Signal: Right — GOOGL rose after entry, closing +0.40% above the fill.

Timing: Suspect. At decision time the stock was at roughly 335.7 (−0.63% from prev close 337.83), yet the fill was 342.85 — about 2% higher — so a large chunk of the anticipated drift had already occurred before entry. The data doesn't explain the decision-to-fill gap, but the price context makes clear the entry chased a move already underway.

Exit: Adequate — the +0.40% realized captured a bit under half the +0.97% best unrealized, and the −0.48% worst drawdown was modest; no severe give-back.

Dominant factor: Timing. The directional call was correct, but entering ~2% above the decision-time price consumed most of the available edge before the position even opened.

Signal: Directionally right — TSM did drift up while the position was open (peaking +1.26%), consistent with the truce-relief thesis.

Timing: This is the dominant problem. The decision-time price was ~441.3 (prev close 446.71, down -1.22%), but the fill came at 450.67 — roughly 2% higher — meaning most of the anticipated relief move happened between decision and entry, leaving little drift to capture.

Exit: The close-to-close exit locked in +0.09% (+$0.78) against a best unrealized of +1.26%, so most of the available move was given back by the mechanical exit; whether an earlier exit was feasible under the strategy's rules isn't determinable from this data. Bluntly: a correct signal mostly consumed by a late/gapped entry fill.

Signal: Wrong at the horizon that matters — the trade lost -1.53% (378.55 → 372.76), so the predicted overnight drift didn't materialize by exit. The +1.83% best unrealized shows the direction was briefly right intraday, but not at the mechanical next-close exit.

Timing: The data can't fully settle this — price was only -0.89% since prev close at entry, but we don't see how much the Cybercab news had already been priced in over prior sessions, which is the relevant question for a headline-driven entry.

Exit: The fixed next-close exit gave back the entire +1.83% favorable excursion and landed near (though not at) the -2.83% worst; it captured roughly the middle-to-bad end of what was available.

Dominant factor: Signal failure — the bullish news-drift thesis simply didn't hold over the holding period, and the loss reflects the direction being wrong at exit, not a botched exit off a good call.

Signal: Right — the long-overnight-drift call was directionally correct; the stock rose after entry.

Timing: Partly compromised at the fill. Price context showed only +0.11% since prev close (1071.52), but the entry filled at 1079.42 (~+0.74% above prev close), so roughly 0.6% of the move occurred between decision and fill — the data here doesn't show whether that was a gap or slippage, only that it happened.

Exit (dominant factor): The trade captured +0.36% against a best unrealized of +2.59% — the mechanical next-close exit gave back the large majority of the available move, making exit capture, not signal quality, the bluntly dominant driver of the modest P&L.

Signal: Right — the long drifted up +0.40% (entry 224.56 → exit 225.46), consistent with the predicted overnight direction. Timing: The move had not already happened by entry; the stock was down -1.61% from prior close at decision time, so the entry caught the drift rather than chasing it (whether the M&A news itself was already priced in can't be determined from this data). Exit: The mechanical next-close exit captured +0.40% of a +0.89% peak — roughly half the available upside was given back, which is the dominant factor here: correct signal, adequate timing, but the fixed exit left about as much on the table as it banked.

Signal: wrong. The short predicted downward drift, but AAPL rose ~1.4% from entry (335.97 → 340.79); the regulatory-news thesis did not translate into a down move.

Timing: Entry filled ~0.3% below the prior close (337.02 vs. 335.97), so a small part of any downside was already gone at entry, but this is minor relative to the adverse move — the data doesn't show a large pre-entry move in the predicted direction.

Exit: The -1.43% realized loss sits close to the worst unrealized (-1.69%) and far from the best (+0.35%), so the exit gave back nearly the full adverse move; still, with a fixed close-to-close mechanical exit, the dominant factor is bluntly the wrong directional signal, not exit execution.

Signal: Effectively wrong. The predicted overnight upward drift never materialized — the position spent time down as much as -4.96% versus a peak of only +0.73%, so the news catalyst provided no durable lift and the near-flat result (+0.02%) was a lucky recovery into the exit, not a validated thesis.

Timing: Not the issue. Entry was only +0.23% above prior close with a modest +0.41% last-30m move, so little of any anticipated drift had been consumed before the fill.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit landed near breakeven, well off the +0.73% best but far above the -4.96% worst — it dodged a large drawdown by schedule rather than skill. Dominant factor: the signal failed; the trade's flat P&L masks that the direction call was badly wrong intraday.

