Signal: Right — GOOGL fell after entry and the short was never meaningfully underwater (worst unrealized just -0.29%). Timing: Fine — only -0.58% had moved by decision time and entry filled essentially at prior close, so the move was still ahead. Exit: The weak link — the trade banked ~+2.3% (+$15.74) while the position saw +7.01% unrealized at its best, so the fixed next-close exit gave back roughly two-thirds of the available move. Dominant factor: exit efficiency, not signal or timing. (Whether the regulatory news actually drove the drop isn't determinable from this data.)

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The short thesis (rival capacity expansion bearish for MU) didn't play out: the stock rallied ~2.6% against the position, and the best it ever showed was +0.93% versus a worst of -4.14%. Timing compounded it: the fill at 999.76 was already ~1.7% below the prior close of 1016.59, so a meaningful down-move had occurred between decision and entry, leaving less downside to capture even if the thesis had held. The exit was actually decent relative to what was available — the -2.59% realized loss sits well inside the -4.14% worst unrealized, so the close-to-close exit rule limited damage rather than causing it.

Signal: Right — the long call worked, with META rising ~6.1% from entry to the mechanical next-close exit. Timing: The move had not already happened; the pre-entry drift was modest (+0.58% from prev close), and the fill at 615.47 was actually slightly below the prior close, so entry was not chasing. Exit: The exit captured nearly everything available — +6.10% realized versus +6.81% best unrealized (and it rode through a -3.13% drawdown) — so the dominant factor is simply a correct directional signal, with the fixed next-close exit happening to land near the peak. Whether the "Muse" catalyst actually drove the move can't be settled from this data.

Signal: Wrong — the bullish call never paid off; the position was underwater the entire holding period (best unrealized was still -0.18%), so the predicted direction simply didn't materialize while the trade was open. Timing: The stock was only down 0.68% from prior close at entry with a flat last 30 minutes, so there's no evidence the anticipated move had already occurred; this was a directional miss, not a chase. Exit: The close was mechanical (netted against an opposing short signal, not a judgment exit), but it landed reasonably — -0.52% realized versus a worst of -1.81%, and since the best available was still a loss, no exit could have made this profitable. Dominant factor: bad signal.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — the bullish call on the foldable-iPhone news saw AAPL fall ~1% from entry, though the trade did reach +0.74% unrealized at some point, so the direction wasn't immediately invalidated.

Timing: No evidence of chasing — price was only -0.34% from the prior close at decision time, so the move hadn't already happened by entry.

Exit: The exit was mechanical (netted out against an opposing short decision, not a thesis-driven close) and landed near the worst of the range: -0.98% realized versus -1.13% worst / +0.74% best, capturing almost the full available downside. The dominant factor is the failed signal — price went the wrong way — with the netting-forced exit locking in nearly the maximum loss; whether the thesis would have recovered after the forced close is not determinable from this data.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — the bullish call on the "FRESH" guidance never materialized; NVDA fell ~0.93% while the trade was open. Timing: The data doesn't show the move had already happened — price was actually down 0.42% from prior close at entry, so the trade wasn't chasing; whether the guidance news was truly fresh can't be verified from what's here. Exit: Poor but nearly irrelevant — the exit at -0.93% was near the worst unrealized (-0.97%), yet the best available was only +0.13%, so there was essentially nothing to capture. The dominant factor is a bad signal: the predicted bullish move simply never showed up.

Signal: Wrong over the holding window — the bullish earnings call saw MSFT drift down, never gaining more than +0.18% while dropping as much as -0.58%. Whether the thesis would have played out longer-term is unknowable here because the trade was closed early by netting against an opposing short signal, not by the strategy's own exit logic. Timing: No evidence the move was missed — entry came after only a -0.13% dip from prior close, so the trade wasn't chasing. Exit: The forced early close at -0.26% landed mid-range between the best (+0.18%) and worst (-0.58%) unrealized, so the exit was roughly neutral; the dominant factor is simply that the bullish signal didn't materialize while the position was open, compounded by the fact that the exit was an administrative netting event rather than a verdict on the thesis.

