Signal: right. NVDA rose after entry and the trade gained +2.40%, consistent with the bullish guidance rationale. Timing: partly eroded — at decision time the stock was only +0.08% over the prior close (219.34), but the fill came at 221.9, ~1.2% higher, so a meaningful chunk of the drift occurred between decision and fill; the data here doesn't show whether that was overnight gap or execution lag. Exit: good capture — the +2.40% realized is close to the +2.94% best unrealized, with minimal drawdown (-0.24%).

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal, executed well enough on exit that the entry slippage only trimmed, not killed, the trade.

Signal: Right — the long call on the iPhone Duo news paid off, with price closing +0.81% above entry. Timing: The move had not already happened; entry at 336.5 was actually slightly below the prior close (-0.52% context), so the strategy wasn't chasing. Exit: The mechanical next-close exit captured nearly everything available — +0.81% realized against a best unrealized of +0.92% — though the trade sat through a -2.65% drawdown along the way, meaning the positive outcome depended on the fixed hold surviving a much larger adverse move than the gain it banked.

Dominant factor: correct signal with near-optimal exit capture; the notable risk fact is the -2.65% intratrade drawdown dwarfing the +0.92% peak gain.

Signal: Directionally validated at some point — the short was up as much as +7.26% while open, so downside did materialize. Timing: Entry looks fine; the stock was only -0.99% from the prior close at decision time, so the move hadn't already run. Exit: This is the dominant failure — the mechanical next-close exit gave back the entire +7.26% favorable excursion and rode the reversal to a -2.46% adverse move (-$18), capturing near the worst of what was available (-3.46% trough). Bluntly: right idea, but the fixed one-day hold turned a substantially winning position into a loss.

Signal: right. The long call on the AI-revenue news paid off — price rose ~2.7% from entry to exit. Timing: mostly fine — at decision time the stock was flat vs. prior close (-0.18%), so the move hadn't already run, though the fill at 433.25 was ~0.7% above the prior close, giving away a slice of the move before entry. Exit: near-optimal — +2.69% realized against a best unrealized of +2.80%, so almost the entire available gain was captured; the dominant factor here is simply a correct signal with a well-timed exit. One caveat: the -4.96% worst unrealized is hard to square with a single overnight hold, and the data here doesn't settle whether the position was held longer than the stated one-day horizon.

Signal: right. The long call on the AWS earnings beat worked — the stock rose +1.67% from entry to exit. Timing: partially late. The fill at 254.31 was already ~1.2% above the prior close of 251.19, so a chunk of the post-earnings pop was captured by others before entry (the data doesn't show how much more the stock had gapped between decision and fill, only that the fill was well above the known +0.63%). Exit: near-optimal. The +1.67% realized captured almost all of the +1.99% best unrealized, and the trade survived a substantial -3.49% drawdown along the way.

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal with a well-timed exit; the drawdown shows the position was exposed to meaningful adverse volatility, but the scheduled exit happened to land near the high.

Signal: Right — the long call on the price-hike news played out with a large rally after entry. Timing: Partially late — the decision-time price was ~flat vs. prev close (545.09), but the fill at 557.03 was ~2.2% higher, so some of the move was missed before entry; still, the bulk of the gain came while the position was open. Exit: Essentially perfect — the +59.34 P&L (~+10.65%) matches the best unrealized of +10.66% with almost no drawdown (-0.06%), so nearly all available profit was captured. Dominant factor: a correct signal ridden to nearly its full extent; the only leakage was the entry-fill gap.

Signal: Right — the long thesis on the TPU news paid off, with the stock rising +1.74% from entry to exit. Timing: The stock was already up +1.31% at decision time, so part of the move preceded entry, but the bulk of the captured gain came after fill, so the drift wasn't exhausted. Exit: Good capture — the exit at +1.74% took most of the +2.40% best unrealized, with essentially no adverse excursion (-0.08%).

Dominant factor: a correct signal that continued post-entry; the mechanical next-close exit left only ~0.7% of peak upside on the table.

Signal: Right — the bullish call played out; the position was never underwater (worst unrealized +0.29%) and reached +1.36%.

Timing: Fine — despite the stock being +1.13% from prior close at decision time, the fill at 221.83 came in below the prior close, so the entry didn't chase an exhausted move.

Exit (dominant factor): The trade captured only ~+0.35% (+$3.08) of the +1.36% available, because it was closed early by being netted against an outranking short NVDA decision — not by any judgment about this trade itself. The early forced exit left roughly three-quarters of the observed favorable move uncaptured; whether the countervailing short was itself correct isn't determinable from this data.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call on the foldable-iPhone news played out, with the stock rising ~1.6% during the hold.

Timing: Not chased — price was only +0.16% since prior close at decision time (and the fill at 333.83 was actually below the prior close of 335.58), so the move had not already occurred by entry.