Signal: Wrong — the predicted overnight upward drift didn't materialize; PLTR fell ~1.6% from entry to exit. Timing: The catalyst had already partly played out — entry at 192.79 was ~0.5% above the prior close of 191.79, so the trade paid a premium chasing news that had already moved the stock. Exit: The mechanical next-close exit realized -1.59%, nearly the worst unrealized (-1.64%), while the best available was only +0.58% — so even a perfect exit would have yielded little.

Dominant factor: the signal was simply wrong — the news-driven pop faded rather than drifted higher, and no exit rule could have salvaged much given the shallow +0.58% peak.

Signal: Right — the long call on the positive news worked; the stock rose ~3.5% from entry to exit.

Timing: Largely intact at entry — only a modest +1.15% pop in the last 30 minutes and entry just 0.65% above the prior close, so the bulk of the move came after the fill.

Exit: Good capture — the +3.5% realized P&L took roughly three-quarters of the +4.72% best unrealized move, with minimal drawdown (-0.86%). Dominant factor: a correct directional signal executed before the move; nothing in this data suggests a timing or exit problem.

Signal: correct. The bullish call played out — price rose from 343.0 to a peak of ~+0.93% (~346.2), and the trade closed green. Timing: fine — entry was only +0.34% off the prior close with a flat last 30 minutes, so the move had not already run before entry. Exit: the dominant weakness — the +$2.50 realized (+0.36%) captured less than half of the +0.93% (~$6.40 on 2 shares) available at the peak, while worst drawdown was a modest -0.50%, so the exit left most of the favorable move uncaptured.

Note: whether the rationale's causal story (hyperscaler capex projections) actually drove the move can't be determined from this data — only that direction and entry timing were consistent with it.

Signal: wrong. META never traded above entry while the position was open (best unrealized −0.22%), so the bullish regulatory thesis simply didn't produce upside during the holding period. Timing: the stock was already drifting down at decision time (−0.69% since prev close), but the data here doesn't show whether any prior bullish move had occurred that the trade was chasing — the rationale's tie to META is indirect (the fine was against X), and nothing here confirms the market ever treated it as META-relevant. Exit: middling but largely moot — the −1.14% realized loss sits between the best (−0.22%) and worst (−1.98%) unrealized, so the exit avoided the bottom, but there was never a gain available to capture. Dominant factor: bad signal — the predicted direction never materialized.

Signal: the bearish call briefly worked — the trade saw up to +0.82% unrealized in its favor — but the price finished above entry, so over the full holding period the direction didn't hold; the entry premise (Hormuz/helium supply-chain story) can't be verified from the data here. Timing: no evidence the move had already happened — price was only +0.61% off prev close and roughly flat over the last 30 minutes at decision time. Exit is the dominant factor: the trade closed at -0.46% (−$1.64), near the worst unrealized of -0.65%, after giving back the entire +0.82% that was available — the exit captured almost the worst of the range rather than any of the favorable move.

Signal: Right — bullish call on the M5 Ultra launch played out, with the stock rising ~1.4% after entry.

Timing: Fresh as claimed — at decision time the stock was only +0.05% from prior close and flat over the last 30 minutes, so the move had not already occurred.

Exit: Good capture — the +1.40% realized gain took most of the +1.66% peak unrealized, against only -0.38% adverse excursion. The dominant factor is simply a correct signal entered before the move; no meaningful flaw in timing or exit on this trade.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — after entry the stock never rose more than +0.93% and fell as much as -2.15%, so the bullish repricing thesis didn't materialize in the window traded (whether it played out later isn't determinable from this data).

Timing: Entry came after a +1.14% pop from prior close (fill at 1097.14 vs 1080.53 close), so the trade chased a move already underway and bought near the local high.

Exit: The -1.29% realized loss sits between the +0.93% best and -2.15% worst unrealized — the exit gave back the modest available gain but also avoided the trough, so it was middling rather than the main problem. Dominant factor: signal failure, compounded by late entry — the price simply went the wrong way from a fill that was already elevated.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call was simply wrong — the position never went positive (best unrealized was -1.25%), so this wasn't a timing or exit problem masking a good read; the direction failed outright.

Timing: The move had partly happened — entry at 385.31 was ~1.95% above prev close versus +1.09% known at decision time, so the fill chased an already-extended price, worsening the loss but not causing it.

Exit: The -3.25% realized loss sits between the best (-1.25%) and worst (-4.54%) unrealized, so the exit was middling — it avoided the trough but gave back most of what little was recoverable; the data doesn't show whether the exit rule could realistically have caught the -1.25% point.

