Signal: right. The long call worked — META rose +4.47% from entry, consistent with the bullish news thesis. Timing: partly late — the stock was already up +1.55% from prior close by decision time (entry 744.92 vs 736.59), so a slice of the move was missed, though the bulk came after entry. Exit: near-optimal — the +4.47% realized gain captured almost all of the +4.66% best unrealized, with the -3.07% drawdown avoided.

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal with strong follow-through; the modest pre-entry drift barely mattered given the exit banked essentially everything available.

Signal: Right — MSFT fell after entry and the short finished profitable (+3.06 on 2 shares, ~0.3%). Timing: The move had not already happened; price was only +0.25% off prior close at decision, and entry at 499.63 gave the short a slightly elevated starting point. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the fixed next-close exit captured roughly 0.3% against a best unrealized gain of +6.68% (with worst only -0.27%), so the mechanical exit gave back the vast majority of what the position had available. Note: the data doesn't show when the +6.68% peak occurred, so whether any realistic exit rule could have caught it isn't settled here.

Signal: Right — the short direction paid off; the stock fell after entry (max favorable +1.68%, max adverse only -0.23%).

Timing: Partially compromised — at decision the stock was only -0.42% from prev close, but the fill at 225.07 was already -1.66% below prev close (228.87), so a meaningful chunk of the downside move happened between decision and fill. Whether more was foreseeable at entry isn't settled by this data.

Exit: The dominant issue — the fixed next-close exit captured only ~0.20% (+$1.80) of a move that reached +1.68% unrealized, leaving roughly 88% of the available gain on the table.

Signal (dominant factor): The predicted overnight-drift direction was wrong — the merger-hint catalyst didn't produce upside, and TSLA closed below entry (-0.38%). Timing: No evidence the move had already happened; price context at decision was slightly negative (-0.26% since prior close), though the fill at 379.86 came in ~0.25% above the prior close, adding a small headwind. Exit: The mechanical next-close exit landed mid-range — worse than the +0.83% best unrealized but better than the -1.41% worst — so exit execution neither rescued nor materially worsened a trade that was simply on the wrong side of a weak signal.

Signal: Right, but barely — the trade closed +0.53%, so the long direction held over the overnight window, though weakly.

Timing: The move had largely already happened by entry — SMCI was up +1.88% on the day and +2.22% in the final 30 minutes before the close-price fill, indicating the news was being priced in as the trade chased it.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit captured +0.53% of a +1.82% best unrealized while also riding through a -3.78% drawdown — it left roughly two-thirds of the available upside but avoided a loss far larger than the gain. The dominant factor here is timing: entering after a sharp pre-close pop on already-public news left only a thin residual drift to harvest, and the position's risk (-3.78%) was badly asymmetric to what it earned.

Signal: Directionally right at some point — the short saw +1.99% unrealized profit, so the predicted downside did materialize while the trade was open. Timing: Entry came after TSM had already fallen 1.05% from prior close, so part of the move was pre-captured, but the subsequent +1.99% favorable excursion shows meaningful downside remained. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the mechanical next-close exit gave back the entire ~2% favorable move and closed near the worst unrealized level (-1.21%), turning an available winner into a -0.76% loss (-$6.82). Note the data doesn't show when the favorable move occurred within the holding window, only that the fixed-time exit failed to capture it.

Signal was right: the bullish call played out, with GOOGL rising ~1.8% from entry. Timing was good — price was slightly down (-0.63%) at decision time rather than already extended, and the worst unrealized of +0.16% shows the trade never went underwater. The exit was near-optimal, capturing +1.81% against a best unrealized of +1.82%, so the dominant factor here is simply a correct, well-timed signal executed cleanly — nothing in the data suggests any leakage between prediction and outcome.

Signal: Wrong, or at least inert — the bullish repricing thesis never materialized; the stock managed only +0.58% at its best while open and spent more time underwater (worst -1.65%). The data here can't confirm whether the news was already priced in before entry, but the -1.97% slide in the 30 minutes before entry suggests the market wasn't treating it as bullish. Exit: Reasonable given what was available — the -0.10% realized loss sits well above the worst unrealized (-1.65%) and only modestly below the peak (+0.58%), so little was left on the table. Dominant factor: signal failure — a patent renewal effective in 2027 simply didn't move the stock, and no exit could have captured meaningful profit from it.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out, with MSFT rising ~0.96% from entry (whether the summit news was the actual driver can't be verified from this data).

Timing: The move had not already happened at entry — the stock was down 0.63% on the day with a flat last 30 minutes, and the fill at 493.13 was well below the prior close, so the trade bought before the rise rather than chasing it.

Exit: Strong capture — the +0.96% realized gain took nearly all of the +1.09% best unrealized, against only -0.35% adverse excursion. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal executed and exited cleanly; this trade worked on all three dimensions.

Signal: correct — price did move up after entry, validating the bullish call at least directionally. Timing: the price context (-0.89% since prev close, flat last 30m) shows no pop was underway at entry, but this data can't settle whether the robotaxi news itself was already priced in from an earlier session — the "FRESH" verdict is unverifiable here. Exit: this is the dominant factor — the trade banked +1.70 (~+0.11%) while the position saw +1.43% unrealized (~+$10.8 on 2 shares), so the exit captured under a tenth of the available favorable move despite only -0.46% adverse excursion.

