Signal: wrong. The rationale predicted overnight upward drift on positive AI/subscription news, but META fell −2.46% from entry to exit — the direction was simply incorrect, and that's the dominant factor.

Timing: adverse and partly unexplained. Decision-time context showed the stock down −0.43% from prev close (673.31), yet the fill was 682.66 — about +1.4% above prev close — meaning the position entered after a move higher not reflected in the decision context. The data here doesn't settle whether the news-driven surge had already fully played out before entry, but the fill price suggests the long paid up into strength.

Exit: near the bottom of the available range. The mechanical next-close exit realized −2.46%, giving back a brief +1.59% unrealized gain and landing close to the −3.56% worst — but with a fixed-horizon rule, "capturing" the intraday peak wasn't part of the strategy; the loss reflects the failed signal more than exit execution.

Timing is the dominant factor. The bullish signal on the pre-order news may have been directionally reasonable, but the move was already largely priced in by entry — the stock was up ~1% at decision time and the fill at 337.15 was ~1.4% above the prior close, so the strategy bought after the pop. From entry, the overnight drift never materialized: the position only ever gained +0.54% and fell as much as -1.35%. The exit at -0.23% actually captured a middling outcome — well off the worst unrealized loss, so the exit wasn't the problem; there simply wasn't much upside available after the late entry.

Signal was directionally right but barely: the trade closed +0.38%, a small fraction of the +3.20% available at the best point, while enduring a -7.38% drawdown along the way — the mechanical next-close exit landed near flat on what was a very volatile ride. Timing worked against it: the fill at 176.51 was ~1.2% above the prior close versus the +0.49% known at decision time, so a chunk of the overnight drift was already paid at entry. The dominant factor is exit capture: the fixed exit gave up nearly all of the peak move, though whether the news itself drove the intraday swing (versus broader PLTR volatility) can't be settled from this data.

Signal/timing failure, not exit. The predicted upward drift never materialized — MSFT was already up ~1.1%+ on the news by entry (490.30 → 497.94 fill), so the catalyst was plausibly priced in, and the position never got more than +0.29% ahead before rolling over. The exit at -0.91% (-$9.08) was actually well above the -4.50% worst unrealized, so the mechanical next-close exit captured close to the best of a bad situation. The data can't fully separate "wrong direction" from "right thesis, already spent" — but either way, the dominant factor is entering after the news-driven move, leaving no drift left to harvest.

Signal: Right — the post-earnings long drifted up another +2.85% from entry to exit. Timing: Some of the move was already gone — the stock was +0.98% at decision time and the fill (1630.89) was ~1.8% above prev close, so entry paid up beyond the known context — but plenty of drift remained. Exit: Near-optimal — +2.85% realized against a +2.94% best unrealized, with only -0.52% adverse excursion. Dominant factor: a correct signal with an exit that captured essentially everything available; the only leakage was the slippage/gap between decision-time price and the fill.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call was simply wrong — the trade never got more than +0.11% in its favor and fell as much as -2.47%, so the predicted upside didn't materialize while the position was open. Timing: The stock was only +0.60% off prior close at decision time, so this wasn't a chase into an extended move; note, though, the fill at 370.21 was ~1.1% above prev close, meaning some drift occurred between decision and entry that the data here doesn't explain. Exit: The -1.47% realized loss sits between the best (+0.11%) and worst (-2.47%) unrealized — the exit gave back essentially all available upside (there was almost none) but also avoided roughly a point of further downside, so exit execution was middling; the losing signal is what killed this trade.

Signal: correct. The bullish call played out — price rose from 430.79 to a peak of +0.88% unrealized, closing the trade +0.51%. Timing: reasonable on the intraday evidence — price was flat versus prior close (-0.18%) at decision time, so the move hadn't already run intraday; whether the August revenue news was already priced in over prior sessions can't be determined from this data. Exit: captured most of what was available — +0.51% realized against +0.88% best and -0.39% worst, i.e. roughly 60% of the peak move with limited drawdown exposure.

Dominant factor: a correct signal, competently executed — no major flaw in this trade; the only leakage was giving back ~0.37% from the unrealized high at exit.

Signal: correct. The bearish call was right — the trade saw +2.77% unrealized gain while open, against only -0.14% adverse movement.

Timing: fine. Price had barely moved at entry (-0.06% since prior close), so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed move.

Exit: the failure. The position gave back the entire +2.77% favorable move and closed at a small loss (-0.55 USD, exit above entry). The dominant factor is the exit — a correct, well-timed short was surrendered entirely; the data here doesn't show why the exit occurred (stop, time limit, or signal reversal).