Signal: correct — the bullish call played out, with MSFT rising ~3.6% from entry. Timing: good — price was flat at decision time (-0.11% since prev close, -0.12% last 30m), so the move had not yet occurred and the entry caught it; the worst unrealized of +0.90% means the position was never underwater. Exit: solid — the +35.76 P&L (~+3.58%) captured most of the +4.10% peak, leaving only ~0.5% on the table. Dominant factor: a correct, fresh signal that did the work; entry and exit execution were both close to optimal on this trade.

Signal: wrong. The bearish call didn't play out over the holding period — AMZN rose from entry 248.14 to 249.70, and the position spent most of its range underwater (worst -1.07% vs. best only +0.33%). The rationale itself is a multi-year breakeven thesis ("may take years"), which offers no directional edge on this trade's horizon, and price action confirms none materialized.

Timing: not clearly settled by the data — entry came at 248.14 vs. a +0.56%-since-prev-close context, so the stock had already pulled back somewhat before fill, but there's no evidence a bearish move had "already happened" that the entry missed; the subsequent move was simply upward.

Exit: acceptable given a bad signal. The -4.68 P&L (~-0.63%) sits between the best (+0.33%) and worst (-1.07%) unrealized, so the exit gave back the small favorable window but cut the loss before the worst point. Dominant factor: bad signal — a slow-burning macro thesis produced no near-term downside to capture.

Signal: right. The bullish call worked — SMCI rose ~2.5% from entry with minimal adverse excursion (worst -0.24%), so the direction was clean.

Timing: acceptable. The stock was only +1.3% off prev close at decision time and drifting slightly down in the last 30m, so entry wasn't chasing an already-completed move — the bulk of the gain came after entry.

Exit: solid but not full capture. The +$23.92 exit (+2.47%) captured roughly two-thirds of the +3.61% peak unrealized; the data doesn't show whether the peak came before or after exit, so I can't say if the exit gave back gains or simply left a later high uncollected. Dominant factor: a correct signal with near-zero drawdown did the work here.

Signal: mixed — the stock rose as much as +1.23% while open, so the bullish read wasn't simply wrong, but the net move over the holding period was down; this data can't settle whether the analyst thesis was right on any longer horizon. Timing: entry wasn't chasing — price was flat (-0.10%) at decision time, so the move hadn't already happened. Exit is the dominant factor: the trade saw +1.23% unrealized gain but was closed at -1.02%, essentially at the worst point observed (-1.00%), giving back the entire available upside and bottom-ticking the exit.

Signal: Unclear — the position was closed early because a conflicting short signal netted it out, not because the thesis played out, so this trade doesn't cleanly test the bullish call. While open, price spent more time against the position (worst -0.84% vs. best +0.44%) and never sustained upside.

Timing: Partly stale — entry came after price was already +0.42% above prev close and fading (-0.34% last 30m), and the fill at 452.88 was above even that context, so the trade bought into a pullback from a move that had largely occurred.

Exit: The -0.41% realized loss sits between the +0.44% best and -0.84% worst, so the exit gave back the small available gain but avoided the full drawdown. Dominant factor: entry timing — chasing an already-priced move — compounded by a forced early exit that leaves the signal itself unresolved.

Signal/timing failure — the trade was a chase. The bullish repricing had largely happened before entry (AMD already +1.03% on the day, entry at 636.33 vs. 629.26 prior close, and the rationale itself cites a milestone that had already occurred — the "briefly exceeded $1T" headline). After entry the position never got more than +0.03% in the money, meaning there was essentially nothing available to capture; direction post-entry was simply wrong.

Exit was fine given what existed: -0.83% realized against a -1.66% worst case and +0.03% best case — the exit gave back nothing meaningful because there was no favorable move to give back.

The data can't distinguish whether the thesis was wrong outright or merely fully priced in by entry, but either way the dominant factor is entering long after the move the rationale described had already completed.

Signal: Wrong within the holding window — the bearish thesis never materialized; TSM drifted slightly up and the trade exited at a loss. Whether the macro thesis was wrong or just slower than the holding period, this data can't settle.

Timing: Not stale — price was flat at entry (+0.01% since prior close), so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed move.

Exit: Poor relative to what was available: the position saw +0.17% unrealized favorable but exited near the worst (-0.18%, actual -0.05%/-$0.44). That said, the entire range was under ±0.2%, so the dominant factor is the signal — the predicted move simply didn't happen, and everything else is noise-scale.