Signal: correct — the short direction played out, with price falling after entry. Timing: partially late — GOOGL was already down 1.60% from the prior close at decision time, so some of the anticipated move had occurred, though further downside remained. Exit: this is the dominant factor — the trade saw +7.05% max favorable unrealized but the fixed next-close exit banked only ~0.6% (+$4.28), capturing less than a tenth of what was available; the mechanical time-based exit, not the thesis, determined the outcome.

Signal: wrong over the holding period. AAPL rose after entry (short at 331.39, closed 332.55), and the best unrealized was only +0.17% — the predicted continued downside essentially never materialized while the trade was open. Timing: the stock was already down 0.53% from the prior close at entry, so part of the guidance-driven drop had occurred pre-fill, though the data can't show how much further downside had already been consumed before that. Exit: the -0.35% realized loss sat between the +0.17% best and -1.11% worst, so the mechanical next-close exit gave back little relative to what was available — there was almost nothing to capture on the short side. Dominant factor: a bad signal — the overnight-drift thesis failed as the stock rebounded rather than drifting lower.

Signal was right: the long direction paid off, with the position never meaningfully underwater (worst -0.01%). Timing gave up a little — the stock was already +0.63% off the prior close at entry, so part of the news pop was in the price before the fill. The dominant factor is the exit: the trade peaked at +2.15% unrealized but closed at only +0.72% (+$6.12), capturing about a third of the available move; whether the fade happened gradually or late in the session isn't determinable from this data.

Signal: At the strategy's own horizon (next close), the call was wrong — MU closed at 923.82, below both entry and the prior close, so the predicted upward drift didn't hold to exit. Timing: Entry at 927.5 was already +0.38% above the prior close after a modest pre-entry rise, so a slice of any drift was paid away at fill, though the data doesn't show whether the news itself was already priced in. Exit: The mechanical next-close exit captured nearly the worst available outcome — the trade saw +1.31% unrealized but closed at -0.40%, near the -0.95% trough. The dominant factor is the exit: the directional move materialized while open, but the fixed hold-to-close rule surrendered it entirely.

Signal: Correct — MSFT fell after entry and the trade never went materially against the short (worst unrealized only -0.33%).

Timing: The stock had already dropped 1.24% from prior close by entry, but the data shows most of the move came after the fill, so entry wasn't chasing an exhausted move.

Exit: This is the dominant factor — the position saw +6.21% unrealized at its best but the fixed next-close exit captured only ~1.45% (+$14.46), giving back roughly three-quarters of the available move.

Signal: Right — the stock continued higher after entry (best unrealized +3.14%), consistent with the positive guidance thesis.

Timing: Partially late — the stock was already up ~1% from prior close at entry (fill 1590.69 vs prev close 1575.15), so some of the news reaction was absorbed before the position opened, though most of the eventual move was still ahead.

Exit (dominant factor): The exit is the problem — the trade captured +0.38% (+6.09 USD) out of a peak +3.14% unrealized gain with minimal downside risk (-0.29% worst), meaning the mechanical next-close exit gave back roughly seven-eighths of the available move. The data doesn't show intraday price paths, so whether the peak occurred before or near the close can't be determined here.

The bullish signal was directionally right: while the trade was open, price ran as much as +1.44% in the predicted direction against only -0.47% adverse. Timing was acceptable — entry came after a modest +0.72% pre-move, but that clearly didn't exhaust the move given the subsequent upside. The dominant factor is the exit: the trade closed essentially flat (-$0.20), capturing none of the +1.44% unrealized gain that was available; the data here doesn't show why the exit occurred (stop, timeout, or reversal back to entry), only that nearly all available profit was given back.

Signal: right — price rose after entry and the trade closed green (+0.22%). Timing: partially late — the fill at 333.46 was already +0.64% above prev close versus the +0.07% seen at decision time, so a meaningful chunk of the move occurred between decision and fill. Exit: the position was closed early for a mechanical reason (netted out by an outranking short decision, not the thesis), capturing +0.22% of a +0.49% best unrealized — roughly half of what was available — making the forced early exit the dominant factor; whether the cited news actually drove the move can't be settled from this data.

