Signal: right. The long call worked — GOOGL rose ~1.8% from entry to exit, consistent with the positive-news drift thesis. Timing: partially eroded. Decision-time context showed price near flat vs prev close (330.65), but the fill at 332.64 was ~0.6% above it, so some of the move was paid away before entry; whether that was a gap or slippage isn't determinable from this data. Exit: adequate but not full capture — +1.81% realized against +3.05% best unrealized, so roughly 60% of the peak was banked, while the trade also sat through a -4.17% drawdown that the fixed next-close exit simply outlasted.

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal; the entry premium and mid-trade drawdown were secondary and the mechanical exit happened to land favorably.

Signal: Wrong. The short predicted downside on capex-spending news, but AMZN rallied ~2.1% against the position by exit; the best unrealized gain was only +0.64%, so there was never a meaningful move in the predicted direction.

Timing: Entry occurred with the stock roughly flat vs. prior close (-0.14%), so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed move — the data doesn't suggest a timing problem, just an incorrect thesis.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit actually did well given the circumstances — the -2.1% realized loss is far better than the -5.05% worst unrealized. Dominant factor: bad signal, plain and simple; the direction was wrong from the start.

Signal: Partially vindicated intraday — the short saw a favorable excursion of +2.97%, so downward movement did occur while the trade was open, though the position also went -4.96% against it, and this data can't confirm the debt-issuance thesis itself drove any of it.

Timing: Not obviously late — MSFT was only -0.59% from prior close at decision time with a slight uptick into the close, so entry didn't chase an already-completed move.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The mechanical next-close exit turned a trade that had ~+2.97% (~$29) available unrealized gain into a -$8.40 (-0.85%) loss; the fixed hold period surrendered the entire favorable move and locked in the adverse leg.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — META rose ~0.5% from entry to exit, so the predicted downside drift didn't materialize. Timing: The stock was already down 1.34% from prior close at decision time (and the fill was ~1.5% below prior close), so the regulatory news appears to have been substantially priced in before entry — this was a chase. Exit: The mechanical next-close exit did reasonably well relative to what was available: the loss of -0.50% sits well above the -3.00% worst unrealized, and only +0.53% was ever on offer, so exit wasn't the problem.

Dominant factor: stale signal — shorting after the market had already reacted to the news, with no further downside following.

Signal: Direction was right, but barely — the bearish call produced only a ~0.3% drop, while the position sat as much as −0.97% underwater along the way, so conviction in the regulatory thesis wasn't rewarded with a meaningful move (whether the EU story ever materialized isn't determinable from this data).

Timing: The move hadn't already happened — price was up +0.65% from prior close at decision time, so the short entered before any decline; entry timing wasn't the issue.

Exit: The exit captured essentially everything available — realized ~+0.29% versus a best unrealized of +0.25% (the small discrepancy suggests the exit fill slightly exceeded the tracked peak, or the marks are inconsistent; the data doesn't settle which). Dominant factor: weak signal magnitude — the exit was near-optimal, but there simply wasn't much of a move to capture, and the trade risked ~1% adverse to earn ~0.3%.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out; the trade never went meaningfully against the position (worst -0.09%).

Timing: Fine — at entry the stock was only +0.40% above prior close, so the anticipated move had not already occurred.

Exit: The weak link. The trade captured +0.70% (entry 429.69 → exit 432.71) against a best unrealized of +1.31%, so roughly half of the available move was given back or left on the table. Dominant factor: exit capture, not signal or timing — the direction and entry were sound, but the exit realized only about 54% of the peak gain.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — the bullish TSMC-driven thesis produced no sustained upside; the max gain available was only +0.78% before the stock rolled over to a loss.

Timing: Partly stale — the stock was already +0.60% on the day at decision time and the fill at 220.2 was ~+0.84% above prev close, so entry chased an already-elevated price; whether the TSMC news itself was fully priced in earlier isn't determinable from this data.

Exit: The exit at -0.73% sits near the worst unrealized (-0.88%) and gave back the entire +0.78% peak, but even a perfect exit would have yielded a small gain. Dominant factor: signal failure — the predicted direction simply didn't materialize in any meaningful size, making timing and exit secondary.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out; price rose from 494.34 to 496.35 (+0.41%). Timing: Only a modest move (+0.61% since prior close) preceded entry, so the trade wasn't badly late, though a small portion of the day's move was already in. Exit: This is the weak link — the position saw +0.88% unrealized at its best but exited at +0.41%, capturing less than half the available gain (drawdown risk was minor at -0.29%).

Dominant factor: exit execution — a correct signal whose realized P&L was roughly halved by giving back peak gains before exiting. Note the data doesn't show whether the news itself was stale beyond the +0.61% price context, so freshness of the catalyst can't be fully verified here.

