Signal was wrong — that's the dominant factor. The rationale predicted an upward overnight drift on the Broadcom/Anthropic/OpenAI partnership headline, but AVGO went from 357.32 to 346.07 (−3.15%), and the best unrealized gain while open was only +0.27%, so there was essentially never a favorable move to capture. Timing wasn't the issue in the "move already happened" sense: at decision time the stock was only +0.40% above the prior close (354.73), though the fill at 357.32 was another ~0.33% higher than the decision-time price, a minor adverse entry slip. Exit was mechanical (next close) and landed at −3.15% versus a worst of −4.03% — it neither gave up meaningful available upside (there was none) nor captured the absolute bottom, so the loss is attributable almost entirely to the direction call rather than execution.

Signal: wrong — the rationale predicted upward overnight drift on the M&A headline, but AMZN closed the next session at 253.86, −1.8% from the 258.48 entry, so the predicted direction did not materialize. Timing: the data doesn't settle it — price was essentially flat at decision time (−0.14% from prev close, +0.01% last 30m), so the move hadn't already happened, but whether the headline was already priced in before this snapshot can't be determined from what's here. Exit: the fixed next-close exit gave back −1.79% against a best unrealized of +0.98% and worst of −2.21%, so it neither captured the brief upside nor avoided most of the drawdown; the dominant factor is a failed directional signal — a $7B acquisition rumor for a ~$2T+ company was not a catalyst for drift, and the acquirer traded down.

Signal was wrong. The rationale called for upward overnight drift on a bullish-sentiment article, but PLTR fell from 208.65 to 200.30 (-4.0%), with the best unrealized gain only +0.65% against a worst of -4.24% — the stock was essentially never meaningfully in the money. Timing cannot be cleanly judged: the stock was already down -1.18% on the day at decision time, so entry was not chasing a completed rally, but the data here does not indicate what move the article anticipated or whether it had already occurred.

Exit roughly matched what was available for a mechanical next-close rule. The exit at -4.0% landed close to the -4.24% worst unrealized, so the fixed close-to-close exit did not leave gains uncaptured — there were none to speak of (the +0.65% peak was negligible). The dominant factor is a failed directional signal, not exit mechanics.

Signal: correct — the bearish call played out, with MSFT falling 1.82% from entry. Timing: fine — at decision time the stock was still up 0.43% on the day and the entry (543.23) sat just under the prior close, so the drop had not yet occurred; the data here can't say whether the news itself caused the move. Exit: strong — the +9.90 (+1.82%) captured almost all of the +1.93% best unrealized against only -0.24% worst, so the dominant factor is simply a correct signal with a well-captured exit, not luck or sloppiness on the close.

Signal was wrong and is the dominant factor. The trade was labeled bullish, but QCOM fell from entry (174.24 → 172.56, −0.96%), and the only article text in the journal — the headline "The Narrative Shift Sending Capital Out The Door" — reads as bearish framing, so the bullish direction call looks contradicted by its own source (the full article isn't here, so I can't confirm beyond the headline). On timing, the move had not pre-happened in the predicted direction: price at decision was roughly flat (−0.26% vs 176.86 prev close), yet the fill came at 174.24, already ~1.5% below prev close, meaning the stock was sliding against the thesis between decision and fill. On exit, the −0.96% result sits between the +0.77% best and −1.78% worst unrealized; the exit neither captured the brief upside nor rode to the trough, so it was a middling exit on a trade whose direction was simply wrong.

Signal was right and is the dominant factor. The short on the "$200B AI spend" headline predicted bearish, and META fell from 755.38 to 737.89 (–2.3%) while open, with worst drawdown only –0.21%, so the thesis played out almost immediately and cleanly.

Timing was fine: at decision time the stock was only –0.36% from prev close, so the move had not yet happened; the fill at 755.38 (–0.93% vs. 762.50) means roughly half a percent leaked between decision and fill, but the bulk of the drop came after entry. Exit captured most of what was available: +2.32% realized against +2.76% best unrealized (~84%), leaving ~0.44% on the table — a minor give-back rather than a flaw. Whether the exit was a target, trail, or time stop isn't stated here, so I can't judge the exit mechanism itself, only that it was close to optimal.

Signal: right. The bearish call on MU played out — the stock fell a further ~1.7% after entry, with the trade seeing a worst drawdown of only -1.51% against it before resolving lower.

Timing: mostly fine, with a caveat. At decision time MU was only -1.03% off the prior close (~943), so the bulk of the move was still ahead — but the fill at 934.0 was already ~2% below prior close, meaning roughly a further 1% of the decline occurred between decision and fill and was not captured. The data doesn't say whether that gap was fill latency or a fast move, only that it existed.

Exit: near-optimal. The realized +1.69% (+15.82 USD) captured almost all of the +1.79% best unrealized, leaving only 0.1% on the table. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal with an exit that took nearly everything available; the only leakage was the decision-to-fill slippage.

Signal was wrong: the rationale called a bullish repricing on NVDA off an ASML-led European tech rally, but the stock fell about 1.8% from entry to exit and never got more than +0.25% above the fill, so the predicted direction simply didn't materialize. Timing wasn't the issue in the "move already happened" sense — NVDA was down ~1% on the day and sliding in the last 30 minutes, meaning the entry was buying into weakness rather than chasing a prior up-move, though whether the ASML news was already priced in can't be determined from this data. Exit was reasonable given what was available: the -1.83% realized sits well off the -2.50% worst unrealized and the +0.25% best was never meaningful, so the dominant factor is a bad directional read, not execution.

Signal was wrong: the rationale called a bullish repricing on AI-spending news, but AVGO fell from 351.89 to 346.20 (-1.6%) while open, never getting more than +0.21% in the trade's favor. Timing is not settled by this data — price was already down ~0.9% from the prior close at decision time, so the article's "benefit" wasn't visibly priced in, but nothing here shows whether the move had already played out or simply never materialized. Exit was reasonable given the signal failure: the -1.6% realized loss sits between the +0.21% best and -2.55% worst unrealized, so the exit avoided the trough; the dominant factor is a bullish thesis the stock simply did not follow.

Signal: wrong — the bullish AWS-backlog thesis didn't play out; price went from 258.72 to 253.93 (−1.85%), with a worst unrealized of −2.30% against only +0.27% best, so the trade was underwater almost the entire time. Timing: the data doesn't settle this — price was flat versus prev close (−0.01%) and the last 30m (−0.06%) at decision time, so the move hadn't visibly happened before entry, but we can't tell from these numbers whether the earnings news was already priced in earlier. Exit: fine relative to what was available — the exit at −1.85% sits between the +0.27% best and −2.30% worst, and there was essentially no upside to capture. Dominant factor is signal: the predicted direction was simply wrong.

Signal was wrong: the rationale called for a bullish repricing on the earnings beat, but the stock closed the trade down 2.56% from entry at its worst and the exit at 1667.15 (-2.56%) is essentially the trough — price never sustained the predicted direction. Timing doesn't look like the culprit: entry at 1710.9 was below the prior close (-0.47%) and only modestly off the +1.79% last-30m bounce, so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed move. The exit captured the worst of what was available — the position reached +1.27% unrealized before reversing, and the -43.75 USD realized P&L sits at the full worst-unrealized mark; the dominant factor is a failed directional read (the beat did not produce the bullish repricing), with the exit landing at the maximum drawdown as a secondary sting.