Signal: Right — the acquisition-news long paid off, with price rising ~2.7% from entry and essentially no adverse excursion (worst -0.01%). Timing: Only modestly late; the stock was up 0.96% from prior close at decision time, so a small slice of the move was gone, but most of it came after entry. Exit: Excellent capture — realized +2.72% against a best unrealized of +2.89%, leaving almost nothing on the table.

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal with near-full capture — this trade worked as intended on all three dimensions. (Note: whether the M&A claim in the rationale was accurate can't be verified from this data.)

Signal: Directionally the short saw a large favorable move at some point — the position was up as much as +4.70% unrealized — so the predicted downside did materialize intra-trade, even though the close-to-close result was negative.

Timing: Entry came after only a modest run-up (+0.84% off prior close), so there's no evidence the anticipated move had already been exhausted before entry; the data doesn't settle timing as a problem.

Exit: This is the dominant factor, bluntly: the mechanical next-close exit surrendered a +4.70% unrealized gain and closed near the worst point seen (-1.69% worst vs. the -1.45% realized loss), turning an available winner into a -$14.46 loss. The exit rule, not the thesis, drove the outcome here — noting also that the stated rationale (10-year yields above 5% from pipeline attacks) is journal text whose accuracy can't be verified from the data given.

Signal: wrong. The short predicted downward drift, but AMZN rose ~2.2% from entry to exit — the market went against the position, bad-news rationale notwithstanding.

Timing: partly late. Entry at 245.96 was already ~1% below the prior close of 248.42, so a meaningful chunk of any news-driven decline had occurred before the fill; the short was chasing a move that then reversed.

Exit: near worst-case. The realized loss (-22.00, roughly -2.2%) sits close to the worst unrealized of -2.72%, while a small +0.64% gain was briefly available — the mechanical next-close exit captured almost none of it. The dominant factor is signal failure: the predicted direction was simply wrong, and timing/exit only compounded it modestly.

Signal: Right — the long thesis played out, with the stock rising +2.81% from entry to exit and never going meaningfully against the position (worst -0.06%).

Timing: The stock had already moved +0.86% off the prior close by entry, so a small part of the news reaction was missed, but the bulk of the move clearly came after entry, so the drift thesis wasn't stale.

Exit: Near-optimal — the +23.50 P&L (+2.81%) captured almost all of the +3.04% peak unrealized gain. Dominant factor: a correct signal executed cleanly; nothing in this trade's data points to a flaw.

Signal (dominant factor): The direction call was wrong — META rose another ~1.4% from the short entry, and the max favorable move was only +0.70% versus -6.12% adverse, so the downside thesis never materialized. Timing: The stock had already gained +1.36% on the day by entry; the data can't confirm whether the settlement news was already priced in before that move, but the short was entered into strength, not after a decline. Exit: The mechanical next-close exit actually did well relative to what was available — the -9.28 loss (~-1.4%) is far better than the -6.12% worst unrealized, so exit execution isn't the problem; the signal is.

Signal: Right — the long call on the AI-guidance catalyst paid off, with a +2.53% gain (+$17.16). Timing: Not stale — entry at 339.12 was actually slightly below the prior close (+0.55% pre-entry drift was modest), so the move had not already occurred by entry. Exit: The next-close exit captured most of what was available (+2.53% realized vs. +3.40% best unrealized), though the trade sat through a severe -6.44% drawdown that the mechanical hold simply rode out. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal — the exit was decent, but the win came despite substantial adverse excursion along the way.

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The short predicted downside from regulatory pressure, but TSLA rallied ~2.6% against the position, with the trade never meaningfully in the money (best unrealized only +0.02%). Timing wasn't the issue in the sense of a missed move — the anticipated decline simply never occurred; the modest +0.23% pre-entry drift doesn't indicate the news was already priced in one way or the other, so that's unsettled from this data. The mechanical next-close exit actually salvaged something, closing at roughly -2.6% versus a worst unrealized of -4.53%.

Signal (dominant factor): wrong direction. The short thesis — NAND price-hike relief pressuring MU — didn't play out; the stock rallied ~5.8% against the position, and the best unrealized was essentially zero (-0.02%), meaning the trade was never in the money at any point.

Timing: No evidence of a stale move — price was roughly flat at entry (+0.23% since prior close), so the loss wasn't from chasing a move that had already happened.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit gave up -5.8% vs. a worst unrealized of -6.67%, so the exit was near the bottom of the range but there was nothing favorable to capture anyway. The loss is attributable almost entirely to a bad directional call, not execution.

Signal: right. The long call on post-earnings drift worked — price rose ~2.0% from entry and never went meaningfully underwater (worst unrealized +0.10%).

Timing: mostly fine. Only +1.07% had moved since prev close at decision time (and the last 30m was negative), so the bulk of the move came after entry; the small entry slippage above prev close (1592.73 → 1597.97) cost ~0.3%.