Exit: Near-optimal — the +1.62% realized gain captured almost all of the +1.73% best unrealized, with minimal drawdown (-0.21%). Dominant factor: a correct directional signal executed cleanly end-to-end; nothing in this data points to a weakness.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out; the trade exited +0.78% higher and price spent time above entry (best +1.08%).

Timing: Partially eroded — the stock was already +0.71% on the day at decision time (and the fill at 256.61 sits +1.22% above prev close), so some of the earnings pop was consumed before entry; whether the bulk of the move was pre-entry versus post-entry can't be fully settled from this data.

Exit: Good capture — +0.78% realized against a best unrealized of +1.08% means the exit took most of what was available, and the trade also survived a symmetric -1.09% drawdown. Dominant factor: correct signal with a solid exit; the main leakage was entering after part of the move had already occurred.

Signal: Partly validated — the trade reached +0.64% unrealized, so the bullish read had some traction, though the data doesn't show whether MSFT ultimately followed through after the close.

Timing: The entry came after only a +0.46% move off the prior close with the stock described as trading sideways, so there's no evidence the move was already spent; timing looks acceptable.

Exit (dominant factor): The trade was closed not on price but by being netted against a conflicting short signal (decision 20431), exiting at -0.18% — near the worst unrealized (-0.34%) and giving up the +0.64% that was available. The mechanical early close, not the thesis, drove the loss.

Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The bearish call never worked: GOOGL rose ~1.6% against the short, and the trade's best unrealized was still -0.55%, meaning it was never in profit at any point. Timing wasn't the issue — only +0.66% had moved by entry, so there was no "already happened" move to miss; the predicted direction simply didn't materialize. The exit was reasonable given the situation: -10.96 USD (~-1.57%) landed between the best (-0.55%) and worst (-2.25%) unrealized, so the exit avoided the maximum drawdown but there was no available profit to capture. (Note: the data here can't verify whether the cited news event was real or accurately characterized — only that the market moved opposite to the thesis.)

Signal: correct — the bullish earnings call played out, with the stock rising ~2.4% from entry. Timing: fine — at entry the stock was only +0.72% off the prior close, so the move had not already run. Exit: strong — the +2.44% realized gain captured nearly all of the +2.66% best unrealized (with minimal -0.68% drawdown), so the dominant factor here is simply a good signal executed cleanly; nothing in the data points to a flaw.

Signal: Right — bullish call on TSM off the Nvidia demand read, and the stock rose ~1.2% while the position was open. Timing: Some chase — entry came after a +1.22% gap over prev close (fill 439.35 vs 433.76), so part of the repricing had already occurred, though the data here can't show how much further move was left uncaptured pre-entry versus post-news. Exit: Strong — realized +1.23% against a best unrealized of +1.37% (worst -0.40%), capturing nearly all of what was available.

Dominant factor: correct signal with a near-optimal exit; the only blemish is entering after a meaningful chunk of the initial pop.

Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was simply wrong — NVDA rallied ~2.1% against the short, and the best unrealized was only -0.19%, meaning the trade was essentially never in meaningful profit. Note the rationale itself is shaky: it's AMD-specific strength news being mapped to a short on NVDA, and nothing in the data confirms a bearish NVDA thesis.

Timing: Not the issue — price was only +0.26% off prior close at decision time, so the entry wasn't chasing a move that had already happened.

Exit: The exit gave back little relative to what was available (closed at -2.08% vs. a worst of -2.61% and best of -0.19%); there was almost no favorable move to capture, so exit quality is secondary to the bad signal.

Signal: wrong — this is the dominant factor. The bearish call failed outright: MSFT rose ~1.6% against the short, and the rationale itself is shaky, citing strong Apple/Tesla earnings with only an inferred negative read-through to Microsoft. Timing: not stale — price was essentially flat at entry (-0.10%), so the trade wasn't chasing a move that had already happened. Exit: the -1.61% realized loss sits at essentially the worst unrealized (-1.66%), with only +0.32% ever available in the trade's favor, so the exit gave back nothing meaningful — there was simply never anything to capture on a bad signal.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out, with the stock rising ~1.4% from entry and barely dipping (worst unrealized only -0.15%). Timing: Not chased — price was only +0.22% off prior close at decision time, so the move had not already happened by entry. Exit: Near-optimal — the +10.10 P&L (+1.41%) captured almost all of the +1.50% best unrealized move.

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal, cleanly executed on both entry and exit. Note the data here can't confirm whether the analyst rationale itself was the true driver of the move — only that direction and execution aligned.

Signal: Right — the bullish call worked; price never went meaningfully against the position (worst unrealized just -0.05%).

Timing: Late entry — ASML was already up ~1.4% from the prior close at decision time, and the fill at 1704.32 confirms most of the news pop was priced in before entry; still, further upside remained, so the chase wasn't fatal.

Exit: Partial capture — realized +0.61% (+10.36) against a best unrealized of +1.04%, so the exit gave back roughly 40% of the peak move. The dominant factor is a correct signal with a modestly suboptimal exit; timing cost is real but the position still had room, which the data confirms.