Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The predicted overnight drift up never materialized: the position peaked at just +0.09% before falling, so there was essentially nothing to capture. Timing compounded it slightly — entry came after a +0.92% intraday run-up (including +0.75% in the last 30 minutes), meaning the news-driven pop was likely already priced in by the close. The exit was reasonable given what was available: the -0.53% realized loss sits between the +0.09% best and -1.22% worst unrealized, so exit execution neither rescued nor materially worsened a trade that was simply directionally wrong.

Signal/timing: the predicted upside never materialized — MSFT was already up ~2% over the prior close at entry (a pop driven by news that primarily concerns Nebius, with Microsoft as counterparty), and the position never gained more than +0.11% before drifting down, so the move had effectively already happened by entry and the overnight-drift direction was wrong for this holding window. Exit: the -1.63% realized loss sits near the worst unrealized (-1.94%), meaning the exit-at-next-close rule gave back essentially the whole range, but with a max upside of only +0.11% there was almost nothing available to capture anyway. Dominant factor: timing — buying at the close after the catalyst-driven run-up meant the trade was chasing an already-completed move; whether the signal itself has merit on a different entry can't be settled from this one trade.

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The bullish thesis never materialized: the trade's best unrealized gain was a negligible +0.02%, so there was essentially no favorable move to capture at any point while open. On timing, the stock was already down -0.92% from prior close at entry, but the data here can't settle whether the Waymo news was already priced in before entry — only that no upward move followed. The exit itself was reasonable given what was available: -0.60% realized versus a worst of -1.27%, so the exit cut roughly half the maximum drawdown, but no exit could have salvaged a trade with virtually zero upside.

The signal was wrong: the bullish thesis never materialized — the stock was underwater essentially the entire hold (best unrealized just -0.12%, i.e., it never even reached entry), so this wasn't a timing issue of chasing an already-completed move (entry was only +0.45% above prior close). The exit at -2.11% was near the worst unrealized of -2.43%, but with no upside ever available, the exit could only limit damage, not capture gains. Dominant factor: directional signal failure — the "fresh bullish" call on the guidance news simply didn't hold up.

Signal: Wrong — the bearish call didn't play out; META rose after entry, and the trade never gained more than +0.27% while dropping as much as -2.42% against the short. Timing: The stock was only -0.57% off the prior close at decision time, so the entry wasn't chasing an already-completed move — the predicted move simply didn't materialize. Exit: The close was mechanical (netted out against an opposing S2 long signal, not a strategy exit), and it landed at -0.37%, well above the -2.42% worst — so the forced exit actually salvaged the position rather than costing opportunity.

Dominant factor: bad signal — note also the system held simultaneous contradictory META signals (this bearish short vs. S2's long), which is what triggered the exit.

Signal: Direction was right — MSFT fell after entry — but the rationale is incoherent: it cites bullish Palantir earnings (stock surging ~30%) as grounds for shorting MSFT, so the correct direction looks like luck rather than a sound bearish thesis. Timing: The stock was only -0.99% from prior close at decision time with a flat last 30 minutes, so the move had not meaningfully already happened. Exit: P&L of +3.82 (+0.76%) captured most of the +1.10% best unrealized, so the exit was reasonably efficient. The dominant factor is the signal: a mismatched rationale that happened to point the right way.

The signal was wrong: the predicted bullish move never materialized — AMZN gained at most +0.29% while open before sliding to a -2.03% worst, and the trade exited at -1.64% (-$12.39), near the bottom of that range. Timing wasn't the problem; price context at entry (-0.24% since prior close, +0.07% last 30m) shows no pre-entry run-up that the trade missed. The exit gave back nearly everything below the small unrealized high, but with only +0.29% ever available, the dominant factor is a failed directional signal, not exit management.

Signal: Not confirmed within the holding window — the bullish call saw at most +0.34% before drifting to a loss, so the predicted direction didn't materialize while the position was open. Timing: Part of the anticipated bounce was likely already in the price; the stock was up +0.63% from the prior close at decision time and the fill at 213.05 was ~1% above prev close, so entry came after some of the recovery move. Exit: The -0.36% realized loss sits between the +0.34% best and -0.60% worst, but the close was administrative (netted out by an outranking short), not signal-driven — so the data can't tell us whether the thesis would have eventually paid off. The dominant factor is the forced early exit truncating an already-unconfirmed signal; the trade never got a fair test.

Signal: Right — bullish call, and the trade never went underwater (worst unrealized was still +0.55%), so the direction was cleanly correct. Timing: Reasonable — entry filled ~1% above prev close (vs +0.71% at decision), so a modest chase, but the move clearly hadn't finished since price ran another +2.82% after entry. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the exit captured +1.06% (+$10.56) out of a peak +2.82% available, leaving roughly two-thirds of the observed upside on the table. Whether the exit was forced by a rule or a reversal after the peak isn't shown in this data, but the gap between realized and best unrealized is the standout fact.