Exit: the dominant factor. The mechanical next-close exit captured +2.0% against a peak unrealized of +3.73% — roughly half the available move was given back before the scheduled exit; the data doesn't show when the peak occurred, so whether the drift faded or reversed intraday can't be determined here.

Signal: Right — PLTR rose ~1.3% from entry to exit, consistent with the long overnight-drift call. Timing: Partially eroded — at decision time the stock was -0.48% vs prev close (172.56), but the fill came at 174.24, roughly +1% above prev close, meaning a meaningful chunk of the move happened between decision and fill; the data here can't distinguish a closing ramp from slippage. Exit: Solid — the +1.26% realized captured most of the +1.98% best unrealized, with minimal downside exposure (-0.67%).

Dominant factor: correct signal with a mostly-captured exit; the only leak was the ~1.5% gap between decision-time price and entry fill, which ate into the edge.

Signal: Right — the stock rose another ~1% after entry, though the rationale is really a Tesla story with TSMC as a tangential partner, so whether the thesis caused the move can't be settled from this data.

Timing: Partly late — the stock was already +1.34% off the prior close at decision time (entry filled at +1.6%), so a meaningful chunk of the repricing preceded entry, but there was still room left.

Exit: Good — the +1.04% realized gain captured most of the +1.28% best unrealized, with minimal drawdown (-0.24%). Dominant factor: a correct (or lucky) directional call with a well-timed exit; the only leakage was entering after a third of the eventual move was gone.

Signal: Direction was right but marginally — META drifted up only +0.42% from entry, and the rationale itself is thin: the news is about Nebius, with META only a customer, so whether this was a genuine META catalyst can't be confirmed from the data here. Timing: The stock was already +1.26% off the prior close at decision time, so a chunk of the move preceded entry, though entry filled slightly below that level. Exit: The exit was near-optimal — +0.42% captured against a best unrealized of +0.49%, while dodging the -1.64% drawdown.

Dominant factor: A weak, second-hand signal that left little edge to capture; the exit did its job well, but there was barely anything on the table.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out, with the trade closing +1.07% higher.

Timing: Entry was only +0.48% above prior close with flat recent 30m action, so most of the move had not yet happened at entry — timing was acceptable, though the data can't confirm how long after the news the entry occurred.

Exit: Strong — the +1.07% realized gain captured nearly all of the +1.32% best unrealized, while avoiding the -1.03% drawdown. Dominant factor: a correct signal executed cleanly; nothing here suggests a problem.

Signal: correct — the bullish call played out, with the trade closing +1.51% and minimal adverse excursion (-0.42%). Timing: entry was not chasing; price was only +0.49% off the prior close (and entry filled slightly below it), so the move had not already happened. Exit: solid capture — +$13.10 (+1.51%) against a best unrealized of +2.24%, so roughly two-thirds of the available move was banked. Dominant factor: a correct signal executed cleanly; nothing in the data points to a timing or exit problem.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — the stock was already up +0.96% at decision time and closed higher still (498.1 vs 496.5), so the bearish thesis never delivered more than a brief +0.55% dip. Timing: The predicted down-move hadn't occurred before entry (price was rising, not falling), so the trade wasn't chasing a completed move; whether the news was already priced in can't be settled from this data. Exit: Poor relative to what was available — the position saw +0.55% unrealized but was closed at -0.32%, near the worst of -0.48%, capturing essentially the bottom of the range. The dominant factor is a weak/wrong signal: even at its best the short offered only +0.55%, indicating the bearish catalyst simply didn't move MSFT down, with the exit compounding a small loss out of a small opportunity.

Signal: Direction was right — price drifted up after entry and the trade closed green, though the move was small (+0.20%), which is weak confirmation of a "repricing" thesis.

Timing: Much of the move had already happened — GOOGL was up +1.11% from prior close at decision time, and entry filled at 346.69 vs. a 342.87 prior close, so the trade chased an already-priced-in headline.

Exit: Reasonable — the +0.20% realized captured over half the best unrealized (+0.35%) and avoided the -0.54% drawdown. The dominant factor is timing: entering after a ~1% pop left little of the repricing to capture, and the data here can't settle whether more upside materialized after exit.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out, with the trade never going more than -0.06% underwater.

Timing: Partly late — about +1% of the earnings move had already occurred by entry (fill 1618.24 vs prev close 1602.22), though the last-30m read of +0.06% suggests the pop had stalled rather than being chased mid-spike; whether more upside existed before entry isn't determinable from this data.

Exit: Near-optimal — the +0.75% realized gain captured almost all of the +0.78% best unrealized. Dominant factor: a correct signal executed cleanly; the only cost was the ~1% of the move already priced in before entry.