Signal: Correct — the bearish call played out, with TSLA falling ~0.75% from entry to exit. Timing: The move had not already happened; price was actually up +0.97% on the day and flat over the prior 30 minutes at decision time, so the short entered ahead of the decline rather than chasing it. Exit: Strong capture — the +0.75% realized gain took most of the +0.94% best unrealized, and drawdown was contained at -0.65%.

Dominant factor: a correct, timely signal, with an exit that captured nearly all of the available move. Whether the NHTSA rationale itself was the true driver of the decline can't be verified from this data.

Signal: Partly right — the short did see downside, with unrealized gains reaching +0.58% while open, so the bearish direction wasn't wrong on this horizon. Timing: Some of the move had already occurred by entry (TSM was down 1.00% from prior close), but price still fell further afterward, so entry wasn't fully late. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the trade had +0.58% available and gave it all back, exiting at -0.14% (-$1.26), near the worst unrealized of -0.26%; the exit captured none of what the signal delivered. Whether the news thesis itself was valid longer-term can't be settled from this data.

Signal: Marginally right at exit, but weak — the worst unrealized (-0.33%) was more than double the best (+0.13%), so price spent more time/distance against the short than for it; this looks like noise, not a confirmed bearish move. Timing: MSFT was already down 0.44% from prior close at decision time, so most of what little downside occurred had happened pre-entry; the data can't confirm whether the news itself drove that dip. Exit: The +0.32 USD (~0.03%) captured roughly a quarter of the modest +0.13% peak available — exit was fine given there was almost nothing to capture.

Dominant factor: Signal weakness — the bearish-MSFT thesis (derived from an Nvidia acquisition, an indirect read at best) produced essentially no move, and the trade's small profit is indistinguishable from chance.

Timing is the dominant factor. The entry chased a move already underway (+1.31% from prev close, +0.43% in the prior 30 minutes), buying at 176.29 against a 174.09 prior close, so much of the immediate repricing was likely captured before the fill. Signal: during the holding window the bullish direction never confirmed — the stock topped out at +0.43% unrealized and dipped to -0.71%, so the data here shows chop, not a validated or invalidated thesis (whether the news repriced QCOM later is not settled by this window). Exit: the -0.60 USD result (-0.07%) landed near the middle of a tight ±0.5–0.7% range, meaning the exit gave up little because there was little available to capture; the problem was paying up at entry, not the exit.

Signal: The bearish call didn't play out after entry — AAPL rose ~0.9% against the position, so whatever the macro thesis, the stock went the wrong way while the trade was open. Timing: Much of the predicted move was already in the price: AAPL was down ~1% from prior close (entry 312.55 vs. 316.31 close), so the trade shorted into an existing decline that then mean-reverted. Exit: The trade briefly had +0.79% available but was closed at -0.93%, near the worst unrealized of -1.96% — the exit captured close to the worst of the range, though nothing here tells us whether that was a stop or discretion.

Dominant factor: timing — entering short after the drop had largely occurred left the position exposed to the bounce, and the exit compounded it by realizing near the bottom of the trade's range.

Signal: Directionally plausible but essentially unconfirmed after entry — the stock went nowhere while the trade was open (range +0.19% to -0.34%), so the data doesn't validate the bearish thesis so much as show it was inert.

Timing: This is the dominant factor: AVGO was already down 1.22% from prior close at decision time (and ticking back up +0.52% in the last 30m), so the repricing the trade sought had largely happened before entry.

Exit: The +0.06 USD result (~0.01%) captured almost none of the modest +0.19% best available, but with so little movement on offer there was little to capture — a near-scratch on a trade whose edge had already been consumed pre-entry.

Signal: Wrong — the bullish call never materialized; the stock topped out at +0.03% unrealized and drifted down the whole hold. Timing: Not the issue — entry was only ~0.25% above prev close, so the move hadn't already run before the fill (though whether the market had priced in the earnings news earlier isn't determinable from this data). Exit: Roughly fair given what was available — with a best of +0.03%, there was no profit to capture; the -0.56% exit sat near but above the -0.73% worst.

Dominant factor: bad signal. The predicted bullish direction simply didn't happen over the holding window.