Signal (dominant factor): The short predicted downside on the foldable-iPhone cancellation news, but AAPL rallied ~3.3% instead — the direction was simply wrong. Timing: Entry was only slightly below the prior close (-0.25%), so little of any anticipated move had occurred pre-entry; timing wasn't the issue. Exit: The best unrealized was a negligible +0.06%, so there was essentially no favorable move to capture — the exit near the worst (-3.33%) reflects the mechanical hold-to-close rule riding a losing signal, not a missed opportunity.

Signal: wrong. The predicted overnight drift up never materialized — the best the trade ever showed was +0.02%, so the long thesis simply failed. Timing: not the issue — at entry the stock was only +0.22% off the prior close (and the fill was actually below it), so the anticipated news pop had not already occurred. Exit: roughly captured what was available on the downside — the trade closed at about -2.2% against a worst unrealized of -3.0% and a best of essentially zero, so no meaningful profit was left on the table; the mechanical next-close exit gave back nothing material. Dominant factor: signal failure — the partnership news produced no positive drift at all.

The signal was directionally right — the long finished up (+0.75/share, +0.15%) — and timing wasn't the issue, since price at entry was actually slightly below the prior close, so the anticipated earnings drift hadn't already played out. The dominant factor is the exit: the position saw +4.72% unrealized at its best but the fixed next-close exit captured only ~0.15%, leaving nearly all of the available move on the table (while also having ridden through a -3.91% drawdown). The data doesn't show when the peak occurred relative to the close, so whether any close-based exit could have captured it can't be settled here.

Signal: right — the short-on-weak-China-sales thesis played out, with TSLA falling ~1.35% from entry. Timing: fine — price was slightly up (+0.56%) into the close at entry, so the anticipated move had not already occurred. Exit: the dominant factor — the trade saw +3.79% unrealized at its best but the fixed next-close exit realized only ~1.35% (+$9.94), giving back roughly two-thirds of the available gain, while downside risk was negligible (-0.17% worst).

Signal: Right — QCOM closed higher than entry, consistent with the partnership thesis. Timing: Partly chased — entry at 176.20 was already +1.21% above the 174.09 prev close, so a chunk of the news pop was absorbed before fill. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the trade captured +0.57% (+$5) against a best unrealized of +3.29% (~+$29 on this position), so the mechanical next-close exit gave back roughly five-sixths of the available gain, though it also sat through a -3.73% drawdown that the fixed hold happened to survive. The data doesn't show when the peak/trough occurred intraday, so whether an earlier exit was practically reachable isn't settled here.

Signal: Right — the bullish call played out, with the stock rising ~1.9% from entry. Timing: The stock was already up +0.73% at decision time (and the fill at 319.98 sits ~1.5% above prev close, suggesting further drift before entry), so some of the news reaction was consumed pre-entry — but ample move remained. Exit: Near-perfect capture — the +1.88% realized gain essentially matched the +1.90% best unrealized, against a shallow -0.73% worst drawdown.

Dominant factor: a correct signal with an exit that captured virtually everything available; the only mild cost was entering after part of the move, which the data shows but doesn't quantify precisely between decision and fill.

Signal: Partially vindicated — the stock did rise as much as +1.06% while the trade was open, so the bullish read wasn't wrong, though the move was modest and didn't hold. Timing: Price was down -0.80% on the day at entry, so the trade wasn't chasing a completed move; whether the news itself was already stale can't be determined from this data. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the exit at -0.68% surrendered the entire +1.06% that was available and landed near the worst unrealized (-1.43%), meaning nearly all the loss came from exit placement rather than a bad directional call.

Signal (dominant factor): wrong. The bullish call never worked — the position was underwater the entire time it was open (best unrealized was -0.70%, i.e., it never even touched breakeven), and price kept sliding from a tape that was already slightly red at decision time.

Timing: the data can't fully settle whether the M&A move had already happened before entry — price was only -0.63% off prev close, which doesn't look like a spent bullish move; it looks more like the market simply never traded the news bullishly while this position was open.

Exit: reasonable given the loss — the -0.97% realized exit landed between the best (-0.70%) and worst (-1.55%) unrealized marks, so the exit didn't leave meaningful upside on the table; there was none available. The loss is a signal failure, not an execution failure.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was wrong — MSFT rose about 1% against the position, and the best unrealized gain was a negligible +0.18%, so there was essentially no downside move to capture. (Also worth noting the rationale itself is a stretch: the news is about Nvidia/Hugging Face, and the data here doesn't establish why that's bearish for MSFT.)

Timing: Entry at 487.62 was already ~0.8% below the prior close of 491.65, so a meaningful chunk of any bearish move had happened before the fill — the trade shorted into weakness.

Exit: The -1.02% loss sits near the worst unrealized (-1.40%) rather than the best (+0.18%), so the exit gave back most of the small favorable window — but with almost nothing available on the right side, exit quality is secondary to the failed signal.

Signal: Unconfirmed post-entry — TSLA never traded below the entry price while the position was open (best unrealized was still -0.52%), so the data shows no bearish follow-through, though whether the thesis was "wrong" versus already priced in can't be fully separated here.

Timing: This is the dominant factor. The stock was already down 1.26% at decision time and filled at 358.21 (roughly -2.6% from prev close), meaning the short was entered after the repricing had largely occurred; the trade was underwater from the start.

Exit: Reasonable given what was available — the -1.39% realized loss sits between the best (-0.52%) and worst (-2.92%) unrealized marks, so the exit avoided the worst of the adverse move; there was never a profit to capture.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out, with price rising from 328.54 to 332.58 (+1.23%) and barely dipping against the position (worst -0.12%).

Timing: Not late — price was slightly down at decision time (-0.05% from prev close, -0.34% last 30m) and the entry filled below the prior close, so the move had not already occurred by entry.

Exit: Near-optimal — the +1.23% realized gain captured almost all of the +1.42% best unrealized. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal, cleanly executed on both ends; nothing in this data points to a flaw.

Signal: Right — the bullish call played out; price rose from entry and never traded below it (worst unrealized was still +0.20%).

Timing: Not late — price was down 0.83% from prior close and drifting lower at entry, so the entry caught the move before it happened rather than chasing it.

Exit: The dominant weakness — the trade realized +0.60% (+$4.47) against a best unrealized of +1.12%, so the exit gave back roughly half the available gain. Whether that peak was fleeting or held near exit isn't shown here, so I can't say how capturable it actually was.

Signal: Weak-to-wrong — the bullish call produced at most a +0.68% move while open, and the stock finished the hold down 0.55%, so the predicted direction never delivered meaningfully. Timing: The data doesn't show a pre-entry run-up (stock was actually -0.50% from prior close at decision time), so the trade wasn't chasing a completed move; whether the news itself was stale can't be settled from what's here. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the -0.55% realized loss exactly matches the worst unrealized level, meaning the exit sold the bottom of the trade's range and captured none of the +0.68% that was briefly available.

Bluntly: the exit locked in the worst possible outcome of an already-marginal signal.

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The rationale claimed the stock was rising on the Muse launch, but price context at decision time already showed META down 0.84% from prior close, contradicting the "FRESH" bullish premise; after entry the trade never got more than +0.13% favorable while going -0.92% against. The exit at -0.62% gave back most of the range but there was essentially nothing to capture — max upside available was 13 bps — so exit quality is secondary to a directional call that the tape didn't support. Whether the news itself was stale or misdescribed can't be settled from this data, but the observed price action never matched the entry thesis.