Signal: Ambiguous — price did rise as much as +1.34% while open, so the bullish call wasn't flatly wrong intraday, but the data here can't settle whether the "repricing" thesis was valid beyond this short window since the trade closed at a loss.

Timing: Entry came after a +1.22% pop from the prior close (fill 931.81 vs. prev close 924.03), so a meaningful chunk of the anticipated move had already occurred before entry.

Exit: The exit gave back everything — realized -0.48% versus a best unrealized of +1.34%, ending closer to the worst (-1.25%) than the best. The dominant factor is the exit: available upside of over 1% was left uncaptured, turning a briefly winning position into a loss, compounded by entering into an already-extended move.

Signal: Partially right — the short did move favorably to +0.49% unrealized, so the bearish read had some short-term validity, though price ultimately reversed above entry.

Timing: The stock was already down 0.53% from prior close at decision time, so part of the guidance-driven drop had occurred pre-entry; the data here can't settle how much downside was left, only that entry came after an initial move.

Exit: This is the dominant factor — the trade exited at roughly its worst unrealized point (−0.28% loss vs. worst of −0.26%), giving back the entire +0.49% favorable excursion that was available and turning a briefly winning position into a full loss.

Signal: Right — the stock rallied to +1.50% unrealized after entry, consistent with the bullish call. Timing: Fine — price context at entry was flat (-0.11% since prev close), so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed move. Exit: This is the dominant failure — the trade held through +1.50% of available upside (~$10.70 on the position) and instead closed at -0.24% (-$1.70), near the worst unrealized of -0.73%. The signal worked; the exit gave back essentially everything that was available.

Signal: correct. The bearish call played out — SMCI fell ~3.6% after entry, and the price context (+0.18% since prev close, flat last 30m) shows the move had not already happened by entry, so timing was fine. Exit: near-optimal — realized +3.59% against a best unrealized of +3.74% and a worst of only -1.03%, capturing essentially all of the available move with minimal adverse excursion. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal, well-timed and well-exited; this trade worked as intended.

Signal was the failure. The bullish call never materialized — the best unrealized gain while open was a negligible +0.01%, meaning there was essentially no upward move to capture at any point. Timing is suggestive but not conclusive: the stock was already down -0.90% from prior close at decision time, consistent with the earnings news being priced in, but this data can't confirm when the news broke relative to that move. The exit was fine — the -0.11% realized loss sits between the +0.01% best and -0.49% worst unrealized, so execution left almost nothing on the table; the trade lost because the predicted direction was simply wrong over the holding period.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out, with the trade closing +0.58% and the position never going meaningfully underwater (worst -0.31%). Timing: Reasonable — entry was only +0.38% above prior close and the last 30 minutes had actually pulled back, so the move hadn't already run before entry. Exit: Solid — +9.24 (+0.58%) captured roughly two-thirds of the +0.91% peak, leaving only modest upside on the table.

Dominant factor: a correct signal executed cleanly; this trade worked essentially as designed, with no material flaw in timing or exit. Note the data doesn't show what happened after exit, so whether the exit was early relative to a continued move can't be assessed here.

Signal: mildly right over the brief holding window — price ticked down and the trade never went more than -0.04% against it — but the trade was closed early by being netted against an opposing long signal (decision 18801), so this window is too short to validate the bearish IPO-delay thesis itself. Timing: the move had not already happened; entry came after a modest +0.58% rise, which if anything favored the short. Exit: the +0.36 P&L (~0.04%) captured roughly a third of the +0.13% best unrealized, but the dominant factor here is the administrative early close from signal netting — the outcome tells us almost nothing about the entry rationale's quality.

Signal: The bullish call didn't play out over the holding period — the stock drifted slightly down, with only +0.10% of upside ever available, so the "fresh" verdict wasn't validated by post-entry price action. Timing: The rebound the rationale cites had largely already occurred by entry (price was ~+0.6% above prior close at fill, +0.54% at decision), consistent with buying after the earnings pop rather than ahead of it. Exit: The -0.06% realized loss sits between the +0.10% best and -0.48% worst unrealized, so the exit was reasonable given what was on offer; the dominant factor is a stale/late signal — there was essentially no move left to capture.

Signal: correct. The bullish call on META worked — the trade never went meaningfully underwater (worst unrealized +0.03%) and price moved up after entry.

Timing: fresh. At entry the stock was essentially flat versus prior close (-0.09%) and the last 30 minutes (-0.02%), so the anticipated move had not already occurred; the entry got in ahead of it.

Exit: partial capture. The realized +4.34 (~+0.65%) took roughly 60% of the +1.08% peak available while open — a reasonable but not full harvest. The dominant factor here is a correct, well-timed signal; the only leakage was the exit giving back about a third of the maximum unrealized gain, and the data doesn't show whether that was a rule-based exit or an early one.