Signal: Direction was right — TSLA rose +2.33% from entry to exit — but the stated catalyst (a Constellation Brands beer-demand earnings article) has nothing to do with TSLA, so the win isn't evidence the rationale worked; it's a generic overnight-drift hit on an unrelated news tag, and that mismatch is the dominant factor to flag.

Timing: The move had not already happened — entry at 375.1 was below the prior close (377.71) and the worst unrealized was only -0.07%, so the position was essentially never underwater. One unsettled point: the decision-time price (-1.76% from prev close ≈ 371) is well below the 375.1 fill, and nothing here explains that ~1.1% gap between decision and fill.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit captured about two-thirds of what was available (+2.33% realized vs +3.54% best unrealized), leaving roughly 1.2% on the table — adequate, not optimal, and the data doesn't show when the peak occurred.

Signal: Direction was right — META closed lower (720.58 → 718.94, +0.23% on the short), though the move was small and the data doesn't show whether the AOL "cash-flow sink" angle drove it or it was just noise. Timing: Nothing had been given away by entry — price was only +0.15% from prev close at decision time (and fill came in slightly below prev close), so the short wasn't chasing a drop that had already happened. Exit: The fixed next-close exit captured about 40% of the +0.59% best unrealized while sitting through a -1.02% adverse swing that was larger than the eventual gain; the dominant factor is that this was a marginal, low-conviction win where the adverse excursion outweighed the favorable one and the mechanical exit simply happened to land on the right side of a choppy day.

Signal was wrong — this is the dominant factor. MSFT didn't drift lower overnight; it rose from 522.53 to 535.02 (+2.4%), and the best unrealized of -0.02% means the short was never in profit for even a moment. On timing, the data shows the stock was already down 1.24% from the prior close at decision time, so whatever downward reaction the regulatory headline produced was largely priced in by the close entry — but whether a fresh overnight drop was ever plausible can't be settled here, since no post-entry drop occurred. The exit itself was fine: the mechanical next-close exit at -2.39% landed close to the worst unrealized (-2.76%), and with nothing favorable to capture there was no better exit available; the loss is entirely a direction call that failed.

Signal: Right — GOOGL went long and rose ~1.0% (348.01 → 351.58), and the position never went materially underwater (worst unrealized +0.02%), so the overnight-drift call on the partnership news held.

Timing: Fine — at decision time the stock was down 0.55% from the prior close and still slipping in the last 30 minutes, so the entry caught the name below the prior close rather than chasing a move that had already run; the data don't say whether the article itself was already priced in earlier, only that the stock hadn't rallied on it yet.

Exit: The dominant factor is the fixed next-close exit, which realized +1.03% against a +1.89% peak unrealized — a bit over half of what was available — so the trade left roughly 0.85% (~$6) on the table, though that is inherent to the mechanical exit rule rather than a misread of the signal.

Signal was wrong: the overnight-drift long predicted upward continuation, but AAPL fell from 339.87 to 336.68 (−0.94%) by next close, giving back the entire prior-day gain and finishing just under the 336.78 previous close. Timing compounds this — the stock was already up +1.35% on the day and +0.51% in the final 30 minutes at decision time, so the entry chased an extended move with no fresh catalyst (the cited headline is an unrelated management-commentary piece, not a drift driver). Exit was neutral-to-decent given the rule: the mechanical next-close exit landed at −0.94% versus a best unrealized of only +0.23% and worst of −2.64%, so there was never meaningful upside available and the rule avoided the trough; the dominant factor is the signal failure — this was a bad directional call on an already-extended name, not an exit problem.

Signal was the dominant factor and it was wrong. The long never saw a positive tick — best unrealized was −0.30%, worst −1.18% — so META did not move bullishly at any point while the trade was open; and the rationale's basis (a "telecom stocks" podcast headline tagged as META m&a) is a tenuous link to META at all. Timing: the stock was already +0.67% on the day at decision time and the fill (725.48) came slightly above the quoted context, but the data here doesn't show what happened after the forced close, so whether the move had "already happened" versus simply never materializing can't be settled from this journal entry alone.

Exit was reasonable given the circumstances. The close was mechanical (netted out by a higher-ranked S1 short, decision 28797), not a judgment call, and the −0.38% realized sits close to the −0.30% best available and well above the −1.18% worst — so the exit captured nearly the best outcome on offer; the loss is a signal problem, not an exit problem.

