didn't cap the trade since further upside materialized. Exit: this is the dominant factor — the position saw +1.96% unrealized at best but was closed for roughly +0.23% (+$2.08), capturing only about an eighth of the available move; the exit gave back most of what the correct signal earned.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call failed — after entry AVGO net rallied, closing the trade 0.70% against the short, and the best it ever showed was a modest +0.48% in favor. Timing: The stock was only -0.45% from prior close at decision time, so most of any guidance-driven drop hadn't happened by entry; this wasn't a case of chasing a completed move, the predicted move simply didn't continue. Exit: The exit at -0.70% is nearly the worst unrealized (-0.75%), so it gave back essentially all of the small +0.48% that was briefly available — but with a max favorable move that small, better exit timing would only have turned a small loss into a small gain; the wrong directional call is the story here.