MU Micron Technology

Signal: Partially validated — the short saw +1.58% unrealized at its best, so the bearish direction did play out while the trade was open. Timing: Only a modest -0.39% had occurred by entry (with a +0.51% bounce in the last 30m), so the trade wasn't obviously chasing an exhausted move; the data doesn't show whether the earnings drop referenced in the rationale had largely priced in before that. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the trade held through +1.58% of favorable movement and exited at -0.25%, surrendering essentially all of the available gain and turning a correct-direction trade into a loss.

Signal: Ambiguous on merits — the cited news (a Samsung competitive advance) reads as bearish for Micron, yet the strategy went long; the data here can't settle whether the drift thesis was sound, only that close-to-close the direction was slightly wrong (-0.22%).

Timing: Entry came after a modest +0.89% run from the prior close (entry 934.8 vs. 932.97), so a small part of any move was already priced in, but not enough to be decisive.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The position was up as much as +5.18% while open (~+48 USD unrealized) but the fixed next-close exit surrendered essentially all of it, closing at -2.07 USD. The trade had substantial favorable movement available and the mechanical exit captured none of it.

Signal: Partially right — price did move up +0.86% while the trade was open, but it didn't hold; the bullish call wasn't decisively wrong or right over this holding period, and note the thesis (2027 capex forecast) is a multi-year story being traded on an intraday horizon.

Timing: Entry came after a +0.66% pop in the prior 30 minutes and 0.46% above the prior close, so part of the news repricing was likely already in the fill price — the data can't confirm how much, but the entry was chasing recent strength.

Exit: This is the dominant factor: the trade saw +0.86% unrealized (~+8 USD) and was closed at -0.24% (-2.23 USD), near the middle of the -1.01% worst — the exit gave back essentially all available gains and captured none of the favorable move.

Signal: Right. The short thesis (selling pressure from Citadel's block trades) played out decisively — the position was essentially never underwater (worst unrealized just +0.04%).

Timing: Mostly intact at entry. The stock was down only 0.51% from the prior close at decision time, so the bulk of the ~6% move came after the fill.

Exit: Good but incomplete — the mechanical next-close exit banked +6.0% against a peak unrealized of +8.2%, capturing roughly three-quarters of the available move. The dominant factor here is simply a correct directional signal on a large move; the exit rule left some gains behind but wasn't the story.

Signal: wrong. The bullish repricing thesis never materialized — the trade was underwater essentially the whole time (best unrealized only -0.25%), so this wasn't a timing issue where the move happened and then reversed; the predicted move simply didn't occur after entry. Timing: there was a modest pre-entry run-up (+1.09% since prior close, plus slippage to a fill ~1.4% above prior close), which may mean some of the news was already priced in, but the data here can't confirm how much of the total move preceded the signal. Exit: reasonable given a bad position — the -2.03% realized loss sits between the best (-0.25%) and worst (-2.88%) unrealized, so the exit neither nailed the bottom nor gave back much extra. Dominant factor: a wrong directional signal.

Signal: right. The bullish call worked — the trade never went underwater (worst unrealized just +0.03%) and price moved steadily up. Timing: fine. Only +0.77% of the move had occurred by decision time, and the entry premium over prev close (~0.8%) didn't prevent a clean run. Exit: near-optimal — the +26.19 P&L is a +2.77% gain versus a +2.87% best unrealized, capturing essentially all of what was available. The dominant factor is simply a correct directional signal executed well end-to-end; nothing in this data suggests a flaw.

Signal: Right — the long call on post-earnings drift played out, with MU rallying ~4% from entry to exit.

Timing: Not stale — price was slightly down at entry (-0.26% since prev close, fill at 933.17 vs. 940.76 prior close), so the move had not already occurred; the drift happened during the holding period.

Exit: Near-optimal — the +4.02% realized gain captured almost all of the +4.15% best unrealized, and the worst drawdown (-1.46%) was modest. The dominant factor here is simply a correct signal executed cleanly; nothing in this trade's data points to a timing or exit deficiency.

Signal: Wrong over the holding period — the stock never gave more than +0.31% upside before sliding, so the bullish repricing call simply didn't play out while the position was open. Timing: The entry chased strength (filled ~1.6% above prior close after a +1.57% 30-minute run), which worsened the entry price, but even a better fill wouldn't have salvaged a move that peaked at +0.31%. Exit: The -2.47% realized loss sits between the +0.31% best and -4.18% worst unrealized, so the exit avoided the trough but there was essentially nothing to capture.

Dominant factor: bad signal (or a thesis whose horizon exceeded the hold — the data here can't distinguish whether the repricing move came later).

Signal: right. The bullish call worked — the trade never went underwater (worst unrealized +0.24%) and price rose steadily after entry.

Timing: mostly fine, minor pre-entry drift. Entry at 956.9 was ~0.7% above the prior close, so a bit of the move preceded the fill, but the data here doesn't show when the NAND news broke, so we can't settle how much of the thesis-driven move was already priced in.

Exit: strong capture. The +12.32 P&L (+1.29%) took roughly 85% of the best unrealized (+1.53%), which is about as clean as exits get. Dominant factor: a correct signal executed well — this trade offers little to criticize.

Signal: Right — the long thesis played out strongly, with the stock rallying ~5.2% from entry and never dropping more than 0.20% against the position.

Timing: Fine — entry at 866.23 was only ~0.6% above the prior close of 861.00, so nearly all of the move came after entry, not before.

Exit: Captured +5.24% of a +7.96% peak, so the mechanical next-close exit gave back roughly a third of the maximum available gain — acceptable for a fixed-horizon rule, but the exit, not the signal or timing, is where value was left. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal doing almost all the work.