Signal: wrong. The bullish repricing call never materialized — the trade was underwater essentially the entire time it was open (best unrealized only -0.07%), so the predicted direction simply didn't play out over the holding period. Timing: the stock was already up +1.06% from prior close at decision time and the fill (987.91) sat above that, so the entry chased whatever pop the news produced — though whether more upside "should" have followed can't be settled from this data alone. Exit: the -1.24% realized loss sits between the best (-0.07%) and worst (-1.99%) unrealized, so the exit was middling but there was almost nothing available to capture anyway. Dominant factor: bad signal — the position never went green.

Signal: wrong. The bearish call never played out — TSLA rose after entry, and the position was never profitable (best unrealized was still -0.28%). Timing: not the issue — price was only down -0.54% from prior close at decision time, so the trade wasn't chasing a move that had already occurred; the predicted move simply never came. Exit: middling — the realized loss of -6.34 USD (~-0.87%) sits between the best (-0.28%) and worst (-1.71%) unrealized, so the exit neither cut the loss near its minimum nor took the maximum damage. The dominant factor is a wrong directional signal: the regulatory news did not translate into downside while the trade was open.

Signal: right. The bullish call worked — the trade never went underwater (worst unrealized was +0.73%) and ran as high as +4.75%.

Timing: fine. Entry was only +0.86% above prior close with a flat last 30 minutes, so the move had not yet happened at entry; the trade caught the bulk of the appreciation.

Exit: the weak link. The exit at +2.74% (+$24.25) captured only a bit more than half of the +4.75% peak available while open — the dominant factor here is exit efficiency, giving back roughly 2 points of unrealized gain on an otherwise correct and well-timed trade.

Signal: right. The bullish call worked — the trade never went underwater (worst unrealized +0.02%) and closed up +0.89%.

Timing: mostly fine, with modest pre-entry drift. At decision time the stock was only +0.64% off the prior close, but the fill at 254.71 was +1.12% above it, so roughly half a percent of the move occurred between decision and entry; the bulk of the captured move still came after the fill.

Exit: good capture. The exit banked +0.89% of a +1.09% peak — about 80% of the best available. Dominant factor: a correct signal executed cleanly; this is simply a well-captured winning trade, with only minor decision-to-fill slippage worth noting.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was simply wrong — AAPL rose ~1.2% against the short, and the trade was never meaningfully in the money (best unrealized just -0.04%), so the predicted margin-compression selloff didn't materialize while the position was open.

Timing: The pre-entry drift was tiny (-0.31% since prev close), so the thesis hadn't already played out; note, though, the fill at 328.74 was above prev close, meaning the stock had already reversed upward by entry — worsening a bad signal.

Exit: The -12.12 loss (~-1.2%) landed between the best (-0.04%) and worst (-2.24%) unrealized, so the exit cut roughly half of the maximum drawdown, but there was essentially no profit available to capture at any point.

Signal: Right — GOOGL rose after entry and never went underwater (worst unrealized +0.10%). Whether the EMIB partnership news actually drove the move can't be determined from this data.

Timing: Partially late — the decision context showed +0.51% since prev close, but the fill at 337.02 was +1.33% above prev close (332.60), so a meaningful chunk of the move occurred between signal and fill.

Exit (dominant factor): The exit captured +0.47% of a +1.71% best unrealized — roughly a quarter of what was available. The trade was directionally correct and never at risk, but the exit left most of the move on the table.

Signal: wrong, or at least not tradeable — after entry META never gained more than +0.22% and fell as much as -0.50%, so the bullish thesis (a second-order read on an AMD product announcement, note) didn't play out in the holding window. Timing: the stock was already up ~0.8% from prior close at entry, so much of any news pop had happened before the fill — the entry chased. Exit: at -0.35%, the exit gave back the small available upside but stopped short of the worst drawdown; the dominant factor is the signal itself — a tangential, likely already-priced catalyst with almost no upside realized — with late entry compounding it. (Whether a longer hold would have vindicated the direction isn't determinable from this data.)

Signal: Right — the bullish call held; the position never went meaningfully against the trade (worst -0.19%) and finished positive.

Timing: Partly late — entry at 167.05 was already +0.70% above prev close, so some of the news reaction was absorbed before the fill; whether the bulk of the partnership move had already occurred can't be settled from this data alone.

Exit: Mediocre capture — exit at +0.22% took roughly half of the +0.47% best unrealized. The dominant factor is simply that very little move was available at all: this was a small, low-volatility drift, and +$1.80 on ~$835 of exposure reflects a signal that was correct but weak (or largely pre-priced) rather than any exit failure.