NVDA Nvidia

Signal/timing failure — stale news. The rationale cites an 8.7% earnings surge, but price context at decision time (-0.57% vs prior close, drifting down over the last 30m) indicates that move had already happened before entry; the "FRESH" verdict looks wrong. Post-entry, the direction was wrong: the trade never got more than +0.95% in favor and fell as far as -4.41%. The exit at -3.92% is near the worst unrealized, but with only +0.95% ever available, exit quality is a minor factor — the dominant problem is entering long on an already-priced-in move.

Signal: Right — the bearish call played out, with NVDA falling ~1.3% from entry. Timing: Fresh — price context at decision time (-0.11% since prev close, +0.04% last 30m) shows the move had not yet occurred. Exit: Strong — the +10.92 P&L (~+1.29%) captured nearly all of the +1.40% best unrealized, with only -0.52% adverse drawdown along the way.

Dominant factor: correct signal on a fresh entry, with an exit that harvested almost the entire available move — this trade worked as intended on all three dimensions. Note the entry rationale rests on an unverified journal claim (the "Jalapeño chip" story), so whether the thesis itself was sound versus lucky can't be settled from this data.

Signal: correct. The bullish call played out — the position rose almost monotonically (worst unrealized just -0.04%). Timing: mostly fine. Some of the move preceded entry (+1.12% from prev close), but only +0.11% in the last 30 minutes, so the entry wasn't badly chasing; note the fill at 210.33 vs. the 208.48 reference implies a bit more slippage/drift than the quoted context shows. Exit: captured most of what was available — +1.28% realized against a +1.96% best unrealized, leaving roughly a third on the table but not a material miss. Dominant factor: a correct directional signal executed cleanly; nothing in the data indicates whether the "repricing" thesis (data center guidance) was the actual driver of the move.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call was simply wrong — the trade never went positive (best unrealized only -0.16%) and NVDA fell steadily after entry, so the earnings-driven upside thesis didn't play out in the holding window.

Timing: Not the issue — price was essentially flat at entry (-0.09% from prior close, +0.21% last 30m), so the trade wasn't chasing a move that had already occurred.

Exit: The -2.86% realized loss sits near the worst unrealized (-3.20%), but with the best point being only -0.16%, there was almost nothing better available to capture; the exit is a symptom of the bad signal, not an independent failure. Whether an earlier stop was possible under the strategy's rules isn't determinable from this data.

Signal: Wrong — the bullish M&A call never materialized; the stock topped out at just +0.33% above entry before sliding. Timing: Entry was ~0.4% above the prior close after a modest +0.57% overnight move, so a small amount of the anticipated pop may have been priced in, but the data doesn't show a large pre-entry run-up — timing wasn't the main issue. Exit: The -1.27% realized loss (-$11.08) was near the worst unrealized of -1.43%, meaning the exit gave up nearly the full drawdown, but with only +0.33% ever available there was little upside to capture regardless. Dominant factor: a bad signal — the predicted direction was simply wrong.

Signal: Partially right — the long thesis did materialize intraday, with the position up as much as +3.37%, but the move fully reversed by the close, so over the actual holding horizon (close-to-close) the direction was wrong. Timing: No evidence the move was already spent at entry — price was roughly flat versus prior close (-0.24%), so this wasn't a chase. Exit: The mechanical next-close exit is the dominant factor: it left the entire +3.37% peak on the table and locked in -0.77% (-$6.64), capturing near the worst of the range (-1.39% trough) rather than any of the available upside. The rationale's China-chip catalyst may have driven the intraday pop, but the data here can't confirm that attribution.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call worked; price rose after entry with virtually no adverse move (worst unrealized just -0.03%).

Timing: Fine — NVDA was down 0.63% from prior close at decision time, so the trade wasn't chasing a move that had already happened; whether the robotics news itself was stale can't be settled from this data.

Exit: The weak link. The position saw +0.71% unrealized (~$6.15 on 4 shares) but was closed at +0.14% (+$1.24), capturing under a quarter of what was available. The dominant factor here is the exit giving back most of a correct, cleanly-timed signal.

Signal: Partially right — the position did go up as much as +1.06% while open, so the drift materialized at some point, but by the fixed exit the net move was negative (-0.32%).

Timing: The data available at decision time (-0.16% vs prev close, +0.07% last 30m) shows no pre-entry pop, so the move hadn't obviously already happened; however, the fill at 217.25 is ~1.1% below the 219.74 prev close referenced in the context, a gap this data doesn't explain.

Exit (dominant factor): The mechanical next-close exit surrendered the entire +1.06% available and closed near the worst unrealized (-0.67%). Bluntly: this was an exit failure — a paper gain of roughly +$9 decayed to -$2.76 because the rule holds to the close regardless of what the drift trade already delivered.

Signal: The bearish call was directionally correct — NVDA fell from 218.86 to 217.13 while the trade was open. Whether AMD's strong results logically imply NVDA weakness is dubious as a rationale, but the data here can't settle causation, only that the direction worked. Timing: Entry was not late — NVDA was only down 0.35% from prior close with essentially no move in the last 30 minutes, so the move had not already happened. Exit: The exit was near-optimal — the realized gain (~0.79% on the short) matches the best unrealized of +0.79%, meaning the trade captured essentially all of what was available.

Dominant factor: correct signal with a well-timed exit that captured the full available move; this trade worked as intended, even if the entry rationale's logic (AMD strength → NVDA short) is questionable on its face.

Signal: The bullish call never materialized — best unrealized was just +0.03% while worst hit -2.31%, so the stock went essentially nowhere but down during the holding period. Timing: The rationale was flagged FRESH and price context showed no prior move (+0.02% since prev close), yet the fill at 222.07 was ~1.1% above the 219.74 prev close, indicating the pop happened between decision and fill — the entry bought into a move that had already partially run. Exit: The exit was a mechanical netting against an opposing short (not a signal-based close), landing at -1.45%, better than the -2.31% worst but with effectively zero upside ever available to capture.

Dominant factor: bad signal — the direction was simply wrong for the duration held, though the early forced close means we can't know if the thesis would have played out later.