Signal was directionally right: the bullish call produced a favorable move, with unrealized gains reaching +0.96% while open. Timing wasn't the issue — price was essentially flat at decision time (-0.05% since prev close), so the move hadn't already happened by entry. The dominant factor is the exit: closing at +0.12% (+$0.82) captured only about an eighth of the +0.96% best unrealized, leaving most of the available move on the table; note also the rationale's bullish framing of ostensibly negative news (partnership "underperformed," legal dispute) isn't resolvable from the data here.

Signal: Partially validated — the short did move favorably up to +0.70% unrealized, though the stock was already down 1.19% from the prior close at entry, so some of the anticipated repricing may have preceded the fill; the data can't fully settle how much.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The trade was closed not on its own merits but because it was netted out by an outranking long-NVDA decision, and the exit at 223.61 landed essentially at the worst unrealized point (-0.37%), surrendering the entire +0.70% that was available.

Bluntly: The forced early close from signal-conflict netting turned a briefly profitable short into a loss — exit mechanics, not the bearish thesis, drove the outcome.

Signal: wrong. META rallied ~3.3% against the short; the predicted bearish repricing never materialized after entry, with the best unrealized gain a negligible +0.08%.

Timing: adverse. The stock was already recovering at decision time (+0.82% in the last 30m) and filled at 753.44, well above the prior close of 744.02 — whatever downward reaction the news caused appears to have already reversed before entry. (Whether the settlement itself was priced in earlier isn't determinable from this data.)

Exit: near the worst. The -25.04 loss (~-3.3%) sits close to the -3.47% worst unrealized, but with essentially no favorable excursion available, the exit only marginally worsened the outcome. The dominant factor is bluntly a failed signal — the direction was simply wrong.

Signal: wrong. After entry AMZN barely dipped (best unrealized only +0.18%) and then rallied against the short, so the bearish repricing never materialized during the holding period. Timing: the modest bearish move had already occurred — the stock was down -1.14% from prior close at decision time, and the short chased that decline. Exit: near the worst — the -14.04 loss (-1.43%) was close to the worst unrealized (-1.69%), with essentially no favorable excursion available to capture. Dominant factor: a failed signal — the Burry warning didn't produce further downside, and the trade was underwater almost the entire time.

Signal: wrong. The bearish thesis didn't play out — MU rose ~2.3% against the short, with a best unrealized gain of only +0.54%, so there was never a meaningful downward move to capture after entry. Timing: entry came after the stock was already down 1.40% on the day, so what little bearish move existed had largely happened pre-entry; whether the news itself was already priced in can't be settled from this data alone. Exit: the -2.29% realized loss sits essentially at the worst unrealized point (-2.32%), meaning the trade was closed at close to its maximum drawdown — but the dominant factor is simply a wrong directional signal; no exit policy would have salvaged more than the fleeting +0.54%.

Signal: Right. The bullish call played out — the stock rose ~2.9% while the trade was open, with only -0.53% adverse excursion.

Timing: Fine on the intraday evidence — price was slightly down at entry (-0.40% from prev close), so the trade wasn't chasing an in-progress spike. However, the rationale cites a surge that had already happened (the $1T milestone), and the data here can't settle whether this was fresh repricing or a lucky continuation of stale news.

Exit: Near-perfect capture — +2.93% realized against a best unrealized of +2.96%. The dominant factor is a correct directional signal executed with an exit that left essentially nothing on the table.

Signal: Right — the bullish call was correct; price moved up after entry. Timing: The cited catalyst (surge past $190) had already played out — price was flat vs. prior close (+0.00%) at decision time — but a further move still materialized, so entering "stale" news didn't hurt here. Exit: This is the dominant factor: the trade closed at +0.51% (+$4.85) against a best unrealized of +1.44%, capturing only about a third of the available move while risk was minimal (worst -0.17%). Correct signal, late-but-workable timing, weak exit.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out, with price rising ~0.51% from entry to exit. Timing: Partially favorable — the last-30m +0.76% bounce suggests the repricing had started before entry, but entry at 223.61 was still below prev close (225.51), so most of any regulatory repricing had not occurred by fill; the data can't confirm how much of the news was already priced in. Exit: Near-optimal capture — the +0.51% realized is essentially the full +0.52% best unrealized, against a modest -0.28% worst.

Dominant factor: exit execution was excellent and signal was right; the limiting factor was simply that the available move was small (~0.5%), yielding only +$4.52 on 4 shares.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out; price rose ~0.39% from entry and never dropped more than 0.31% against the position. Timing: Only a modest pre-move (+0.43% on the day, +0.50% in the prior 30m) had occurred by entry, so the trade wasn't badly late, though whether the "repricing" was already largely priced in from earlier sessions can't be determined from this data. Exit: The exit captured roughly half of the available upside (+0.39% realized vs. +0.80% best unrealized) — the dominant factor here is exit efficiency: a correct, reasonably timed signal that banked about 50% of the peak move.