Signal: correct. The bullish call played out — the trade gained ~1.6% with essentially zero adverse excursion (worst unrealized -0.00%), meaning price moved in the predicted direction almost immediately.

Timing: not late. Price at decision time was flat-to-slightly-down (-0.04% since prior close, -0.30% last 30m), so the entry wasn't chasing an already-completed move.

Exit: near-optimal. The +$14.04 exit (+1.6%) matches or slightly exceeds the best unrealized level of +1.58%, so the exit captured essentially all of what was available while open. The dominant factor here is simply a correct directional signal executed cleanly; note the data doesn't tell us whether the move continued after exit, so we can't judge if the exit left further upside on the table.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call was wrong over the holding period — the stock declined from entry, never rising more than +0.20% while falling as much as -1.54%. Timing: The move had not already happened; price was essentially flat at decision time (+0.06% since prev close), so this wasn't a stale/chased entry — though the fill at 337.78 vs. 337.00 prev close did add ~0.23% of slippage against the position. Exit: The exit at -0.41% was reasonable given what was available — it captured well above the worst drawdown (-1.54%) while giving up only a trivial +0.20% peak that never offered meaningful profit. Bluntly: the direction call failed; execution and exit were adequate.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out, with the stock rising ~2.1% from entry. Timing: Good — despite the rationale citing an already "significant rally," price context at decision time (-0.07% vs. prev close) shows the move had not yet occurred, so entry was genuinely fresh. Exit: Near-optimal — the +11.55 (+2.12%) realized P&L captured almost all of the +2.16% best unrealized, against a minor -0.59% drawdown.

Dominant factor: a correct signal executed well end-to-end; this trade captured essentially everything available. Note the rationale's claim of a pre-existing rally conflicts with the flat price context, but that discrepancy didn't hurt the trade.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was simply wrong — despite catastrophic-sounding news, AMZN drifted up while the trade was open (max favorable only +0.35% vs. -1.00% adverse), so the market never validated the thesis. Timing: Entry wasn't chasing a move that had already happened (price was only +0.25% off prior close with a flat last 30 minutes), so entry timing isn't the issue. Exit: The -0.54% realized loss sits between the +0.35% best and -1.00% worst, so the exit gave back nothing egregious and avoided the full drawdown — the loss came from a bad signal, not bad execution. Note: the data here can't confirm whether the underlying news event was real or accurately characterized, only that the market didn't trade as if it mattered.

Signal: Wrong, at least on this horizon — the bullish repricing call was followed by a net decline (entry 494.38 → exit 493.29, -0.22%), and the stock never moved more than +0.48% in the trade's favor.

Timing: Price was already down -0.83% at decision time, so the trade wasn't chasing a bullish move that had happened; however, the data here can't tell whether the news had been priced in before that window, so whether entry was "late" to the repricing is unresolved.

Exit: The exit landed mid-range — worse than the +0.48% best but better than the -0.58% worst — so exit execution cost little; the dominant factor is simply that the bullish signal didn't materialize: the anticipated repricing never showed up while the trade was open.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out, with the position running to +2.35% unrealized and closing +2.31%. Timing: Entry came after the stock was already up ~1.3% on the day (and the rationale cites a 5.5% rebound, which the price context here doesn't corroborate), so some chase occurred, but the bulk of the captured move happened post-entry. Exit: Nearly optimal — the +22.90 realized (+2.31%) captured almost all of the +2.35% best unrealized, with minimal drawdown (-0.29%).

Dominant factor: a correct signal executed cleanly, with the exit harvesting essentially everything the trade offered.

Signal: correct — the bearish call played out, with the trade going almost immediately and monotonically in favor (worst unrealized only -0.07%). Timing: the stock was already down ~0.7% from prior close at entry, so a small part of the move preceded the fill, but the bulk of the decline (~1.7%) came after entry; whether the news was already fully priced can't be settled from this data alone. Exit: strong capture — +11.33 (+1.67%) against a best unrealized of +2.04%, i.e., roughly 80% of the available move. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal, executed and exited well.

Signal: Mostly wrong over the holding period — the stock briefly ticked up (+0.57% best) but net drifted down; the bullish call didn't hold. Timing: The move had largely already happened — entry at 350.05 was ~0.8% above prior close, meaning the pop from the analyst news was priced in before the fill, despite the "FRESH" verdict. Exit: Poor capture — the trade exited at -0.39%, near the worst unrealized (-0.44%), giving back the entire +0.57% peak.

Dominant factor: timing. The strategy bought into a stalled post-news pop (last 30m was flat at -0.04%), leaving little upside; the exit near the lows compounded it, but there was never much available to capture. Whether the underlying analyst thesis is right longer-term isn't settled by this data — only that this entry was late relative to the move.