Signal was wrong, and that's the dominant factor: NVDA never traded above the 232.65 entry (best unrealized was −0.18%), so the bullish Micron read-through to NVDA simply didn't play out while the trade was open. Timing: the stock was already +1.48% over the prior close at decision time with the last 30 minutes flat (−0.04%), which is consistent with the sympathy move being largely priced in before entry — but the data here doesn't show when the Micron news hit relative to that gap, so "already happened" is likely, not proven. Exit: the −1.29% realized loss sits close to the −1.50% worst unrealized, so the exit didn't leave profit on the table (there was none) but also didn't cut the loss early; the loss size is a function of holding through the decline rather than any mis-timed exit of a winning position.

Signal: Right — the bullish call played out, with MSFT rising 1.35% from entry (527.88 → 534.99) and the worst unrealized drawdown only -0.13%, so the long was essentially never underwater. Timing: Fine — the stock was already +1.01% off the prior close at decision time, but that pre-entry move was small relative to the +1.72% peak that followed, so the trade was not chasing an exhausted move (though the journal doesn't give the hold duration or the article's publication time, so whether the catalyst was stale news is not settled here). Exit: Good — +7.11 USD captured ~78% of the +1.72% best unrealized, leaving only ~$2 on the table. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal with clean follow-through; this is a straightforward win with no meaningful flaw in timing or exit.

Signal: Direction was at least briefly right — GOOGL traded up to +0.70% above entry while open — but the catalyst was a second-hand read-through (Samsung/TSMC results, not GOOGL news), so the bullish case was thin and the follow-through was small.

Timing: By entry at 352.12 the stock was already +1.1% over the prior close of 348.29, i.e. the entire move cited in the price context was priced in before the fill; the trade bought the top of a move that had already happened.

Exit (dominant factor): The position saw +0.70% unrealized and ended at -0.16% (-$1.10), giving back the full gain without ever reaching the -0.37% worst; the exit captured none of the available upside. Whether the stock continued higher after exit isn't in the data, so I can't say if holding longer would have helped — only that the available +0.70% was left on the table.

Signal was wrong: the bullish repricing thesis never materialized — TSM never traded above entry (best unrealized was -0.23%) and the trade was underwater from essentially the first tick to a -2.07% exit. Timing was poor as well: the stock was already up +0.77% from prev close at decision time on a widely-reported earnings headline, and the fill at 461.88 came another ~0.8% above the 458.17 reference while the last-30m momentum was already negative (-0.90%), so the entry bought into a fading pop. Exit was reasonable — the -2.07% realized sits well above the -2.56% worst unrealized and there was no meaningful upside to capture — so the dominant factor is a failed signal compounded by a late, chasing entry, not exit management.

Signal: Essentially unresolved — the trade closed up +0.06%, but the path (+0.64% best, −1.03% worst) was noise around flat and skewed to the downside, so there's no evidence the "bullish MU on Samsung smartphone production cuts" thesis actually drove price; the rationale's causal link (a major memory customer cutting handset output → bullish for a memory supplier) is itself questionable, and nothing here settles whether it was ever a real repricing catalyst.

Timing: Entry came after a dip (−0.72% from prev close, −0.95% in the prior 30m), so this wasn't chasing a move that had already happened; if anything the entry price was below the prior close.

Exit: The exit captured +0.65 USD out of a +0.64% best unrealized (~0.1% of a ~0.6% available), while sidestepping the −1.03% worst — the dominant factor is that there was no directional move to capture at all, and the tiny positive P&L is indistinguishable from random drift.

Signal: Correct — the bearish call paid off, with META dropping from 722.73 to 718.60 (+0.57% on the short). Timing: The move had not already happened at entry; price context shows META was slightly up on the day (+0.27% vs. prev close, +0.44% in the last 30m), so the short was placed before any decline, not chasing one — though the -0.72% adverse excursion nearly matched the +0.88% favorable one, so the path was noisy and the edge was thin. Exit: The exit captured roughly two-thirds of the best unrealized gain (0.57% of 0.88%), which is a reasonable harvest; the dominant factor here is simply a correct directional signal with a decent exit, and nothing in the data shows the fill-time price or how close to the peak the exit occurred.