Signal: correct. The bearish call worked — AMZN fell from 248.73 to 245.97, and the worst unrealized of -0.00% means the trade never went against it. Timing: good — at entry the stock was slightly up (+0.22% from prior close, +0.09% last 30m), so the move had not already happened. Exit: partial capture — realized P&L of +11.04 (~1.11%) against a best unrealized of +1.76% means roughly a third of the available move was given back before exit. Dominant factor: a correct, timely signal; the only leakage was the exit not catching the peak, which is a secondary issue on a clean winner.

Signal/timing failed; exit was fine. The bullish thesis never materialized in the holding window — the trade was up at most +0.04% after entry, so there was essentially nothing to capture. The stock was already +0.86% on the day at decision time (and the fill at 419.58 was ~1.35% above prev close), suggesting the entry chased a move that had largely happened; whether the thesis is right on a longer horizon can't be settled from this data. The exit at -0.54% actually avoided the worst drawdown (-1.29%), so the dominant factor is entering after the news-driven pop with no subsequent follow-through — not exit execution.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — the bullish call never materialized; the trade peaked at just +0.25% before declining, so direction is the dominant failure. Timing: The stock was already up ~1.7% from prev close at entry (fill 681.9 vs 670.24 close, with +1.17% in the prior 30m), suggesting the repricing was at least partly in the price — though whether the news broke earlier isn't shown in this data. Exit: The -1.40% realized loss matches the worst unrealized exactly, so the exit captured nothing and sold at the trough; but with only +0.25% ever available, a better exit would have salvaged little — the bad signal, not the exit, drove the loss.

Signal: correct. The bearish call played out — GOOGL fell 1.33% from entry, and the worst unrealized of +0.09% shows the trade was essentially never underwater, so the move had not already happened by entry (timing was fine; entry did fill ~0.7% above prev close versus the +0.18% context, but the short still worked from the fill).

Exit: partial capture. Best unrealized was +1.92% versus +1.33% realized (+$9.22), so the exit gave back roughly a third of the peak move — acceptable, not optimal.

Dominant factor: the signal — a correct directional call with clean timing did the work; the exit merely determined how much of an already-favorable move was kept. Whether the regulatory rationale specifically drove the decline can't be settled from this data.

Signal: Wrong over the holding window — the bullish call saw only +0.55% at best before rolling over, and price ended below entry; note the window was truncated by the netting close, so the full-horizon signal isn't fully testable from this data.

Timing: Partially late — the stock was already +0.70% off the prior close at decision time, and the fill at 342.19 was another ~0.16% higher, so some of the news move was consumed before entry.

Exit: The -0.60% exit landed near the worst unrealized (-0.82%) and well below the +0.55% peak, but this exit wasn't a strategy judgment — it was a mechanical netting against an opposing short signal (decision 19403). Dominant factor: the entry rationale simply didn't play out — price declined after entry — with the forced netting exit locking in a loss near the trough. The presence of a simultaneous opposing S3 short signal on the same ticker is itself a notable fact for the retrospective.

Signal: direction was right — MSFT drifted lower and the short finished positive — though whether an Nvidia/Hugging Face deal is genuinely bearish for MSFT isn't settled by this data. Timing: the entry fill (491.85) was already ~1.1% below the prior close versus only -0.27% at decision time, so a meaningful chunk of the down-move occurred before entry. Exit is the dominant factor: the trade captured ~0.38% against a best unrealized of +0.89%, i.e., less than half of what was available, turning a decent move into a trivial +$3.74.

Signal: Wrong within the holding window — the bearish call didn't materialize; the stock traded as much as 2.26% against the short and closed the trade higher than entry.

Timing: No evidence of chasing — price was roughly flat at entry (+0.23% vs. prev close), so the trade wasn't entered after a move had already occurred.

Exit: The exit was actually decent relative to what was available — the -0.24% realized loss gave back the brief +0.46% favorable move but avoided most of the -2.26% max drawdown. The dominant factor is the signal: the predicted bearish reaction to the NHTSA news simply didn't happen during the trade (whether it played out later is not settled by this data).

Signal: Wrong within the holding window — the bullish call was followed by a net decline (entry 933.13 → exit 923.50, -1.03%), with only a brief +0.70% in favor before rolling over. Timing: The stock was up just +0.81% from prior close at decision time, so the anticipated move had not meaningfully occurred pre-entry; this wasn't a case of chasing an exhausted move. Exit: The exit at -1.03% sits closer to the worst unrealized (-1.55%) than the best (+0.70%), so the exit gave back the small available upside but did avoid the full drawdown. The dominant factor is signal failure: the bullish thesis simply didn't materialize while the trade was open (whether it played out later, e.g., post-earnings, isn't determinable from this data).

Signal: Ambiguous-to-weak — the bullish earnings call matched the pre-entry pop (+1.07% off prev close), but after entry the stock only managed +0.40% before rolling over, so the repricing thesis had little fuel left.

Timing: This is the dominant factor. Entry at 1609.5 was ~1% above prior close and came right after a -1.28% 30-minute fade — the move had already happened, and the trade bought the top of the pop.

Exit: The -0.80% realized loss sits between the +0.40% best and -1.46% worst unrealized, so the exit was middling — it gave back the small available upside but avoided the full drawdown. Bluntly: a late entry chasing an already-priced move, not an exit failure.

Signal: correct — the bullish call played out, with PLTR moving from 171.78 to 174.05 (+1.32%). Timing: reasonable — entry was actually below the prior close despite a +0.83% move in the preceding 30 minutes, so the move had not meaningfully happened by entry; whether the news itself was already stale isn't determinable from this data. Exit: good capture — the +1.35% realized took most of the +1.70% peak unrealized, with minimal drawdown (-0.35%). Dominant factor: a correct directional signal, cleanly executed.

Signal/timing: The bullish direction failed after entry — the trade never gained more than +0.37% while open, and the rationale itself notes the stock had already risen on the Amazon news, with entry coming +0.63% above prev close. That's a stale-news entry: the move the signal predicted had largely happened before the fill, and no follow-through materialized.

Exit: The exit at -2.31% sits near the worst unrealized (-2.97%), so the exit gave back nearly everything and captured none of the small +0.37% peak — but with so little upside ever available, exit choice was a minor factor.

Dominant factor: Timing — buying after the announcement pop, leaving the trade holding a fully-priced-in signal that then faded. (Whether the news itself was genuinely "fresh" at decision time can't be verified from the data here.)

Signal: right. Price fell ~0.57% from entry, and the modest pre-entry rise (+0.84% since prior close) means the bearish move hadn't already occurred — the short was, if anything, entered at a favorable local high, so timing was fine. Exit: partial capture — the trade banked +0.57% against a best unrealized of +1.01% and near-zero adverse excursion (-0.12%), so roughly half the available move was left behind. Dominant factor is a correct signal with a merely adequate exit; whether the stated macro rationale (yields/pipeline) actually drove the move can't be verified from this data.

Signal: Right — the bearish call worked; price fell after entry with essentially no adverse move (worst unrealized only -0.06%). Whether the stated macro rationale (yields, pipeline attacks) actually drove it isn't verifiable from this data.

Timing: Fine — entry was slightly above prior close (+0.21% context), so the move had not already happened; the trade rode fresh downside.

Exit (dominant factor): The exit captured only ~0.30% of a +1.22% best unrealized gain — roughly a quarter of what was available (+$2.02 realized vs. ~$8.30 at the peak). The trade was directionally clean but the exit left most of the move on the table.